Collusion Defined (Party Poker)

[Holm Fries]

After a reasonable degree of success in live ring games over the last year, I decided two weeks ago to throw my hat into the internet arena. The very first game I sat at I suspected collusion, but it was not clear enough to know for sure. I sat today at roughly the 20th game to witness collusion defined. Needless to say that I was only around long enough to lose one big pot, but it was a painful one. Excuse the long string of hand history below, but it is worth it. The best is the preflop reraise with Q3 offsuit.

My question is this: is there a way to play on-line in a fair legitimate environment without having to deal with this behavior. I enjoy the game immensely, but would give up playing on-line if this is as prevalent as it seems. Names have been changed to protect the inncoent. The hand and my letter complaining to Party Poker is as follows:




I would like to lodge a complaint against two players, Colluder 2 and Colluder 1. Please refer to the hand description below as only one example. During the 30 or so hands that I played at this table, these two were in virtually every pot, mainly raising and reraising each other. Also, they took at least 20 seconds to respond to each action. I believe that they were either on the phone with each other, or instant messaging there hands back and forth. In this hand I was dealt two aces and raised the pot prior to the flop. Colluder 2 reraised the pot with a "junk" hand, a queen and a three of different suits. Colluder 1 proceeded to call, even after I reraised the pot to the cap of four bets prior to the flop. As the hand progressed both players called my bets down to the river after long, long pauses. Then the board paired threes on the river, Colluder 1 paused for a long time, then folded and Colluder 2 reraised me.

I watched this table for several hands after this and they continued to make the same plays, acting slow and raising and reraising with junk. This is clearly collusion on their part. I lost $135 playing two hands against these players and would like to be reimbursed.

I realize that Party Poker can't be held responsible for "wild" and "stupid" plays of its players. However, these two are so obviously working as a team that they deserve to be banned. This is the second time that this has happened to me. The first time I chalked the experience up to learning. However, if you do not address this I don't see how I can play at your site any longer.

I look forward to your reply.

Regards,

Scott Holm
Unwitting Victim

***** Hand History for Game 451442777 *****
3/6 TexasHTGameTable (Limit) - Sat Mar 13 16:37:50 EST 2004
Table Pirates Cove (Real Money) -- Seat 10 is the button
Total number of players : 9
Seat 1: Bystander 1 ( $271)
Seat 3: Bystander 2 ( $25.25)
Seat 4: Bystander 3 ( $56)
Seat 5: Unwitting Victim ( $98)
Seat 6: Colluder 1 ( $244.25)
Seat 7: Bystander 4 ( $149.50)
Seat 8: Colluder 2 ( $164)
Seat 9: Bystander 5 ( $184.50)
Seat 10: Bystander 6 ( $144.50)
Bystander 1 posts small blind (1)
Bystander 2 posts big blind (3)
Bystander 3 posts big blind (3)
** Dealing down cards **
Dealt to Unwitting Victim [ As, Ad ]
Bystander 3 checks.
Unwitting Victim raises (6) to 6
Colluder 1 calls (6)
Bystander 4 folds.
Colluder 2 raises (9) to 9
Bystander 5 folds.
Bystander 6 folds.
Bystander 1 folds.
Bystander 2 folds.
Bystander 3 folds.
Unwitting Victim raises (6) to 12
Colluder 1 calls (6)
Colluder 2 calls (3)
** Dealing Flop ** : [ 3h, 5s, 2d ]
Unwitting Victim bets (3)
Colluder 1 calls (3)
Colluder 2 calls (3)
** Dealing Turn ** : [ Kh ]
Unwitting Victim bets (6)
Colluder 1 calls (6)
Colluder 2 calls (6)
** Dealing River ** : [ 3d ]
Unwitting Victim bets (6)
Colluder 1 folds.
Colluder 2 raises (12) to 12
Unwitting Victim calls (6)
** Summary **
Main Pot: $91 | Rake: $3
Board: [ 3h 5s 2d Kh 3d ]
Bystander 1 balance $270, lost $1 (folded)
Bystander 2 balance $22.25, lost $3 (folded)
Bystander 3 balance $53, lost $3 (folded)
Unwitting Victim balance $65, lost $33 [ As Ad ] [ two pairs, aces and threes -- As,Ad,Kh,3h,3d ]
Colluder 1 balance $223.25, lost $21 (folded)
Bystander 4 balance $149.50, didn't bet (folded)
Colluder 2 balance $222, bet $33, collected $91, net +$58 [ Qd 3c ] [ three of a kind, threes -- Kh,Qd,3c,3h,3d ]
Bystander 5 balance $184.50, didn't bet (folded)
Bystander 6 balance $144.50, didn't bet (folded)

[DrSavage]

This particular hand looks nothing like collusion to me.

