Collusion Detected - Question

[Jim Kuhn]

I have detected collusion and will post a hand history and a copy of the letter to the poker site. How do people feel about user names in the hand history. Should I utilize user names or just say player 1, player 2 etc.?

[crockpot]

i would leave the names of the suspected colluders in, assuming you have a good case. whether or not the poker site does anything, you're informing the players here of people to watch out for.

[lunchmeat]

If you're going to accuse someone of collusion, then you should be damn sure you are right. Unless you are QED positive that the two players were colluding I would recommmend leaving the names out of the post...

Of course, you should definitely include the names in your letter to the poker site.

[zooey]

If you're sure of collusion, it shouldn't be too hard to find more than one suspicious hand, right? My rule of thumb has been two "captain obvious" hands, or several more for subtle collusion. (best hand, etc.) When I have reported people with more than one hand as evidence I've gotten good results from the sites.

Its a wacky world, and millions of hands are being played. I'm sure if you went through all the hands I've played online, you could find quite a few that looked suspicious (the way I played). It would be a lot harder, though to find two or more that pointed to collusion with the same player(s). Know what I mean?

So I would counsel not using real names until a very good case is proved.

Thoughtful of you to ask.

Best,

zooey

[scrub]

(1) Whether you leave the names in or not, you are going to need to post a lot more than one hand history for anyone who isn't an idiot to take you seriously. Unfortunately, this is the Zoo, so whether you have enough evidence or not, a bunch of people are going to take you seriously. Well, that or or claim it's all Cyndie's fault or tell you how to get half of the money you lose to collusion back through their new collusion affiliate program...

(2) I would err on the side of caution here. If you have enough hand histories to make a credible accusation (the fact that you used the singular in your post makes me suspect you don't), then post them without the player handles, and let everyone consider them. If the general consensus is that it's collusion, then by all means, go ahead and post them.

(3) Notify the site if you even have the slightest inkling that something fishy was happening. That way the site can keep a closer eye on the players involved and [hopefully] gather the necessary evidence themselves.

It's not worth publicly besmirching the reputations of the players in question if you don't have enough evidence to prove it. Especially since extremely poor play and collusion can look very similar. Why take the chance of souring a bad player on online poker? They're falling from the sky now, but will get to be scarce commodities in years to come.

scrub

[Jim Kuhn]

The following situation happened on Pacific Poker last night. The two players in question sat down within five minutes of each other. Also Colluder 1 sat down in a seat, left the table and colluder 2 sat in that same seat before a hand was played.

Several times colluder 1 would bet and colluder 2 would raise. They would also have colluder 1 check, colluder 2 bet and when it came around colluder 1 would (check)raise. The hand where I 'caught' them is outlined below. I immediately said 'that was not right. I think you two are colluding'. Colluder 1 immediately left the table even though the blinds were not on him. Colluder 2 sat out. I told the rest of the table 'these two have been colluding'. I left the table to view the history replayer. Sorry this is not easier to view or explain.

Hand 1916954993

Colluder 2 sits down and posts behind the button. Blinds call and first two players call, colluder 1 calls and player between colluders calls. Colluder 2 checks.

Flop Q /images/graemlins/diamond.gif 4 /images/graemlins/heart.gif 4 /images/graemlins/club.gif
both blinds check and both ep players check. Colluder 1 bets, between calls and colluder 2 raises. Colluder 1 reraises. They are trying to move between off of the pot. Between and colluder 2 calls.

Turn Q /images/graemlins/heart.gif
Colluder 1 bets between calls and colluder 2 gives up as it is clear between is committed to this pot.

River 7 /images/graemlins/club.gif
Colluder 1 bets as a last ditch effort to buy this pot. Between calls.

Between J /images/graemlins/diamond.gif4 /images/graemlins/spade.gif Flopped trip 4's made full house
colluder 1 10 /images/graemlins/club.gif 2 /images/graemlins/club.gif Nothing but a failed attempt to collude and steal a pot.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

hand 1916955879

colluder 1 calls utg, between calls and colluder 2 calls, the button and both blinds call.

Flop 9 /images/graemlins/heart.gif 9 /images/graemlins/club.gif 5 /images/graemlins/diamond.gif
Both blinds check, colluder 1 bets, between folds and colluder 2 raises. All fold to leave the colluders heads up.

Turn 10 /images/graemlins/club.gif
1 checks 2 bets and 1 calls

River A /images/graemlins/diamond.gif
1 bets 2 raises 1 calls
colluder 2 catches an ace on the river to make Aces. He reraised colluder 1 with nothing. Colluder 1 mucks but could not beat aces. He bet acting like he had trip nines on the flop, colluder 2 raised acting like he also had trip nines. They were successful at running all of the other players out of the pot.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

hand 1916956520

utg calls, colluder 1 calls, between folds, colluder 2 calls, I call with A /images/graemlins/club.gif J /images/graemlins/club.gif, button calls along with both blinds.

Flop A /images/graemlins/diamond.gifK /images/graemlins/heart.gif9 /images/graemlins/club.gif
utg bets, colluder 1 calls, colluder 2 calls, I raise, button calls, blinds fold, both colluders call.

Turn 7 /images/graemlins/heart.gif
Check to me and I bet, button folds, utg calls along with both colluders.

River 2 /images/graemlins/spade.gif
Check to colluder 2 and he bets, I call, utg folds, colluder 1 (check)raises, colluder 2 reraises, I fold. Colluder 1 folds. Colluder 1 checkraises and folds for one more bet with $367 in the pot. He was not bluff checkraising with a bettor and me calling. He may have been bluffing if he bet out.

I immediately said 'that was not right. I think you two are colluding'. Colluder 1 immediately left the table even though the blinds were not on him. Colluder 2 sat out.

What are everyones thoughts on this situation? They even acted guilty when I accused them of colluding. I think they were colluding but were also at times trying to play normal. These three hands were chosen out of a grand total of twenty hands total they played. There were also others where they appeared to 'be playing together'. I will write Pacific on the above situation.

Thank you,

Jim Kuhn
Catfish4U
/images/graemlins/spade.gif /images/graemlins/diamond.gif /images/graemlins/club.gif /images/graemlins/heart.gif

[RaDiCaLReeD]

Could someone outline basic things to look for from colluding?

