Daliman throws his hat in with the conspiracy theorists.

[Daliman]

Ok, I know I was involved in the thread where I said I don't think colluding in SNG's is highly +EV, but I think there is a chance I may have had a bit of first-hand knowledge of it in a Step 5 I played last night. When the game got down to 5 handed, a couple of odd plays happened; the two loosest calling players in the game who had solid chipstacks folded for VERY good odds in the blinds without a second's thought to the same shorstacked player. Now, normally, I don't think much of that, but these guys call most anything half-reasonable WITHOUT odds or a stack. This was my final Step 5 of the night, and needless to say, i went out 5th shortly thereafter.

Anyways, I look at the Poker prophecy #'s of each player(i know, nowhere NEAR the gospel, but a decent guide), who my notes say are all bad, and I'll be damned if all 3 of them don't have higher #'s in Step 5's. Now, I ain't saying it's impossible, but let's just say these #'s are right for the sake of argument. What do you think the chances are that ANY player has a better cash % in step 5's than any other tourney? Considering I am currently at about 47% on prophecy and only cashing 17% in Step 5's and in only 2 of my last 19 have I come in top 4, i'd say that portends to unlikely. But of course, prophecy has its flaws, short run and all, etc etc. All told, it raises questions for me even more.

I'm not sayin'..I'm jes sayin'.....

I won't give their names, just the HH's and their Pokerprophecy ratings.

***** Hand History for Game xxxxxxxxx*****
300/600 TourneyTexasHTGameTable (NL) (Tournament xxxxxxxx) - Sat Mar 26 02:12:15 EST 2005
Table Step 5 983423 (Real Money) -- Seat 6 is the button
Total number of players : 5
Seat 1: Some Guy (2315)
Seat 2: Player 2 (3085)
Seat 3: Player 3(2640)
Seat 4: Player 1 (850)
Seat 6: surrealpoker (1110)
Some guy posts small blind (150)
sPlayer 2 posts big blind (300)
** Dealing down cards **
Dealt to surrealpoker [ Ad, 6s ]
Player 3folds.
PacmanFL: 44% in the $1000's pretty damn impressive too
Player 1 raises (850) to 850
Player 1 is all-In.
surrealpoker folds.
Some guy folds.
Player 2 folds.
Creating Main Pot with $1300 with Player 1
** Summary **
Main Pot: 1300
Some guy balance 2165, lost 150 (folded)
Player 2 balance 2785, lost 300 (folded)
Player 3 balance 2640, didn't bet (folded)
Player 1 balance 1300, bet 850, collected 1300, net +450
surrealpoker balance 1110, didn't bet (folded)

***** Hand History for Game xxxxxxxxx *****
300/600 TourneyTexasHTGameTable (NL) (Tournament xxxxxx) - Sat Mar 26 02:12:36 EST 2005
Table Step 5 983423 (Real Money) -- Seat 1 is the button
Total number of players : 5
Seat 1: Some guy (2165)
Seat 2: Player 2 (2785)
Seat 3: Player 3 (2640)
Seat 4: Player 1(1300)
Seat 6: surrealpoker (1110)
Player 2 posts small blind (150)
Player 3 posts big blind (300)
** Dealing down cards **
Dealt to surrealpoker [ 2s, 5s ]
surrealpoker: yep, cuz that's only 1-3

Player 1 raises (1300) to 1300
Player 1 is all-In.
surrealpoker folds.
Some guy folds.
Player 2 folds.
Player 3 folds.
Creating Main Pot with $1750 with Player 1
** Summary **
Main Pot: 1750
some guy balance 2165, didn't bet (folded)
Player 2 balance 2635, lost 150 (folded)
Player 3 balance 2340, lost 300 (folded)
Player 1 balance 1750, bet 1300, collected 1750, net +450
surrealpoker balance 1110, didn't bet (folded)


Player 1
Games played 207
Wins 84 (40.58%)
Losses 123 (59.42%)
Average Buy-In $661.45
Players with better winning percentage 46535
Players with worse winning percentage 199341
$200 Table: 25 wins / 51 losses / 32.89% wins
$50 Table: 0 wins / 2 losses / 0% wins
$100 Table: 3 wins / 3 losses / 50% wins
$1000 Table: 54 wins / 66 losses / 45% wins
$500 Table: 2 wins / 0 losses / 100% wins
$20 Table: 0 wins / 1 losses / 0% wins

Player 2
Games played 333
Wins 101 (30.33%)
Losses 232 (69.67%)
Average Buy-In $443.65
Players with better winning percentage 100663
Players with worse winning percentage 145233
$30 Table: 0 wins / 2 losses / 0% wins
$100 Table: 12 wins / 34 losses / 26.09% wins
$1000 Table: 36 wins / 73 losses / 33.03% wins
$200 Table: 52 wins / 117 losses / 30.77% wins
$20 Table: 0 wins / 1 losses / 0% wins
$50 Table: 1 wins / 4 losses / 20% wins
$5 Table: 0 wins / 1 losses / 0% wins

