Regarding the "cheating online " thread..

[prankster]

Granny, I agree with you competely -- it is rampant. You can leave the tables where it is going on (and with three or more in on it, it's pretty clear), and you can just live with the rest -- I can beat the games, even with the rake+collusion vig, but man, it's just like playing in the old sleazy road joints.

But I have an idea. The worst infestation is on the busiest site -- but what if they offered random seating? Just as in many cardrooms (at leat many years ago; it has been quite a while since I was last in one). If you don't like your table, you can sign up on a "move list"; again, moving to a random table. It would be difficult to get all your buddies on the same table, and at the busiest site, everyone would be pretty scattered.

Would you go for this? Any other ideas?

[dux]

I've thought about this before and I would like to see it, but a lot of people, probably the very successful types, are very finicky about which table they sit at. They wouldn't want to be placed in a random room.

And I doubt that its something iGlobalMedia (Party et al), the market leader, would be too interested in. Why invest time and money into developing something that could very well diminish its player base? Certainly I can't see random seating being a good advertising point to increase their buisness, as most players wouldn't care. They'd be better off just sending out another bonus code.

Just my two cents.

[bwana devil]

[ QUOTE ]
You can leave the tables where it is going on (and with three or more in on it, it's pretty clear)

[/ QUOTE ]

Why do you say this? How is it "pretty clear"?

[ QUOTE ]
but what if they offered random seating? Just as in many cardrooms

[/ QUOTE ]

I would go for that idea. Party wouldn't even have to make every table random seating. If they make some tables that way and the players could choose whether they used that option or picked their own table it would work.

[BIGRED]

[ QUOTE ]
Party wouldn't even have to make every table random seating. If they make some tables that way and the players could choose whether they used that option or picked their own table it would work.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would go for this idea.

[gusly]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You can leave the tables where it is going on (and with three or more in on it, it's pretty clear)

[/ QUOTE ]

Why do you say this? How is it "pretty clear"?



[/ QUOTE ]

I can't speak for what prankster meant, but I've personally found that consistent hyper-agressive raising by two or three people who back off inexpicably on the turn or river is one indicator of possible collusion.

I certainly don't mind sitting at tables with maniacs, but colluding raisers is a different thing altogether. If I notice a pattern I'll sit out for a while to make sure, then I put a "PCW x" (potential colluder with x) in the player's notes. I put the "potential" in there because I don't want to mark a clueless maniac or an innocent player with a great hand who raises legitimately during the raise-fest.

And yep, I was burned a couple of times before I got smart. The worst was at Pacific with AA against 47. Betting capped all the way with three other guys, until the river card. Flop was a rainbow with a King and rags, the turn card was 4, the river card was 7. So the guy gets two pair, but he was in there reraising preflop and on the flop with absolutely nothing. No pair,no draw to a straight or flush. And for the other two guys to drop out on the river when the board wasn't even paired? Left me only one logical conclusion.

[MicroBob]

[ QUOTE ]
And yep, I was burned a couple of times before I got smart. The worst was at Pacific with AA against 47. Betting capped all the way with three other guys, until the river card. Flop was a rainbow with a King and rags, the turn card was 4, the river card was 7. So the guy gets two pair, but he was in there reraising preflop and on the flop with absolutely nothing. No pair,no draw to a straight or flush. And for the other two guys to drop out on the river when the board wasn't even paired? Left me only one logical conclusion.

[/ QUOTE ]



I come up with more than one possible conclusion of this hand.
It certainly doesn't have to be collusion.

Were these players involved in other pots with each other in any suspicious manner?
You do realize that some guys just play badly and get lucky right?

Most people are happy to have idiots raising and re-raising their AA with 47.

[fnurt]

If a 7 hadn't come on the river (something the "colluders" have no control over), how would you feel about getting burned then?

[GrannyMae]

random seating would 100% solve collusion at party and the skins. at all other sites (yes, there are more sites), this would not work because there are too few games.

finally, tell someone like MsSunshine that he can't use table selection anymore and he leaves that site (which may be good for the fish).

i think because of the lack of balance of player populations, party would never go for this because they are the only one that needs it. when it comes time to explain such a change, they would also be admitting there is a problem.

that aint' gonna happen.

[Piers]

[ QUOTE ]

But I have an idea. The worst infestation is on the busiest site -- but what if they offered random seating? Just as in many cardrooms (at leat many years ago; it has been quite a while since I was last in one). If you don't like your table, you can sign up on a "move list"; again, moving to a random table. It would be difficult to get all your buddies on the same table, and at the busiest site, everyone would be pretty scattered.

[/ QUOTE ]

It would not work, fifteen minuets of changing tables and they would all be together: Just a minor irritant. Of course they would be much better off trying to find soft games rather than each other, but that’s another matter.

[ QUOTE ]

Any other ideas?

[/ QUOTE ]

Learn to play poker well enough, that you get your bit regardless of all the other sh*t.

[GrannyMae]

It would not work, fifteen minuets of changing tables and they would all be together

i respectfully disagree. there is no way that they are going to play musical chairs hoping to land in the right place. i think they will leave party and move to the medium sites.

you are correct tho that vigilance and skill is the only solution other than throwing in the towel.

[gusly]

Don't get me wrong. I was very happy to have raisers and reraisers with my AA, even if I had thought they were colluders.

As for my conclusion, yes, I know there are some very stupid players out there, especially at Pacific. So that's why I said only one logical conclusion. There are other possible explanations, but those explanations are not as logical, IMHO. Of course, I didn't see the hole cards of the two players who were reraising until they dropped out at the river, so I don't have a complete picture, but still...

I guess one other possibility is that this guy had just watched a Gus Hansen play on the WPT and was trying to bluff me. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[MicroBob]

[ QUOTE ]
I guess one other possibility is that this guy had just watched a Gus Hansen play on the WPT and was trying to bluff me.

[/ QUOTE ]



That is BY FAR the more logical conclusion.

[gusly]

Would have felt GREAT! And I was feeling great all the way until that $%#$% took the pot.

The only reason I brought up that hand is because it came to mind when I was typing my opinion about spotting colluders. It's not a hand I've been losing sleep over. I'm not a results-oriented guy. It seems I gave that impression just by telling the story. I've lost plenty of times with AA, it's just that the circumstances of this hand were relevant to the subject of the post.

Oh, and I'm not a poker site conspiracy theorist either... the fact is that cheating takes place, both online and IRL.

[prankster]

Agreed, Granny; it would only work on the most popular site -- which, of course, is the site in most need of help. There are too many tables there for a group to hop about and try to get together. As for losing business: perhaps they'd gain. I'd play there even more often, and imagine the responses to internet poker beginner queries about online cheating -- "well, just play at Site X; less chance of collusion since you are randomly seated". Ijust don't think many serious players would object, either. Table too tight? Just get on the move list. A couple of moves, and the formerly tight table is now loose.

It would certainly behoove this busiest site, and others to a lesser extent, to demonstrate some concern about a serious problem. I mean other than "we have special detection software..."