[asdf1234]

I don't really see evidence of collusion in the given hand history. I see a moron raising preflop with Q3o and getting lucky. If there were several other incidents where they were raising and reraising others out of the pot, and then folding for one bet on the river, that would be much stronger.

I've never played Party 3/6, but at 2/4, these types of hands are very common.

[TheGrifter]

What about this HH makes you think these two were colluding? It seems like he's just a dumbass.

[mosch]

If they were colluding, I would've expected to see them both staying in at the river, to get four bets out of you after Q3 got their miracle.

I think this was just a maniac on the loose.

[Tosh]

Sorry but that doesn't look anything like collusion.

[CrackerZack]

I do not think it means what you think it means.

[daryn]

inconceivable!

[Thats Interesting!]

You have not played online long enough. Dumb things always happens. Beginners are always looking for collusion, hance peranoia. If you play long enough, you'll come to see that collusion is not that big a problem as you would first imagine it would be.

/images/graemlins/shocked.gif

[Nottom]

How can a team possible expect to earn money with this type of play? Capping preflop with Q3o and hoping to get lucky doesn't seem like a solid collusion strategy to me. In fact even in this hand colluder 1 does absolutely nothing out of the ordinary, he just calls bets and fold the river in classic calling station style.

I know its hard to believe, but some players are just really, really, really bad and like to raise and reraise with completely hopeless hands. I see these players all the time (at least one a week) who just raise at every opportunity. I was playing with one the other day that capped every street against my 99 flopped set/turned boat ... he had 24s and flopped a 4. MHIG and I drag a nice pot.

I've played well over 30K hands since making a more serious effort to be a winning player and have never been at a table where I seriously suspected collusion.

[Vehn]

When I was a little kid, one day I was in the car with my dad. There was some button on the dash board that I was curious about, and I asked him what it did. He said "It keeps the tigers away". I of course thought he was full of it. He then said "You don't see any tigers, do you?".

[James282]

I too have never seen collusion present itself and I have probably twice as many hands recorded as Nottom. Keep in mind you would expect it to be more prevalent at higher limits --- colluding successfully is hard work /images/graemlins/frown.gif
-James

[Hallett]

Looks fine to me as well. You will be surprised just how bad players can be on Party.

An example: I am on the button with K J suited. BB raises. He is in 80% of the pots, and winning quite a lot, up 150 in a 3-6 game. Raises 25% of the time.

Flop is K-9-6

He bets, I raise, he re-raises, I cap.
Turn is J

He bets, I raise, he re-raisese, I cap.

River is 3

He bets, I raise, he re-raises, I cap. (No caution required, he likely has nothing)

He has K-2 offsuit. 45 min later, his 150 profit is gone, and so is his 100 buy in. You will learn to love Party Poker.

[Oilcan]

This dosen't look like collusion to me either.

But, if you do feel there is, send the game # file to PP staff, tell them to check for collusion.

I have done this twice over the last 7 months.

They will send a report back of the 2 players of:

1. how often they play at same table.
2. how often they play in same hand.
3. city/origin of their isp's.

and some other things that I can't recall right now.

In my case both times, it looked "for sure" they were pot boosting, and initially PP staff did agree with that assesment, but the investigation of their play showed it was just another random bunch of stupid wild..wild west style of playing on the part of 2 PP players /images/graemlins/cool.gif

[MicroBob]

and we wonder there is such a tough time getting party to belive REAL cases of collusion.

player e-mail "they're colluding!! they're colluding!! i want them banned forever and i want 2-thousand dollars for the inconvenience."

party folk "(sigh)....guess this person hasn't played at our site before. (cough, ahem)....capping with nothing happens all the time sir. thanks for playing at party."

[Spyder]

I've only suspected collusion once. Since, I've resolved to never play at a table with two people from the same town. I know, there's ways around that, but, it should keep the actual occurences down to a minimum.

Spyder

[Sloats]

[ QUOTE ]
inconceivable!

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think that word means what you think it does.