[scrub]

[ QUOTE ]
Hand 1916954993

Colluder 2 sits down and posts behind the button. Blinds call and first two players call, colluder 1 calls and player between colluders calls. Colluder 2 checks.

Flop Q 4 4
both blinds check and both ep players check. Colluder 1 bets, between calls and colluder 2 raises. Colluder 1 reraises. They are trying to move between off of the pot. Between and colluder 2 calls.

Turn Q
Colluder 1 bets between calls and colluder 2 gives up as it is clear between is committed to this pot.

River 7
Colluder 1 bets as a last ditch effort to buy this pot. Between calls.

Between J 4 Flopped trip 4's made full house
colluder 1 10 2 Nothing but a failed attempt to collude and steal a pot.


[/ QUOTE ]

This one is either not collusion or horrendously executed. Not terribly convincing.

[ QUOTE ]
hand 1916955879

colluder 1 calls utg, between calls and colluder 2 calls, the button and both blinds call.

Flop 9 9 5
Both blinds check, colluder 1 bets, between folds and colluder 2 raises. All fold to leave the colluders heads up.

Turn 10
1 checks 2 bets and 1 calls

River A
1 bets 2 raises 1 calls
colluder 2 catches an ace on the river to make Aces. He reraised colluder 1 with nothing. Colluder 1 mucks but could not beat aces. He bet acting like he had trip nines on the flop, colluder 2 raised acting like he also had trip nines. They were successful at running all of the other players out of the pot.


[/ QUOTE ]

Last time I checked, it wasn't that unusual for a paired board flop to get raised by a player not having trips.

[ QUOTE ]
hand 1916956520

utg calls, colluder 1 calls, between folds, colluder 2 calls, I call with A J , button calls along with both blinds.

Flop A K 9
utg bets, colluder 1 calls, colluder 2 calls, I raise, button calls, blinds fold, both colluders call.

Turn 7
Check to me and I bet, button folds, utg calls along with both colluders.

River 2
Check to colluder 2 and he bets, I call, utg folds, colluder 1 (check)raises, colluder 2 reraises, I fold. Colluder 1 folds. Colluder 1 checkraises and folds for one more bet with $367 in the pot. He was not bluff checkraising with a bettor and me calling. He may have been bluffing if he bet out.


[/ QUOTE ]

This one is really pretty suspect. I would email support. I'm typically more concerned by situations where suspected colluders trap opponents for extra bets when one holds a strong hand than by players who seem to be trying to "run people off of pots" early in hands. But jamming the river on a big pot and then folding for an extra bet is pretty sketchy.

scrub

[Jim Kuhn]

Watch for people sitting down and leaving at the same time. When two persons are always in the pot together. They raise and reraise back to back to lose the rest of the field. They check raise and have their partner bet with powerful hands to maximize the pot.

Colluders are often difficult to catch. I noted this one hand and reviewed the history. They had several suspect hands even though they were only at the table for about 30 minutes together. Support should be able to review all of their play together. Many times colluders are so bad that they both actually lose money. They do cause alot of disruption to the game with their erratic play.

[RaDiCaLReeD]

someone needs to design a collusion alert plugin for PT.

[Jim Kuhn]

The third example cost me $367. That is the one that alerted me they were colluding. Looking at the hand histories they were constantly betting/raising back to back to run people off of pots. There were other examples but I quit documenting them. This all happened in a period of about 20 hands.

Also, one sat down, got up and the other took his seat. They started playing at the same time and quit at the same time. It sure was fishy when I mentioned collusion and they both quit playing.

[lunchmeat]

I've seen a lot weirder plays than the first two, but the third hand is supremely shady. I think the first two hands may even detract from your case... maybe when you write Pacific you can list the third hand first. Good luck.

WHy worry about? Just play your cards. Right? In the end you still have make the best hand to win and if they are trying to push people out of the pot, they are donating to the cause

[TomCollins]

Are you serious?

Because when one of them hits a hand, he makes about 4x as much as when you hit a hand, because he has help jacking up the pot.

[Jim Kuhn]

I disagree. I think I had the best hand and was pushed off of the pot by a raise and reraise. It cost me $367.

[Elizabeth-Anne]

Don't worry about posting user names.

TaintedJack/MS Sunshine has no qualms about posting a list of names of certain winning NLHE Party players, even though he gets upset when someone else posts his name.


Nice hypocrite.

[GrannyMae]

jim,

you know i have great repect for you as a player and person. i say this because sometimes things that seem obvious are sometimes not at all what they appear.

i don't know if you have followed the below thread, but i was 100% sure that collusion had happened at stars during a wsop qualifier, based on the original poster.

then yesterday, lee jones posted this response, and i was suprised that the obvious turned out not to be the obvious.

i find the entire thread amazing, and think that the stars people did the right thing by not buckling to public pressure, and insist on a thorough investigation. i'm not sure i have EVER seen or heard of an investigation that went to this depth, and stars and lee need to be commended.

look at the whole thread. again, it is entirely possible that these guys at pacific WERE colluding, as i have caught a few teams as well. this is just an example of how things that are obvious may not be so obvious.

take care friend

http://smilies.sofrayt.com/%5E/u/usa.gif

very long, but worth the read: lee's response/decision is #71 in the thread
rgp cross post titled "Will Pokerstars Drop the ball again?" (http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&threadm=4042dda6%240%24199%2475868355%40news.fri i.net&rnum=1&prev=/groups%3Fhl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DISO-8859-1%26q%3Dwill%2Bpokerstars%2Bdrop%2Bthe%2Bball%26me ta%3Dgroup%253Drec.gambling.poker)

[Jim Kuhn]

Granny,

Thank you for your response! I am pretty sure they were colluding. I think they knew each other and it may have even been one person playing two accounts. The user names were very similar. The user names appeared to be initials with double digits on the end (i.e. 11 and 44). I would like Pacific to investigate this very closely.

Thank you,

Jim Kuhn
Catfish4U
/images/graemlins/spade.gif /images/graemlins/diamond.gif /images/graemlins/club.gif /images/graemlins/heart.gif

[ZeeJustin]

Did I guess right? What's my prize? Will you go away now?

