Cheating: looking for links to old discussions

I did a search for discussions of various forms of potential cheating? I found only 9 posts. Is the topic taboo or is it just so irrelevant that its not discussed. I am not talking about the Party is Rigged type of discussions. I wanted to view topics regarding collusion/trojans etc. or any general discussions on the topic by 2+2ers.

[Irieguy]

[ QUOTE ]
I did a search for discussions of various forms of potential cheating? I found only 9 posts. Is the topic taboo or is it just so irrelevant that its not discussed. I am not talking about the Party is Rigged type of discussions. I wanted to view topics regarding collusion/trojans etc. or any general discussions on the topic by 2+2ers.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, there should probably be more discussion about this as I'm sure collusion is happening at the higher levels.

The best discussion on this forum (unfortunately, I couldn't find it to link to it) was when Daliman said he'd let ZeeJustin play 9 of the 10 seats in a SNG while Daliman played only one. Daliman said ZJ could look at all 18 hole cards and collude in any way he liked and it wouldn't make a difference... Daliman would still win money. Classic thread.

I think that most 2+2ers fall into one of three categories with regard to collusion:

1. They already collude a little bit (or more) and don't want to talk about it.

2. They hope that nobody is colluding to a meaningful extent and prefer the ostrich approach with regard to the topic.

3. They figure that all that matters is whether the game is beatable, which bears itself out in their results over significant numbers of hours/games/hands. In other words, it doesn't matter if people are colluding if they can still win, and it doesn't matter if the games are 100% square if they can't beat them.

I fall into category 3 and imagine that a large number of regular players/2+2ers do also.

Irieguy

[valenzuela]

SNGs due to their structure are quite "cheatable", specially if the colluders manage to sit next to each other. But Im not really worried since Im sure the cheaters suck and cant collude succesfully anyway.

So Im number 3( although it would suck if a cheating scandal came out to the public)

I would also be in category 3. I doubt that anyone is colluding seriously in any SnGs $215 and below. The amount of effort it would take to collude, especially with more than one other person, would probably limit the amount of tables you could play to 1 or 2. So any good players could make more money just by playing more tables than they could by colluding. Colluding also takes up table spots that could otherwise be fish. And if the bad players want to collude, bring it on, because I doubt they would gain any substantial advantage from it. I'm sure some people do it occasionally on a small scale. When I first started playing my friends and I did collude on some $5 SnGs, but I doubt we really obtained any benefit from it. If we had that idea, others probably did too.

[citanul]

i know that people are colluding at many levels. i believe that many of them are so bad that they do so in a poor fashion. many good players aren't smart enough to figure out what a good way of cheating would be. etc, etc. at the highest buyin tournaments, i believe cheating is rampant and it makes me incredibly unlikely to play at all.

c

[DeathbySuckout]

MGM,

When searching, try "collusion" and remove all date restrictions.

I find it amazing, although maybe I shouldn't, that people would invest that much time and energy, to cheat the game instead of just learning to beat it legitimately.

But I also side with the other posters and say that as long as I'm winning, I don't put a lot of effort into hunting down cheaters. BUT, I'll be happy to report it if I come across it.

[citanul]

also, remember that the search function only goes back a few months at the moment. to get to recent archives you have to go to the older archives thing on the left bar (below other other topics) then click the "recent archives" thing then i think you have to hit search after that, i'm not sure. and yes, collusion is a good word to look for.

the thread with zeejustin, diablo, i think strasser, and definitely daliman is a classic, but doesn't delve quite as much in to the pracitical "are people out there cheating?" as it could.

c

What about the possibility of using a trojan horse to see your opponents hole cards? Has this been successfully done? Is it a worry to any of you?

[pooh74]

[ QUOTE ]
also, remember that the search function only goes back a few months at the moment. to get to recent archives you have to go to the older archives thing on the left bar (below other other topics) then click the "recent archives" thing then i think you have to hit search after that, i'm not sure. and yes, collusion is a good word to look for.

the thread with zeejustin, diablo, i think strasser, and definitely daliman is a classic, but doesn't delve quite as much in to the pracitical "are people out there cheating?" as it could.

c

[/ QUOTE ]

But its funny...

I think a search for: +bet +FU +usuck +IwillpwnZJ should do the trick. Its a very helpful thread as you can tell from the search terms.


ps...it actually does go into some reasons why colluding would work/not work, potential strategies, etc...

[roundest]

[ QUOTE ]
I would also be in category 3. I doubt that anyone is colluding seriously in any SnGs $215 and below. The amount of effort it would take to collude, especially with more than one other person, would probably limit the amount of tables you could play to 1 or 2. So any good players could make more money just by playing more tables than they could by colluding. Colluding also takes up table spots that could otherwise be fish. And if the bad players want to collude, bring it on, because I doubt they would gain any substantial advantage from it. I'm sure some people do it occasionally on a small scale.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is more or less exactly what I was going to say. I can see colluding in the step 5's as being worthwhile. $215s and below would just be way too much work for any winning player. I imagine it would definitely mean less $$$/hr.