[Warik]

uhhh

"Colluder 2" called you down to the river with a pair of threes and then raised you when he rivered trips.

"Colluder 1" did absolutely nothing but call bets and fold the river.

If these two are "obviously" working as a team then I must "obviously" be completely braindead because I can't see how.

[Daggs911]

That's exactly what to do.

I had a hand last year where I flopped trip Ks against another player's trip 9s. I didn't even have to raise, because the trip 9s and his collusion buddy just kept re-raising one another back and forth, obviously building the pot for the trip 9s. Anyway, I won an emornous pot (roughly 35 BBs) when I filled up, but sent an email to Party Poker anyway to alert them.

They sent me a profile of the two players, including the time that both had spent at the site and how many hands they had played together. It turns out that they had never played together before, their accounts were linked in no way, and in fact, both players were losing players at Party. I was quite pleased.

In summary, the Party Poker staff is really good about researching collusion if you give them a chance.

That said, your hand looks nothing out of the ordinary for the low limits. I don't think there was any foul play.

[dansalmo]

I think the only evidence for colusion here is the players choice of nicks. I would also be very suspicious of the "Bystander 1", Bystander 2", Bystander 3" etc. What are the chances of so many players with such similar names being in the same game at once!

[nykenny]

[ QUOTE ]
uhhh

"Colluder 2" called you down to the river with a pair of threes and then raised you when he rivered trips.

"Colluder 1" did absolutely nothing but call bets and fold the river.

If these two are "obviously" working as a team then I must "obviously" be completely braindead because I can't see how.

[/ QUOTE ]
count me in, i must be a retart

[OldLearner]

uhhhh...I think I can clear this one up. That was me with the Q3o.

You what??? You reported me??? OMG.

They better send you an email telling you I'm just plain stoopid and not some calluder cause this just makes me mad.

I'm not playing my Q3's anymore, that's for sure!

[N4CER1]

Boy it is sure nice to have guys like you on the forum that post such wasted crap and think your funny.....get a life and post something or answer something that makes sense...waste of everyones time......

[scotnt73]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
inconceivable!

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think that word means what you think it does.

[/ QUOTE ]
Hello, my name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die.

[OrangeHeat]

[Sloats]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
inconceivable!

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think that word means what you think it does.

[/ QUOTE ]
Hello, my name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die.


[/ QUOTE ]

He made the one of the three classic blunders.

Number 1 is never start a land war in Asia and Number 2 is not raising pre-flop with pocket Aces.

[fyodor]

I found this whole thread hilarious. Thank you to all who contributed for the laughs.

I do believe that there is some degree of collusion online. I don't worry about it. I have never noticably ran across it in the last year on PartyPoker (about 25-50,000 hands)

What may seem like pot building collusion is often one player taking advantage of a live one. The other night I sat on the immediate left of a total cannon. Every time I had big cards I reraised him to shut everyone else out. I knew everyone would know what I was up to but they still have to call the 3 bets plus his inevitable cap.

One hand is all you need to see. I had something like AK. He had T2o. He raised with this UTG. I reraised. He capped. Flop doesn't help either of us. We cap again. Turn = nothing. River = nothing. He checked and called BOTH. Yes he called my bet on the river with Ten high. lol

These players do exist.

[BettnTibetn]

there probably is a lot of collusion online because its easy to do. However most of the time its just a bunch of idiots doing stupid stuff and getting lucky

[CORed]

If they were playing every hand and raising and reraising when they both had junk, I wouldn't report them until I had cleaned them both out. They may well have been colluding, but they were doing it so stupidly that you probably could have made way more money from them than from a game where everybody was honest. If they were raising and reraising when one of them had a good hand, it's a different story. It's also possible that you ran into two maniacs with bad connections or slow computers.

[CORed]

After reading the hand history, I have to agree with the other posters. I don't see collusion here. Only one player was raising and the other was just calling. The raiser only raised preflop, then called you on the flop and turn and raised when he hit his trips on the river. I think you had a maniac and a calling station who either had bad connections or were multi-tabling (It's hard to keep up with multiple tables when you never fold). If you had stayed in the game, you would have gotten your money back many times over, if you can actually play a decent game. You got your aces cracked by an idiot. Get over it.

[dogmeat]

If I was colluding with somebody else at the table, I would not sit right next to them, and I woulc not call repeatedly, I would be raising. Relax, this is probably not collusion and if it is, they suck at it. Dogmeat