[Jim Kuhn]

The following is what I sent to Pacific Poker. Hopefully, they will find these two colluded, confiscate their funds, return my $367, and bar them from the site. The email I sent was slightly different as I placed hand three first, utilized real user names, etc. The $367 certainly will not break me but if I was cheated out of it I would like it back!



The following situation happened on Pacific Poker last night. The two players in question sat down within five minutes of each other. Also Colluder 1 sat down in a seat, left the table and colluder 2 sat in that same seat before a hand was played.

Several times colluder 1 would bet and colluder 2 would raise. They would also have colluder 1 check, colluder 2 bet and when it came around colluder 1 would (check)raise. The hand where I 'caught' them is outlined below. I immediately said 'that was not right. I think you two are colluding'. Colluder 1 immediately left the table even though the blinds were not on him. Colluder 2 sat out. I told the rest of the table 'these two have been colluding'. I left the table to view the history replayer. Sorry this is not easier to view or explain.

Hand 1916954993

Colluder 2 sits down and posts behind the button. Blinds call and first two players call, colluder 1 calls and player between colluders calls. Colluder 2 checks.

Flop Q 4 4
both blinds check and both ep players check. Colluder 1 bets, between calls and colluder 2 raises. Colluder 1 reraises. They are trying to move between off of the pot. Between and colluder 2 calls.

Turn Q
Colluder 1 bets between calls and colluder 2 gives up as it is clear between is committed to this pot.

River 7
Colluder 1 bets as a last ditch effort to buy this pot. Between calls.

Between J 4 Flopped trip 4's made full house
colluder 1 10 2 Nothing but a failed attempt to collude and steal a pot.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

hand 1916955879

colluder 1 calls utg, between calls and colluder 2 calls, the button and both blinds call.

Flop 9 9 5
Both blinds check, colluder 1 bets, between folds and colluder 2 raises. All fold to leave the colluders heads up.

Turn 10
1 checks 2 bets and 1 calls

River A
1 bets 2 raises 1 calls
colluder 2 catches an ace on the river to make Aces. He reraised colluder 1 with nothing. Colluder 1 mucks but could not beat aces. He bet acting like he had trip nines on the flop, colluder 2 raised acting like he also had trip nines. They were successful at running all of the other players out of the pot.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

hand 1916956520

utg calls, colluder 1 calls, between folds, colluder 2 calls, I call with A J , button calls along with both blinds.

Flop A K 9
utg bets, colluder 1 calls, colluder 2 calls, I raise, button calls, blinds fold, both colluders call.

Turn 7
Check to me and I bet, button folds, utg calls along with both colluders.

River 2
Check to colluder 2 and he bets, I call, utg folds, colluder 1 (check)raises, colluder 2 reraises, I fold. Colluder 1 folds. Colluder 1 checkraises and folds for one more bet with $367 in the pot. He was not bluff checkraising with a bettor and me calling. He may have been bluffing if he bet out.


Please review the above as well as the history of these two players. How often they play together, betting patterns, etc. Please block their accounts as soon as possible. I would appreciate it if you would confiscate their funds, place the $367 they colluded from me back in my account and bar them from playing at your site. The rest of their funds you may keep, give back to the players or charity, etc. I know game integrity is your primary concern. Your site has been my primary site over the past 18 months to 2 years. I have referred you to many people in person and via the pokerforums listed below.

I have/am posting these same details on several online poker forums. Among them are twoplustwo.com, casinomeister.com, thepokerforum.com, pokerpages.com, unitedpokerforum.com and onlinepokerreview.com. I will post on others as time and research allows. I would like to reply to my posts that you have taken the steps to remove your site of colluders and rightfully compensated those colluded against. Please let me know when your research is complete. Thank you for your help and timely response.

Thank you,

Jim Kuhn
Catfish4U
/images/graemlins/spade.gif /images/graemlins/diamond.gif /images/graemlins/club.gif /images/graemlins/heart.gif

[MS Sunshine]

I don't see why you were so bothered by my list of top winning NLH players. It's not like I could have possibly have named you on it.

Have a nice day.

MS Sunshine

[Jim Kuhn]

On the one reraise he was getting like 3 or 4 to one pot odds. He had a lower middle pair? That seems like a no brain call. Also, what was the other guys cards? They better have been good but I am afraid they were not. I think some cell phone records would be very valuable here. I would say that was collusion. I think Lee Jones needs to grow bigger balls!

Thank you,

Jim Kuhn
Catfish4U
/images/graemlins/spade.gif /images/graemlins/diamond.gif /images/graemlins/club.gif /images/graemlins/heart.gif

[N4CER1]

Use the names, it makes no difference.....Collusion is at most of the live tables....there is poker bot programs that are just like Ultimate Bets Buddy list that show each hand to the other players on your buddy list...4 or 5 playes can be at the same table and all see each others cards....

I know 3 guys who use Roger Wilco with heads sets on and play big limit online all of the time......

What an advantage they have!!!

[Joe Tall]

[ QUOTE ]
hand 1916956520

utg calls, colluder 1 calls, between folds, colluder 2 calls, I call with A J , button calls along with both blinds.

Flop A K 9
utg bets, colluder 1 calls, colluder 2 calls, I raise, button calls, blinds fold, both colluders call.

Turn 7
Check to me and I bet, button folds, utg calls along with both colluders.

River 2
Check to colluder 2 and he bets, I call, utg folds, colluder 1 (check)raises, colluder 2 reraises, I fold. Colluder 1 folds. Colluder 1 checkraises and folds for one more bet with $367 in the pot. He was not bluff checkraising with a bettor and me calling. He may have been bluffing if he bet out.

I immediately said 'that was not right. I think you two are colluding'. Colluder 1 immediately left the table even though the blinds were not on him. Colluder 2 sat out.

What are everyones thoughts on this situation? They even acted guilty when I accused them of colluding. I think they were colluding but were also at times trying to play normal. These three hands were chosen out of a grand total of twenty hands total they played. There were also others where they appeared to 'be playing together'. I will write Pacific on the above situation.


