a must read for online players

"If people were colluding online, what would we expect to see? ... a fair number of bad beats with nonsensical holdings."


http://izmet.desetka.si/colluding.html

"Some of the victims might jump up and down after being bad beat repeatedly, accusing the online site of some sort of problem with their random number generator or site security. Others dismiss the complaints based on the apparent fishiness of the players. However, the apparently psychic plays need not require psychic powers, fishiness, or hacks of the data/servers. It is merely exactly what you would expect if there were collusion."

Abdul should not conclude "more bad beats" is evidence of collusion.


(1) Which is more likely the cause of "more bad beats", (a) or (b):


Assuming "more bad hands" win and assuming this is because more bad hands are played, is it because


(a) more bad players are playing bad hands, or


(b) clever colluders are playing more bad hands than they would otherwise play if they weren't colluding by pumping up the pot and catching.


I think (a) accounts for many more "bad hands" than (b), way more.


(2) Also, Abdul necessarily ignores all those heads-up "bad beats", where 6 2 off draws out heads-up. If you perceive there are more "heads-up draw out bad beats, then you must almost entirely discount (b) Abdul's conclusion.


(3) Pumping up one hand and hitting the other hand instead would not be unique to online poker. The same frequency should occur in Brick & Mortar games, but again, this should be compared to the relative frequency of Heads-up drawing out by Bad hands.

So we wouldn't expect to see "a fair number of bad beats with nonsensical holdings" if collusion was an insignificant problem?


How can that be right? What's a "fair number?"


Given the financial incentive and at least theoretically greater ability to police collusion on the internet than in a casino (because only the internet "house" can see all the cards dealt and check records of performances and all hands played), doesn't it make more sense to refrain from assuming there's more ongoing, sucessful collusion online (as opposed to statistically insignificant aborted or thwarted attempts) than in live play?


Further, since it's not too difficult for someone to define a "bad beat" and do a comparative tally for many hours of live and online play for the same limit, wouldn't it also make sense to wait for someone to do this? I don't know, maybe it's been done.

Just always play heads-up....problem solved.

that is fine, until a player dumps a few hands to you and you are banned. hmmm, sounds like a great way to get rid of a winning player you dislike at the small cost of a few hundred bucks.