There are structures outside of Pstars and PP where colluders could probably make a tidy profit. Pacific's 5-man sng's where top 3 places pay come to mind. I believe they have sng's up to 1k buyin in this format.

I'm in category 3 as well.

[Jbrochu]

[ QUOTE ]
The best discussion on this forum (unfortunately, I couldn't find it to link to it) was when Daliman said he'd let ZeeJustin play 9 of the 10 seats in a SNG while Daliman played only one.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think This (http://archiveserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=1822457&page=0&fpart=1&v c=1) is the thread.

[vinyard]

Damn, beaten by a minute. That's the thread in question.

Thanks all. Great links and very valid points regarding the profitability of collusion. I also doubt that it would be viable to stay under the radar for any great length of time. I like to make myself believe that well co-ordinated collusion/cheating would be done at higher stakes ring games. But I do like to review others experiences and/or opinions from time to time.

[zipppy]

[ QUOTE ]
at the highest buyin tournaments, i believe cheating is rampant and it makes me incredibly unlikely to play at all.

c

[/ QUOTE ]

are you referring mostly to anything over the 215s?

zip

[ QUOTE ]
at the highest buyin tournaments, i believe cheating is rampant and it makes me incredibly unlikely to play at all.

c

[/ QUOTE ]
I too would be very interested in hearing more about why you hold this view.

[curtains]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I did a search for discussions of various forms of potential cheating? I found only 9 posts. Is the topic taboo or is it just so irrelevant that its not discussed. I am not talking about the Party is Rigged type of discussions. I wanted to view topics regarding collusion/trojans etc. or any general discussions on the topic by 2+2ers.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, there should probably be more discussion about this as I'm sure collusion is happening at the higher levels.

The best discussion on this forum (unfortunately, I couldn't find it to link to it) was when Daliman said he'd let ZeeJustin play 9 of the 10 seats in a SNG while Daliman played only one. Daliman said ZJ could look at all 18 hole cards and collude in any way he liked and it wouldn't make a difference... Daliman would still win money. Classic thread.

I think that most 2+2ers fall into one of three categories with regard to collusion:

1. They already collude a little bit (or more) and don't want to talk about it.

2. They hope that nobody is colluding to a meaningful extent and prefer the ostrich approach with regard to the topic.

3. They figure that all that matters is whether the game is beatable, which bears itself out in their results over significant numbers of hours/games/hands. In other words, it doesn't matter if people are colluding if they can still win, and it doesn't matter if the games are 100% square if they can't beat them.

I fall into category 3 and imagine that a large number of regular players/2+2ers do also.

Irieguy

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm in category 3. There is obviously cheating.

[Freudian]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The best discussion on this forum (unfortunately, I couldn't find it to link to it) was when Daliman said he'd let ZeeJustin play 9 of the 10 seats in a SNG while Daliman played only one.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think This (http://archiveserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=1822457&page=0&fpart=1&v c=1) is the thread.

[/ QUOTE ]

That thread is so funny that not only should it be stickied, it should be dressed up and called Judy.

[raptor517]

yea i suppose im in group 3 as well. i dont really care how much ppl cheat as long as i can still beat them for a good amount. cheat away if yer still dumping to me. holla

[Daliman]

[ QUOTE ]
The best discussion on this forum (unfortunately, I couldn't find it to link to it) was when Daliman said he'd let ZeeJustin play 9 of the 10 seats in a SNG while Daliman played only one. Daliman said ZJ could look at all 18 hole cards and collude in any way he liked and it wouldn't make a difference... Daliman would still win money. Classic thread.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is incorrect.


Anyways, what has ZJ done lately? Like the kid fell off the face of the earth....

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The best discussion on this forum (unfortunately, I couldn't find it to link to it) was when Daliman said he'd let ZeeJustin play 9 of the 10 seats in a SNG while Daliman played only one. Daliman said ZJ could look at all 18 hole cards and collude in any way he liked and it wouldn't make a difference... Daliman would still win money. Classic thread.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is incorrect.


Anyways, what has ZJ done lately? Like the kid fell off the face of the earth....

[/ QUOTE ]

I know, he hasn't had any big scores in like...forever. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[bones]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The best discussion on this forum (unfortunately, I couldn't find it to link to it) was when Daliman said he'd let ZeeJustin play 9 of the 10 seats in a SNG while Daliman played only one.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think This (http://archiveserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=1822457&page=0&fpart=1&v c=1) is the thread.