Player 3
Games played 168
Wins 55 (32.74%)
Losses 113 (67.26%)
Average Buy-In $302.77
Players with better winning percentage 88940
Players with worse winning percentage 156963
$200 Table: 27 wins / 75 losses / 26.47% wins
$100 Table: 3 wins / 4 losses / 42.86% wins
$30 Table: 2 wins / 2 losses / 50% wins
$10 Table: 2 wins / 2 losses / 50% wins
$20 Table: 5 wins / 7 losses / 41.67% wins
$50 Table: 5 wins / 2 losses / 71.43% wins
$11 Table: 0 wins / 1 losses / 0% wins
$1000 Table: 10 wins / 18 losses / 35.71% wins
$5 Table: 0 wins / 1 losses / 0% wins
$500 Table: 1 wins / 1 losses / 50% wins


These are their up-to-the-minute Pokerprophecy stats, for what they are worth, undoctored.

Notice in all 3 cases, Step 5's are their highest cash rate, sometimes BY FAR, than any other limit they have more then 12 games in. Also, remember that the cash % for step 5 are top 3 spots only, therefore if these #'s were accurate, they would all be highly likely to be making a LOT of $$$ in these.

My notes on these players have them all as bad players, but player 1 may have improved to a marginal winner, but players 2 and 3 are just terrible and bad respectively.

In the interest of fairness and showing off, here are MY pokerprohecy stats... [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Player surrealpoker
Games played 184
Wins 85 (46.2%)
Losses 99 (53.8%)
Average Buy-In $188.21
Players with better winning percentage 37824
Players with worse winning percentage 208185
$100 Table: 24 wins / 26 losses / 48% wins
$200 Table: 51 wins / 51 losses / 50% wins
$10 Table: 8 wins / 15 losses / 34.78% wins
$1000 Table: 2 wins / 7 losses / 22.22% wins

[AnyTwoCanLose]

At the high levels, of course there's colluding!

It is so easy to play with a buddy and talk on the phone... you are a fool if you think no one is doing it.

Think the poker sites are "policing" it? No way! Ever had any one disconnect all-in in an obvious way? Complain to the site and see how far you get.

I'm considering finding a partner or two myself... the only problem is I'm basically an honest guy. Maybe I'll stick to the micro sng which I only trust because its not worth a scoundrel's trouble. [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[Degen]

cash % in Step 5 should be higher than other tourneys...they pay 4 places.

Degen

[Daliman]

[ QUOTE ]
cash % in Step 5 should be higher than other tourneys...they pay 4 places.

Degen

[/ QUOTE ]

YEs, but pokerprohecy only tracks top 3, so they should be static.

[Irieguy]

Conspiracy theorists think that on-line poker sites cheat them.

People that think collusion occurs at the highest limits are not conspiracy theorists... they're just poker players.

If the Poker Genie gave me a 100K bankroll and the cosmic assurance that I was 8% better than the step 5 field, I still wouldn't play step 5's due to fear of collusion.

Irieguy

[skipperbob]

I don't understand how you can put any faith at all in PokerProphecy....IMO their numbers are so bad that they are worthless....Basing any decision on bad numbers must = a bad decision....

[skipperbob]

[ QUOTE ]

If the Poker Genie gave me a 100K bankroll and the cosmic assurance that I was 8% better than the step 5 field, I still wouldn't play step 5's due to fear of collusion.

Irieguy

[/ QUOTE ]
What would the granted percentage have to be in order to play against 2 colluders?

[TheUsher]

The funny thing about those stats posted above is that you're right that they do suck at the 200's and magically they're pros at the step 5's. As far as if collusion does exist at the highest levels, it probably does and always will. If you have the bankroll to support direct buy-ins for those things then you more than have enough to cheat them. Even if you bought a whole new set of laptops, internet connections, etc, it's still a drop in the bucket for what you might earn. The beauty of SNG's is that there really is no proper way to read the hand histories to see if there's cheating involved other than the pot odds and such you mentioned. Any donkey could push all-in on the bubble with 85os and to anyone really looking for anomalies it could look normal. Only real way to thwart this is if Party looked at all the HH's and noticed that OOPS player x folded say AA to their all-in. Hell you could even make a case to party that you folded 88 or 99 or AK because you didn't want to get bubbled and it WOULD seem reasonable to lots of people. </tinfoil hat off>

Oh and Poker Prophecy is losing my support. I opened a new rakeback account at Empire, played 13 games yesterday, and it shows me 0/3. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] Should be 3/13 after my crap run. I had like 3 4th's too so according to the owner I should actually be at 6/13! [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] How exactly do I get my fake 50% ITM like everyone else?

[Voltron87]

I still play Steps (not direct buy in), but only from the lower levels. The amount of overlay you get from the low entries, even if it takes you a while to get to step 5, is amazing. Even if I am not a favorite at the Step 5s, I don't have to be, since I'm paying much less than 1K.

That said, I am extremely wary of the high limit NL games that go on. Especially since they run shorthanded much of the time. I don't put my money in them, partly because I have little online ring experience and partly because I'm worried about getting cheated.

[Oluwafemi]

[ QUOTE ]
nobody wants to listen. that's what you get for trying to warn people. i can't win for losing. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]