[/ QUOTE ]

Jim,

I was at the table when this happened. I had just sat down and remember it specifically as I couldn't imagine what you layed down here. I then noticed that you said something and thought it real strange that one of those players ran off and the other froze in his tracks, sitting out. He may have played one or two hands until he read the chat box, I believe.

Unfortunately, it was the only hand I witnessed as I was waiting for my blinds and I believe and wasn't paying 100% attention.

Looking over these hand histories, I agree with you.

I'll keep an eye out for these players in the future.

Peace,
Joe Tall

PS: AJs, raise preflop. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[Rushmore]

I think it is just the second hand which might detract, as it did not involve the patented bet/no-call on the river between the two colluders.

The first looks like they just got in over their heads, with the remaining colluder making the error of trying to buy the pot on the end, as opposed to the more prudent check-fold to what looks like an inevitable bet on the end.

The third is the poster child for bad collusion, but certainly looks like collusion nonetheless, especially given their reactions to your chat.

To be honest, I think the whole thing is getting out of hand, and am really scaling back my online play hours. I believe the sites have about a 50% chance of eventually ensuring the integrity of their games against collusion, etc., as their incentive and motivation in this regard is in conflict with the players'.

Until then, I think I'll just sit on my winnings, for the most part.

[Jim Kuhn]

More than 48 hours later here is their reply. I do not get the feeling that Pacific cares much about the possibility of collusion on their site. They sure are not in a hurry to investigate. It took them more than 48 hours to forward to the appropriate department.

I have requested a cash out for the majority of my funds. I am not playing there at all until their investigation is complete. I would not suggest anyone play there at this time.

Thanks,

Jim

Hello Jim,

Thank you for contacting us.

Thank you for your detailed report. I have forwarded this matter to the
relevant department for investigation.

Please be advised for Security reasons, the results of investigation
cannot be disclosed. I assure you that these matters are investigated
throughly and dealt with accordingly.

Your satisfaction is very important. Please contact us whenever we may
be of further assistance. We are here for you 24 hours a day, everyday.

Kind Regards,
Mandi
Member Support Representative
Pacific Poker


************************************************** *********************

[Mike Fox]

This is John McNally from the Operations Department at Cassava
(Gibraltar) Ltd. who operates Pacific Poker.

Jim, thank you for taking the time to bring this to our attention and I will be contacting you directly when I have completed my investigation into this matter.

I have reviewed your correspondence and I would like to assure you that we take these matters very seriously.

Any player who colludes with or attempts to collude with any other player while using our Service may be permanently banned from using the Service and their account may be terminated immediately.

We have developed and employ sophisticated proprietary technology designed to seek out and identify players acting in collusion, as well as any other fraudulent or unlawful use of our Service.

The Company will always do its best to investigate complaints registered against players suspected of collusion, and I am currently in the process of examining the detailed game history you have provided. Rest assured, I will take all action necessary should any discrepancies be discovered.

Kind regards,

John McNally

Operations Department
Cassava (Gibraltar) Ltd.
operations@cassava.net

[M.B.E.]

Mr. McNally,

When you have completed your investigation, will you post the conclusion you have reached? (As Lee Jones did recently on r.g.p.)

By the way, welcome to 2+2. Just out of curiosity, why did you choose the username "Mike Fox"?

[Jim Kuhn]

Here is Pacific's response.

This is the reply from your Pacific Poker Investigation team. First I will copy your response and then I will respond with my comments.

This message is not flagged. [ Flag Message - Mark as Unread ]

Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 12:43:38 +0000 (GMT)
From: "Operations" <operations@cassava.net> Add to Address Book
To: "Jim Kuhn" <xxx_xx@yahoo.com>
Subject: Pacific Poker Investigation (KMM12074343I1817L0KM)


Dear Jim,

I am Russell Medley from the Operations Department at Cassava
Enterprises (Gibraltar) Ltd. I am writing in response to your previous
e-mail.

We were disappointed that you chose to contact ourselves with your
concerns, and publish these on the forums at the same time. We had
hoped that your previous experiences on Pacific Poker and membership loyalty
would count for more than this, and that you would have allowed us the
time to respond fully to your concerns. These issues need to be
investigated before we can form a full response to your concerns, and
we would have appreciated your patience in this matter. Please be assured
that these are isolated incidents on our site.

Your initial e-mail was forwarded to our department by the Pacific
Poker Member Support Team. We take all complaints of this nature very
seriously and perform an investigation using all of the tools
available. I can inform you that we had already become aware of the two players
you mentioned through our own surveillance, and these games were under
review. Your detailed complaint certainly helped us to confirm what we
were already suspicious of.

Our usual response time for Security E-mails is 48 hours, as this
allows the investigation to be undertaken and any results to be confirmed. Our
tools for investigating these types of concerns are multiple and
complex, we run different programmes on the hands concerned, which can
be many themselves.

I can inform you that the two members you informed us of have been
blocked by our security team, and will never return to our site. Any
funds gained through these collusion activities have been confiscated
by ourselves, and will not be paid out to the colluders. I would stress
though that these funds will not be kept by us, since it is not our
money. These funds will form part of our tournament and raffle prizes
which are redistributed back to our members, in accordance with our
sites philosophy.

Unfortunately I will not be able to refund the money that you lost
through these actions. It cannot be clear how these actions effected
the outcome of these hands. Therefore the funds that you contributed to
these raked hands will form part of the amount redistributed to our
members.

As of your alertness and cooperation in this matter, and because you
helped in our constant campaign against this type of activity, I will
be able to issue your account with a $50 bonus for you to wager on our
tables.

We would have preferred you not to have posted your concerns on the
public forums, but to have allowed us the time and courtesy of doing
our security investigations. If you could please contact us and only us
regarding these unfortunate incidents.

If you require any more assistance with this matter, please do not
hesitate to contact us, we will be happy to help.

Kind Regards,

Russell Medley

Operations Department,
Cassava Enterprises (Gibraltar) Ltd
operations@cassava.net

My responses are as follows:

'We were disappointed that you chose to contact ourselves with your
concerns, and publish these on the forums at the same time. '

You should be thankful for the opportunity to receive free publicity and show that you are harsh with colluders and ensure your customers are treated fairly 'when colluders steal their money'. On several forums you could have gained alot of respect.