[/ QUOTE ]

That thread is so funny that not only should it be stickied, it should be dressed up and called Judy.

[/ QUOTE ]

I cant wait to bust out of the rest of my set to re-read this.

[Roman]

Call me naive, but I have played a lot at the higher stakes SNGs, and I do not believe collusion is that common at all. I feel like if a person is intelligent enough to know how to collude well, that person has all the necassary skills to beat that game by himself.

Also, if there were really good colluders out there playing the high stakes sngs, it would be really hard for non-cheaters to have good returns. The fact that I know many winners that dont cheat at the highest levels leads me to believe that there are few if any colluders.

[raptor517]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The best discussion on this forum (unfortunately, I couldn't find it to link to it) was when Daliman said he'd let ZeeJustin play 9 of the 10 seats in a SNG while Daliman played only one. Daliman said ZJ could look at all 18 hole cards and collude in any way he liked and it wouldn't make a difference... Daliman would still win money. Classic thread.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is incorrect.


Anyways, what has ZJ done lately? Like the kid fell off the face of the earth....

[/ QUOTE ]

lol, he won 2 multis in the last month for 6 figs each. id say thats pretty solid. holla

[Daliman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The best discussion on this forum (unfortunately, I couldn't find it to link to it) was when Daliman said he'd let ZeeJustin play 9 of the 10 seats in a SNG while Daliman played only one. Daliman said ZJ could look at all 18 hole cards and collude in any way he liked and it wouldn't make a difference... Daliman would still win money. Classic thread.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is incorrect.


Anyways, what has ZJ done lately? Like the kid fell off the face of the earth....

[/ QUOTE ]

lol, he won 2 multis in the last month for 6 figs each. id say thats pretty solid. holla

[/ QUOTE ]


........

[Melchiades]

That thread was mindboggling.

[Roman]

**bump**
I think there is still some good discussion to be had about this subject.

Because you are paying more than 1 buy-in, I believe that collusion would be very difficult to become profitable. However, I believe that it is possible especially in the bubble. Again though, if I knew someone who was a really good player, I would rather hedge our winnings rather than collude. The reason is that if we are at the same table and pooling our money, we can't both win. If we are separate tables, we can both take first prize with good poker play.

[citanul]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The best discussion on this forum (unfortunately, I couldn't find it to link to it) was when Daliman said he'd let ZeeJustin play 9 of the 10 seats in a SNG while Daliman played only one. Daliman said ZJ could look at all 18 hole cards and collude in any way he liked and it wouldn't make a difference... Daliman would still win money. Classic thread.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is incorrect.


Anyways, what has ZJ done lately? Like the kid fell off the face of the earth....

[/ QUOTE ]

lol, he won 2 multis in the last month for 6 figs each. id say thats pretty solid. holla

[/ QUOTE ]

i'm on vacation right now so won't be posting much, so hopefully i'll be back to add some more comments to this eventually, but i wanted to say:

[your sarcasm detector] -----> broken

or,

you've managed to like double secret backwards upsidown sarcasm us. in which case, nice job.

c

[raptor517]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The best discussion on this forum (unfortunately, I couldn't find it to link to it) was when Daliman said he'd let ZeeJustin play 9 of the 10 seats in a SNG while Daliman played only one. Daliman said ZJ could look at all 18 hole cards and collude in any way he liked and it wouldn't make a difference... Daliman would still win money. Classic thread.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is incorrect.


Anyways, what has ZJ done lately? Like the kid fell off the face of the earth....

[/ QUOTE ]

lol, he won 2 multis in the last month for 6 figs each. id say thats pretty solid. holla

[/ QUOTE ]

i'm on vacation right now so won't be posting much, so hopefully i'll be back to add some more comments to this eventually, but i wanted to say:

[your sarcasm detector] -----> broken

or,

you've managed to like double secret backwards upsidown sarcasm us. in which case, nice job.

c

[/ QUOTE ]

youll never know will you. /images/graemlins/wink.gif holla

[ QUOTE ]
SNGs due to their structure are quite "cheatable", specially if the colluders manage to sit next to each other.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm watching 2 colluders now sitting next to each other at a $50 STT on Party. They are also sitting next to each other on 2 step tournaments.

I was playing some step tournaments the other night and they were at my table doing some barefaced colluding stuff. When i did a search for them I seen that they were 3 tabling together. I added them to buddies and everytime I search they are 3 tabling together.

I've reported it to Party so I'll see what they say but it's obvious. I've got a couple of HH's of just an hour ago where one checked down a flopped full house to the end when last to act when his buddy was in the pot with him and it was 3 handed. And another where one raised, his short stacked friend reraised then he called. The shortstacked went all in for some shady amount and the other folded so both were healthy again.

