Poker Room has no collusion police

[syka16]

Near the bubble I was stealing from the SB against a very tight player with 86s and cracked his AA. He was determined to keep me OTM. I got short stacked on the bubble and pushed on the button. He colluded with the BB in the chat box to call and check me out. I've reported an incident like this before to PR customer service and got no response. And now I haven't heard from them on this one. WTF!

[bigredlemon]

that sucks.

the only real solution is to stop playing there

[Sluss]

Did he say, "Call him and if you lose I'll dump you some chips?" Or did he just say "call em last time he had 86!" One is collusion, one is a whiney [censored] who can't let go that people play subpar hands for steals.

Oh, and good luck with the Pokerroom support should be about three or four days. /images/graemlins/frown.gif

[syka16]

He gave me a good lecture on how to be more like him and some BS about how maniacs always beat him. But called from the SB and said "call and check it down" to the BB - which is clearly collusion. I contacted them 3 days ago so we'll see...

[Sluss]

That is collusion. I would suspect however that support (if they answer) would say that they were not. They seem to be obsessed with people colluding on the same computer or on the phone. When it comes to open in your face collusion they seem not to care.

[syka16]

Is that for all sites or just PR? Maybe they could hook me up with one of their lame T-shirts or a ticket to the free role LOL.

[Big Limpin']

Meh.

I'm dont really want to condone what happened, but honestly....is it THAT big a deal?

I doubt my opinion is shared by the majority, but to me, this is more of a "bad etiquette" complaint. I doubt very much they knew each other.

I play at the same site, and im SURE i have been guilty of this type of collusion before. For instance, when i have a biggish made hand late in the game, bet it up.....if i think the guy is likely debating his pot odds on a draw...i will sometimes type into chat what i have. Is this the same type of thing? Should i be reported?

Also, i've dealt with PR support before. They are:
1) slow as mollasses
2) Good guys, who solve the problem, but take their sweet old time.

[ChipFish]

[ QUOTE ]
Meh.
if i think the guy is likely debating his pot odds on a draw...i will sometimes type into chat what i have. Is this the same type of thing? Should i be reported?

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes you should be reported.

[pzhon]

[ QUOTE ]

I'm dont really want to condone what happened, but honestly....is it THAT big a deal?

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, it is a big deal. This was flagrant cheating. Among other reasons, don't you see how much pressure the deep stack can put on the second largest stack? The player who is all-in is supposed to gain from the way the other stacks fear each other. That is worth a significant amount in a ring game, and more in a SNG.

[david050173]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I'm dont really want to condone what happened, but honestly....is it THAT big a deal?

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, it is a big deal. This was flagrant cheating. Among other reasons, don't you see how much pressure the deep stack can put on the second largest stack? The player who is all-in is supposed to gain from the way the other stacks fear each other. That is worth a significant amount in a ring game, and more in a SNG.

[/ QUOTE ]

The big stack has no leverage over the medium one. Your asking the big stack to bluff into a dry side pot. Neither one of them should be (but I have seen it happen) betting unless they have a hand which they are confident that they can beat you. The medium stack has to weigh the odds that his hand will help beat yours versus how many additional chips he will give you if he loses. I have been tripled up just as many times as busted by people trying this move. But your right, the proper etiquette is just to do the check down without typing anything in.

[pzhon]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

This was flagrant cheating. Among other reasons, don't you see how much pressure the deep stack can put on the second largest stack? The player who is all-in is supposed to gain from the way the other stacks fear each other. That is worth a significant amount in a ring game, and more in a SNG.

[/ QUOTE ]

The big stack has no leverage over the medium one. Your asking the big stack to bluff into a dry side pot. Neither one of them should be (but I have seen it happen) betting unless they have a hand which they are confident that they can beat you... But your right, the proper etiquette is just to do the check down without typing anything in.

[/ QUOTE ]
After someone was caught trying to steal with 86, would you call betting with K-high bluffing a dry side pot in the sense that, even if it works, there is no benefit? You don't have to be sure you are ahead of the all-in player to be happy to get the medium stack to fold. You don't have to believe you are favored over the player who is all-in. You just have to win some of the time. Whether you recognize it or not, the medium stack should be under a lot of pressure, and in practice will often fold hands like TPWK when the big stack bets. The big stack may be betting with middle-pair, not bluffing, but the medium stack will often fold a better hand.

See some of the numerical analyses I have done on these forums about situations in which one player is all-in. Despite the fallacies people repeat about checking it down, it is often wrong by a lot. When you bet, you can help yourself and the player who is all-in. Even if you don't believe those analyses, not everyone thinks that way, and the player who is all-in should get the benefit from the eventual 3rd best hand forcing the eventual best hand to fold, or from the big stack knocking out the medium stack while the all-in player has the best hand.

[Big Limpin']

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Meh.
if i think the guy is likely debating his pot odds on a draw...i will sometimes type into chat what i have. Is this the same type of thing? Should i be reported?

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes you should be reported.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please explain why. If i can flip my cards over in a B&M, why not online?