'I can inform you that we had already become aware of the two players
you mentioned through our own surveillance, and these games were under
review.'

So you were already aware these player had been cheating? How long had they been cheating? How long were you going to let them cheat? What is the normal process? Do you normally wait for someone to complain?

'Any funds gained through these collusion activities have been confiscated by ourselves, and will not be paid out to the colluders.' 'Unfortunately I will not be able to refund the money that you lost through these actions. It cannot be clear how these actions effected the outcome of these hands. '

I am providing you the opportunity to reconsider prior to posting this on all of those poker forums. There are two viewpoints for this situation. Looking at my viewpoint, I was clearly cheated out of $367. You admit this in your response. I would like my $367 back. You can check my playing history over the past 18 months. I have clearly been one of your top 100 rake generating players. I am not a flea looking for a quick buck. From your viewpoint, you admit they were cheating and I lost the $367 pot. If the pot is rightfully returned to me I will post your new and better response on those poker forums. This will gain you much more than $367 worth of advertising and credibility in the online poker world. Your previous response sure does not look very good as you admit they were cheating and you knew they were cheating prior to my complaint.

This is totally unacceptable! It is very clear how their actions cost me this $367 pot. There were only three of us in the pot. The two colluders and myself. They were cheating and had their funds confiscated. Who else is left to give the funds to? I had the best hand and clearly would have won this pot if the cheaters would not have check raised and reraised me out of the pot! Furthermore you admit that you knew they were cheating prior to this hand. You knew they were cheating, let them continue, I get cheated out of $367 and you confiscate and keep their funds? This certainly does not seem fair to me. I feel you still owe me the $317 that was in my pot that you confiscated from the cheaters. At least please tell me why I would not have won that hand. I had the best hand and was obviously calling until the cheaters pulled their antics! I ask you to please reconsider and pay me the $317 that is owed to me. This will provide your site with much more respect in the eyes of thousands of poker playing readers of these poker forums. Thank you for reconsidering these actions.

Thank you,

Jim Kuhn
Catfish4U
(xxx)xxx-xxxx

[jasonHoldEm]

[ QUOTE ]
Unfortunately I will not be able to refund the money that you lost through these actions. It cannot be clear how these actions effected the outcome of these hands. Therefore the funds that you contributed to these raked hands will form part of the amount redistributed to our members.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow...I had to go over this twice to make sure I read it correctly.

Jim, I'm very sorry for your loss and I appreciate the time you put in bringing this to our attention. Needless to say I'll never play another hand at Pacific as this site obviously values promoting itself over the safety and protection of its players.

jHE

[Jim Kuhn]

Jason,

Thank you for the reply. For anyone trying to follow this is the third hand outlined in the first post above. I was the only one that could have possibly won this hand. I would suggest everyone avoid Pacific Poker.

Thank you,

Jim Kuhn
Catfish4U
/images/graemlins/spade.gif /images/graemlins/diamond.gif /images/graemlins/club.gif /images/graemlins/heart.gif

[Jim Kuhn]

This is the thread Jason referred in his post tonight.

Thank you,

Jim Kuhn
Catfish4U
/images/graemlins/spade.gif /images/graemlins/diamond.gif /images/graemlins/club.gif /images/graemlins/heart.gif

[Oski]

Thanks for pulling this back out...I missed it the first time around. I cannot believe the responses you received from Pacific. Notwithstanding the fact they kept your money, I cannot believe they flat out reprimanded you for posting this in public. After all, they should be happy you did as the solution to this problem is better for online poker in general, and specifically for Pacific.

However, the paranoia in the response was frightening. I would not mind if some poster made policy of putting this on the permanent blacklist by reminding lurkers and such that Pacific is bad news.

I played there one time about a year ago, nothing seemed out of order, exept the software was slow, etc. However, after reading your post with the replies, there is no way these guys can restore credibility without a major overhaul.

Thanks again.

- Jason Allison

[Jim Kuhn]

I was very surprised of their response also. They had the chance to 'do the right thing and look good in the public forums' but they chose to run with the $367 that was cheated from me. Then they chastized me for bringing this to the publics attention. Pacific is scum as far as I am concerned!

Thank you,

Jim Kuhn
Catfish4U
/images/graemlins/spade.gif /images/graemlins/diamond.gif /images/graemlins/club.gif /images/graemlins/heart.gif

[Nepa]

I'll never ever play on that site!

[TimM]

Nor will I. Any site can have collusion, it's what they do about it that counts.

[crazy canuck]

They had the chance to 'do the right thing and look good in the public forums' but they chose to run with the $367 that was cheated from me. Then they chastized me for bringing this to the publics attention.

Sounds like they hired nutzpoker's marketing director. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Jim Kuhn]

Thanks for your support. Pacific does not 'do the right things for their players'!

Thank you,

Jim Kuhn
Catfish4U
/images/graemlins/spade.gif /images/graemlins/diamond.gif /images/graemlins/club.gif /images/graemlins/heart.gif

[Cubswin]

Thanks for bumping this thread Jim. This does not bode well for pacific.

cubs

[mosta]

is pacific's position really completely unreasonable? fact is, there was another player on the river. maybe UTG was going to fold no matter who bet, but colluder 2 does change gears and suddenly bet into you. UTG probably caught a decent bit of the flop but thought he was probably behind you. now this other guy comes to life. what, did he spike two pair or a set? you call and now UTG likely is behind two guys, so he gives up. if the colluders had instead checked to you again and you bet out, then maybe UTG's plan was to take a shot at check-raise bluffing you out--legitimately. no one knows if you could have called. just because you have the best hand doesn't mean the pot is yours. what about cases where colluders take the pot down on the flop? do you expect Pacific to compare all the hole cards, and what? give it to the best hand at the time? deal turn and river cards themselves and give it to the winner of that simulated, no-betting hand? give it to the and with the most equity at that moment as determined by twodimes? or aportion it by equity?

I'm sorry--I don't mean to fault you when you clearly have been wronged. but no one in this thread seems to have given Pacific any credit for at least trying to do the right thing (in a situation which, on inspection, perhaps is not entirely cut and dry). (I know Party distributes colluders' money to all players who played against them. I don't know how they figure it out. But you don't have to be one that complained. They will just notify you--we are giving you their money, whether you ever suspected anything was going on or not. I doubt they try to give pots to "rightful" winners. I bet they just distribute by number of hands, or percent of money contributed to pots they won.)