There are around 80 $50 STT's running when they play but they always seem to hit the same table and always seats 3 & 4. Strange eh?

And there they go again. Another $50 STT and they just happen to hit the same table. Oh, and they both joined another Mini Step 3. They've been hammering the steps together tonight.

I wanted to play some steps but they've hogged it all night.

Anyone reading this. Go to $50 STT Table 67017, add the two Jeff's to your buddies. Yes, they even have the same name.

And just check your buddies every hour or so to see how colluding works.

[ QUOTE ]
Anyone reading this. Go to $50 STT Table 67017, add the two Jeff's to your buddies. Yes, they even have the same name.

And just check your buddies every hour or so to see how colluding works.

[/ QUOTE ]
Watching now, thanks.

They seem to have messed up there as one of them got the usual seat 3 but the other must have missed his seat 4 and had to sit at 9. No doubt they'll correct that next time.

This is getting sick now. I've got a mini step 2 ticket but for the 2nd night running I can't play it because they are playing every table sitting together. They'll be reserving their usual seats 3 & 4 any moment in the $50 STT's.

Party don't seem to care, they didn't even reply to my mail.

[eleventy]

How are they colluding? Not questioning you. But if you've seen them this much you should be able to use it against them. Just a thought.

[ QUOTE ]
How are they colluding? Not questioning you. But if you've seen them this much you should be able to use it against them. Just a thought.

[/ QUOTE ]

Would you rather play a STT that pays top 2 with 9 random players or would you pick the game that had two friends sitting next to each other.

One is fairly safe for the blind steal. Plus there's the old chestnut trick of raising, the other reraising then the other folding when he now has about 15/1 to call. But hey, they both have healthy stacks now.

Then when there are 3 players left and you have folded. They are heads up. One flops a full house with the button and checks it down.

I can't think why anyone would pick that game.

[ QUOTE ]

I personnaly think full teaming by 2 players is likely -Ev overall, as the maximum return is 7k for both, as opposed to 9k if they played singly. If they are good enough to win on their own, they are definitly better off playing on their own. Also, of course, 1 person getting in means only 3 other spots for the other person to get in. Diminishing retuns would have to rule here, and 3 or more doing it would be simply ludicrously stupid.


[/ QUOTE ]

Ummm.... wrong?

[eleventy]

if they seem good at it I'd stay away. If you pick up something they do alot, I'm sure you can exploit it. You would only be playing 7 players and 2 acting as 1. The 7 wouldn't know this but you would. If the 1st cheater limps and the second minraises and the 1st then goes all in to squeeze any limpers you can exploit this is you wait for the right spot. And since you know its coming but the other 7 don't it is your advantage.

staying away is a good option though. i'm just trying to think how to help you out.

[citanul]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I personnaly think full teaming by 2 players is likely -Ev overall, as the maximum return is 7k for both, as opposed to 9k if they played singly. If they are good enough to win on their own, they are definitly better off playing on their own. Also, of course, 1 person getting in means only 3 other spots for the other person to get in. Diminishing retuns would have to rule here, and 3 or more doing it would be simply ludicrously stupid.


[/ QUOTE ]

Ummm.... wrong?

[/ QUOTE ]

i can't even vaguely figure out what structure he's talking about as he editted the original post, but anyone who thinks that two intelligent players who play well working together will achieve worse results than if they each played alone, even if they each played alone and never sat together, is totally retarded. that's like saying that if you have a friend who plays exactly like you do, and you decide to split action with him over a set of 1000000 tournaments, you're increasing your variance.

c

[ QUOTE ]
This is getting sick now. I've got a mini step 2 ticket but for the 2nd night running I can't play it because they are playing every table sitting together. They'll be reserving their usual seats 3 & 4 any moment in the $50 STT's.

[/ QUOTE ]

I play on Stars but I've been thinking of switching to Party for the rakeback and supposedly softer games. This is making me reconsider. Obviously Party doesn't care since 1) they aren't replying to your emails and 2) these guys have no fear about being so open and obvious about it, they must have been doing it for a while with no hassle. Crazy. On another note, on PS you can't pick your seat in the SNG. Why doesn't Party do the same? Sure makes a good case for MTTs over SNGs, even if it's just the 2 or 3 table variety.

And one other note, what's up with PP showing the opponent's mucked cards in the HHs? Is this just a bug they never bothered to fix? Does it still work? I don't like this feature at all. The right to muck your hand is a fundamental tenet of poker.

[Jbrochu]

[ QUOTE ]
And one other note, what's up with PP showing the opponent's mucked cards in the HHs? Is this just a bug they never bothered to fix? Does it still work? I don't like this feature at all. The right to muck your hand is a fundamental tenet of poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

Stars HH shows mucked hands also.