[TimM]

[ QUOTE ]
no one in this thread seems to have given Pacific any credit for at least trying to do the right thing


[/ QUOTE ]

How is keeping money that colluders stole from other players the right thing?

At least Party does not benefit when they find someone guilty of collusion. That would be a huge conflict of interest.

How would you like it if you were being sued in a court where the judge and jury get awarded the damages instead of the plaintiff?

[mosta]

i agree with you, if they are just going to pocket it, that is dirty and unethical. they say they are going to distribute it to players via promotions and bonuses. I have no idea whether to believe them. I think it would be better to give it to the players victimizied by the collusion. my point is just that it is tricky to figure out who, of those players, would be entitled to what. every player in a pot at any point is affected in their decision making by what every other player does and simply by the number of other players there. you can not determine what the hand would have been "without the colluders there". it's like when the sports columnists say, shaq shot 20% from the line, if he could have made two more free throws they would have won, he cost them the game. No--because at the point that shaq made those extra points it would have changed the situation of the game, changed the score differential, which would have affected the other teams strategy, etc.

that pot was $317. he got $50. UTG got nothing. the blinds and the button, who were also in the pot at some point, got nothing. how fair or unfair is that to each person--I don't know. we don't know how the other players would have played without the colluders. some may have gone further with their hands and outdrawn or outplayed Kuhn. some may have folded pre-flop. maybe the button wouldn't have limped without the two colluders limping up front. okay, then why is Kuhn entitled to button's contribution to the pot? with the collusion there, the entire pot is tainted. you can't award the pot to anyone without the other players being victimized.

again, I'm sorry that Kuhn was victimized, but it's not entirely clear that giving him that pot is the fairest solution. giving it to promos? I don't think I especially like that either. I think my favorite solution is to distribute the money in colluders' accounts in proportion to what each player contributed to each pot that a colluder won. that I think comes closes to "undoing" those tainted pots. how feasible that is for the poker site to figure out, I don't know. but I do think that the accusations and invective leveled against Pacific in this thread is at least somewhat unfair. and no I don't work, or even play, there.

[TimM]

I do agree that simply awarding Jim this one pot is not necessarily the best solution. Sites should have some formula already in place, like party does, to deal with these cases.

Using colluders seized accounts for promotions and bonuses is not right though. If they were going to fund those out of pocket anyway, this is no different than keeping the money. If they use this money to add new promotions, they still gain from it if it helps their business.

[Jim Kuhn]

I totally agree the money should go DIRECTLY back to the players and not the poker sites bottom line. They are having promotions regardless of confiscating players funds. Hopefully all of their promotion money does not come from the cheated players!

Thank you,

Jim Kuhn
Catfish4U
/images/graemlins/spade.gif /images/graemlins/diamond.gif /images/graemlins/club.gif /images/graemlins/heart.gif

[Jim Kuhn]

I think this is the post that Webster alluded to a couple of hours ago. Maybe this is why Pacific does not allow multi tables. They expect you to concentrate and detect their collusion for them. Be especially cautious when playing at Pacific Poker.

Thank you,

Jim Kuhn
Catfish4U
/images/graemlins/spade.gif /images/graemlins/diamond.gif /images/graemlins/club.gif /images/graemlins/heart.gif

[BugSplatt]

It is bad enough when you get duped by two colluders; it is worse when the site adds insult to injury. You should have got your money back. Pacific's response, "Oh, we know you got screwed out of $367 so here's fifty bucks to soften the blow," was a joke. Their unethical response is going to cost them many times over the $367 they should have returned to you.

[ejess]

Here's another player they'll never see again, bye bye Pacific.

[Blarg]

Too bad there's no happy ending to this story.

Thanks for posting it though. I admired your active yet controlled and reasoned response.

There are plenty of sites happy to get my trade. I think I'll give it to them instead of Pacific.

[Jim Kuhn]

Pacific Poker management seems to look more at their bottom line rather than what is best for their players. They were not very helpful and very slow in their responses. Rather than try to do what was best they seemed to want to do nothing and hope I would just forget about it.

Thank you,

Jim Kuhn
Catfish4U
/images/graemlins/spade.gif /images/graemlins/diamond.gif /images/graemlins/club.gif /images/graemlins/heart.gif

[Pirc Defense]

Highly interesting thread.

The running assumption is that the major poker sites are making money hand over fist. Millions and millions a day.

Pacific is one of the larger sites, no? Top 10, I presume? Why, then, are they sweating $367? People argue vehemently that an online site would not "skim" from the games, because they are making so much money, and because doing so could possibly cause the site to go out of business if skimming were proved. Yet here we have one of the major poker sites going to battle over $367. Hmm.

I just have a gut feeling that some things are not adding up in the online poker world. Can't put my finger on it, though.

[JDErickson]

very interesting.

This same thing happened at Absolute a while back and me and another 2+2er caught the idiots red handed. We had 10 clear as day hands to prove it.

AP did ban the players and we did get $50 bonus. But as far as I know no one was ever given any money from the actual hands back.

Jim

[arkady]

I think they were Jim, I'll need to look at the emails, but I am pretty sure some distribution did happen.

[Jim Kuhn]

Rightfully they should try to distribute the money based on who would have won without the collusion. At the very least they should give everyone their bets back and distribute the colluders bets among all of the players. To confiscate the money and give to 'their marketing department' pretty much equates to stealing.

Thank you,

Jim Kuhn
Catfish4U
/images/graemlins/spade.gif /images/graemlins/diamond.gif /images/graemlins/club.gif /images/graemlins/heart.gif

[Daliman]

Interesting read. Lee Jones makes a few good points, but this here is simply ludicrous;
[ QUOTE ]
Okay, sambot needs some chips to insure his survival. He watches his
friend schmattes and realizes what he's up to. He's out there collecting
the blinds that everybody is leaving out on the table. sambot has found
his way to collect the chips he needs. At some point, schmattes makes
his normal "give me the blinds" raise. sambot pushes all-in, knowing
that unless he runs into AA or KK (elsewhere on the table or schmattes'
hand, and maybe not even then), he picks up the blinds *plus* schmattes'
raise. He did this two times, and it worked both times. I will tell you
that, in both cases, schmattes had small-medium pairs - hands that are a
very reasonable semi-steal. Your plan is to win the blinds. If you
don't, then you plan to flop a set. But you're definitely not calling a
big re-raise. In particular, you are not going to call a big (or even
medium) re-raise in a super-satellite. Remember, 15th place is exactly
as good as 1st. For instance, in hand #312184584, schmattes is getting
a little better than 3:1 to call sambot's all-in, and he's holding a
smallish pocket pair. He's a 4:1 dog if sambot has a bigger pocket pair,
5:4 ahead against two overcards (very likely), and 7:3 ahead if sambot has
ace-little where "little" is smaller than his pair. So is this a clear
call given 3:1 odds? No. In a regular percentage payoff tournament, it
might well be an easy call, because it would be important to accumulate
chips, and he's almost definitely got a +EV (chip unit) call. But because
there's no value in moving from 15th place to 1st, protecting his fairly
large stack, and growing it slowly at low risk is far more important than
take a big gamble for 12% of his chips, even a gamble +EV in chip units.


[/ QUOTE ]
So, lemme get this straight;
He's MOST likely 5/4 favorite, possibly a 7/3 favorite, depending on his specific pocket pair a slightly possible 4.25-1 favorite(i added this part in, as it must be true unless he has 22), and sometimes a 4.25-1 dog.

and A LITTLE OVER 3-1 IS NOT WORTH CALLING FOR 12% OF YOUR STACK!
ARE YOU F'ING KIDDING ME!!!!!!

This is the easiest call ever. Lee's defense of it even in the face of KNOWING the people know each other well is reprehensible, as is his excuse making.

Why call allin with kings when you are only getting 2-1 then, as you stand a 25-35% chance of being KO'd.


I am removing my $$$ from pokerstars as i type this.

[GrannyMae]

I am removing my $$$ from pokerstars as i type this.


the post you are replying to was from 7 months ago.

*however*, there recently has been a large ring busted up at stars that apparently operated for a long time without detection. refunds were made to the tune of 15 cents on the dollar because it was so widespread that they could not (or would not) pay out the full amount cheated from players.

[La Brujita]

Granny do you have more info on the ring, who the players were, what amounts etc? I had not heard about it.

[Daliman]

Yah, i noticed that it was old, but it's still the same inference and staff. Whatta joke.

Also, in reference to the same scenario, there is a significant chance he immediately comes in 15th or better if he wins the hand, which makes the call SUPER easy.

[LinusKS]

This makes my blood boil.

What poor customer service! What dishonesty.

AND they're trying to turn the tables on you, to make you feel bad about it.

[ QUOTE ]
Here is Pacific's response.

This is the reply from your Pacific Poker Investigation team. First I will copy your response and then I will respond with my comments.

This message is not flagged. [ Flag Message - Mark as Unread ]

Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 12:43:38 +0000 (GMT)
From: "Operations" <operations@cassava.net> Add to Address Book
To: "Jim Kuhn" <xxx_xx@yahoo.com>
Subject: Pacific Poker Investigation (KMM12074343I1817L0KM)


Dear Jim,

I am Russell Medley from the Operations Department at Cassava
Enterprises (Gibraltar) Ltd. I am writing in response to your previous
e-mail.

We were disappointed that you chose to contact ourselves with your
concerns, and publish these on the forums at the same time.

[/ QUOTE ]

What crap. Would you even have heard from this guy without posting to the forum?

The previous responses indicate "no."

[ QUOTE ]
We had
hoped that your previous experiences on Pacific Poker and membership loyalty
would count for more than this, and that you would have allowed us the
time to respond fully to your concerns.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, uh, the thousands of dollars in rake you've paid them make YOU obligated to THEM.

Huh.

[ QUOTE ]

These issues need to be
investigated before we can form a full response to your concerns, and
we would have appreciated your patience in this matter. Please be assured
that these are isolated incidents on our site.

[/ QUOTE ]

Pure pap. "Isolated incidents." They must think you're stupid.

[ QUOTE ]
Your initial e-mail was forwarded to our department by the Pacific
Poker Member Support Team. We take all complaints of this nature very
seriously and perform an investigation using all of the tools
available. I can inform you that we had already become aware of the two players
you mentioned through our own surveillance, and these games were under
review. Your detailed complaint certainly helped us to confirm what we
were already suspicious of.

Our usual response time for Security E-mails is 48 hours, as this
allows the investigation to be undertaken and any results to be confirmed. Our
tools for investigating these types of concerns are multiple and
complex, we run different programmes on the hands concerned, which can
be many themselves.

I can inform you that the two members you informed us of have been
blocked by our security team, and will never return to our site. Any
funds gained through these collusion activities have been confiscated
by ourselves, and will not be paid out to the colluders. I would stress
though that these funds will not be kept by us, since it is not our
money. These funds will form part of our tournament and raffle prizes
which are redistributed back to our members, in accordance with our
sites philosophy.

[/ QUOTE ]

OMG. This just about takes the cake. "These funds will not be kept by us," but we'll use them for OUR PROMOTIONS??!!

Again. The only thing I can come up with is that they think their players are complete morons.

What they do with the money after they keep it is beside the point. They can burn it, use it for promotions, advertising, or they can stuff it up their butts.

The point is they're keeping it. They're not giving it back to you.

[ QUOTE ]
Unfortunately I will not be able to refund the money that you lost
through these actions. It cannot be clear how these actions effected
the outcome of these hands.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's funny. Stars does it all the time.

[ QUOTE ]
Therefore the funds that you contributed to
these raked hands will form part of the amount redistributed to our
members.

As of your alertness and cooperation in this matter, and because you
helped in our constant campaign against this type of activity, I will
be able to issue your account with a $50 bonus for you to wager on our
tables.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure what that means. I take it it's a cheap bonus, with a wagering requirement, just like all the sites put out for everybody.

[ QUOTE ]
We would have preferred you not to have posted your concerns on the
public forums,

[/ QUOTE ]

No doubt.

You know, anybody with the tiniest amount of marketing savvy would have said, "Thank you for giving us the opportunity to demonstrate our committment to fair play publicly," instead of, "You bastard, why didn't you let us sweep this under the rug?"

[ QUOTE ]
but to have allowed us the time and courtesy of doing
our security investigations. If you could please contact us and only us
regarding these unfortunate incidents.

If you require any more assistance with this matter, please do not
hesitate to contact us, we will be happy to help.

Kind Regards,

Russell Medley

Operations Department,
Cassava Enterprises (Gibraltar) Ltd
operations@cassava.net

My responses are as follows:

'We were disappointed that you chose to contact ourselves with your
concerns, and publish these on the forums at the same time. '

You should be thankful for the opportunity to receive free publicity and show that you are harsh with colluders and ensure your customers are treated fairly 'when colluders steal their money'. On several forums you could have gained alot of respect.

'I can inform you that we had already become aware of the two players
you mentioned through our own surveillance, and these games were under
review.'

So you were already aware these player had been cheating? How long had they been cheating? How long were you going to let them cheat? What is the normal process? Do you normally wait for someone to complain?

'Any funds gained through these collusion activities have been confiscated by ourselves, and will not be paid out to the colluders.' 'Unfortunately I will not be able to refund the money that you lost through these actions. It cannot be clear how these actions effected the outcome of these hands. '

I am providing you the opportunity to reconsider prior to posting this on all of those poker forums. There are two viewpoints for this situation. Looking at my viewpoint, I was clearly cheated out of $367. You admit this in your response. I would like my $367 back. You can check my playing history over the past 18 months. I have clearly been one of your top 100 rake generating players. I am not a flea looking for a quick buck. From your viewpoint, you admit they were cheating and I lost the $367 pot. If the pot is rightfully returned to me I will post your new and better response on those poker forums. This will gain you much more than $367 worth of advertising and credibility in the online poker world. Your previous response sure does not look very good as you admit they were cheating and you knew they were cheating prior to my complaint.

This is totally unacceptable! It is very clear how their actions cost me this $367 pot. There were only three of us in the pot. The two colluders and myself. They were cheating and had their funds confiscated. Who else is left to give the funds to? I had the best hand and clearly would have won this pot if the cheaters would not have check raised and reraised me out of the pot! Furthermore you admit that you knew they were cheating prior to this hand. You knew they were cheating, let them continue, I get cheated out of $367 and you confiscate and keep their funds? This certainly does not seem fair to me. I feel you still owe me the $317 that was in my pot that you confiscated from the cheaters. At least please tell me why I would not have won that hand. I had the best hand and was obviously calling until the cheaters pulled their antics! I ask you to please reconsider and pay me the $317 that is owed to me. This will provide your site with much more respect in the eyes of thousands of poker playing readers of these poker forums. Thank you for reconsidering these actions.

Thank you,

Jim Kuhn
Catfish4U
(xxx)xxx-xxxx




[/ QUOTE ]

[LinusKS]

Bottom line:

Pacific's policy is to take money from people who've been cheated and use it to fund their bottom line.

And then to reprimand players who bring this policy to the attention of other players.

Amazing.

[GrannyMae]

one thread here (http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&threadm=415e0721%240%2427721%249a6e19ea%40news.n ewshosting.com&rnum=6&prev=/groups%3Fq%3Dpokerstars%2Bcollusion%26hl%3Den%26lr %3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26group%3Drec.gambling.poker%26selm%3D415e0721%2 5240%252427721%25249a6e19ea%2540news.newshosting.c om%26rnum%3D6)

this thread spawned another monster thread that discussed the fact that the amounts were too high to refund 100%. i can't find that one, but if you look in this date range, it will be there.

[Jim Kuhn]

Pacific stole money from players funds and transferred those funds to their bottom line.

Thank you,

Jim Kuhn
Catfish4u
/images/graemlins/spade.gif /images/graemlins/diamond.gif /images/graemlins/club.gif /images/graemlins/heart.gif

[Jim Kuhn]

Bump for fxtrader.

Thank you,

Jim Kuhn
Catfish4u
/images/graemlins/spade.gif /images/graemlins/diamond.gif /images/graemlins/club.gif /images/graemlins/heart.gif

[Bascule]

[ QUOTE ]
This makes my blood boil.

What poor customer service! What dishonesty.

AND they're trying to turn the tables on you, to make you feel bad about it.

[ QUOTE ]
Here is Pacific's response.


Dear Jim,

I am Russell Medley from the Operations Department at Cassava Enterprises (Gibraltar) Ltd. I am writing in response to your previous e-mail.

We were disappointed that you chose to contact ourselves with your concerns, and publish these on the forums at the same time.

[/ QUOTE ]

What crap. Would you even have heard from this guy without posting to the forum?

The previous responses indicate "no."

[ QUOTE ]
We had hoped that your previous experiences on Pacific Poker and membership loyalty would count for more than this, and that you would have allowed us the
time to respond fully to your concerns.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, uh, the thousands of dollars in rake you've paid them make YOU obligated to THEM.

Huh.


[ QUOTE ]
Any funds gained through these collusion activities have been confiscated by ourselves, and will not be paid out to the colluders. hese funds will form part of our tournament and raffle prizes which are redistributed back to our members, in accordance with our sites philosophy.

[/ QUOTE ]

OMG. This just about takes the cake. "These funds will not be kept by us," but we'll use them for OUR PROMOTIONS??!!

Again. The only thing I can come up with is that they think their players are complete morons.

What they do with the money after they keep it is beside the point. They can burn it, use it for promotions, advertising, or they can stuff it up their butts.

The point is they're keeping it. They're not giving it back to you.

[ QUOTE ]
We would have preferred you not to have posted your concerns on the public forums,

[/ QUOTE ]

No doubt.

You know, anybody with the tiniest amount of marketing savvy would have said, "Thank you for giving us the opportunity to demonstrate our committment to fair play publicly," instead of, "You bastard, why didn't you let us sweep this under the rug?"


[/ QUOTE ]

This thread is shocking. It should made a sticky, as a permanent reminder of Pacific's contemptuous attitude towards it's customers.

[Jim Kuhn]

Bump