Re: Collusion on UB – UB say not
 

[ QUOTE ]
I did leave the table the minute I was sure they were colluding.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is wrong. You should have left the minute you started SUSPECTING they were colluding. There's no way you played your best game while being worried about colluding and trying to play the part of policeman. Yes, you're right, this is almost certainly collusion, but you acted incorrectly. Just move to a table where people aren't colluding. If you're worried about the general prevalence of collusion on the internet, don't play.

BTW, the condescending tone of your email was unncessary IMO. You could have stated the same things without that.

Re: Collusion on UB – UB say not
 

[ QUOTE ]
This is wrong. You should have left the minute you started SUSPECTING they were colluding. There's no way you played your best game while being worried about colluding and trying to play the part of policeman.

[/ QUOTE ]
I realise that now, but with so many players liable to do anything at the table, it takes a while to be sure it's collusion. Should I have warned the others at the table? Some of the best hands were yet to come!

[ QUOTE ]
If you're worried about the general prevalence of collusion on the internet, don't play.

[/ QUOTE ]I'm not overly worried about it, or more accurately I wasn't. I was under the impression that the sites took accusations of collusion seriously and actually investigated these things. Obviously that was an error on my part, at least in regard to UB.
[ QUOTE ]
BTW, the condescending tone of your email was unncessary IMO. You could have stated the same things without that.

[/ QUOTE ]
The reason for the condescending tone in my email was because of their idiotic replies to me. They never addressed any of the accusations I made and then tried to tell me how different players play poker. I wouldn't have used the tone I used, had I thought for one second that they were actually giving my accusations the attention and respect I think they deserve.

Re: Collusion on UB – UB say not
 

From UB's replies, it does seem that they at least made an effort to follow up on your concerns. They sent, what, 3 or 4 emails to you? They went over the hand histories and sent you analysis of particular hands. That's more than I'd expect from some sites.

Ok, so they disagree with you. That sucks, especially if you really were colluded against. Oh well, better luck next time.

Everybody gets their day in court, but it doesn't mean that the correct decision is always handed down.

Just my $0.02

Re: Collusion on UB – UB say not
 

I think you did a very good job of compiling your stats. I would be very concerned about UB's response if I played there. They should be able to see if those players play together often and if their play is 'funny' with certain other players. If your stats are correct their play sure looks shady to me.

Too many sites are passive about puninshing colluders. As long as they make their million dollars in rake they do not care if cheating is going on. Per their response I will add UB to Pacific Poker in my 'low action list'.

Thanks for taking the time and efforts to respond to this. Too many players will just leave at the first sign of collusion. We should sit out and take notes to work with the sites to eliminate colluders. I think UB needs to look into this with greater detail. I have sent a link to this thread to UB along with my collusion concerns. I would urge others to do the same.

Thank you,

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

Re: Collusion on UB – UB say not
 

OK, I didn't read the whole hand history, only the beginning, the end, and the hands you pointed out in your post. That really doesn't look like collusion to me. For one thing, they're sitting right next to each other. Hard to trap people like that. Most of the hands you pointed out are just badly played (mainly by autiger), but it doesn't look like collusion at all. 2106 is admittedly a little fishy, but most of the others aren't too uncommon.
To me it looks like Autiger is a maniac and mic maple was trying to isolate against him alot. Also, even if they were colluding, they aren't very good, as they lost $131 over the hands you posted. I'm going to look over this some more, but right now I think I'm with UB.

Re: Collusion on UB – UB say not
 

If the stats are correct they raised/reraised on average 1/5th the time for the first 100+ hands. After being accused of collusion they raised/reraised 0/30 hands. If true this looks VERY FISHY!

Sitting next to each other presents a great opportunity for collusion. The second person bets, the first person raises and the second person reraises. This gets very expensive for all players calling the first bet.

Thank you,

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

Re: Collusion on UB – UB say not
 

wyoak, thanks for looking through the hands.

To me 2062 is also very fishy as is 2057. I'd of expected a lot more action preflop and even on the flop from these pair.

Also the fact that after the accusations of collusion they never did this once! Surely that makes it highly suspicious?

I know it's not in the HH's but autiger became vocal after these accusations (only maple had said anything before) saying crap like "Kaalllllussion" and similar crap. Now I know that's not proof of anything but if I was accused of collusion i'd not act like that.

I never said they were any good at what they were trying to do [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Re: Collusion on UB – UB say not
 

Good post-wish you luck in the future-have to agree,can't be a turtle and only see the inside of your shell but have to see this as it is. As an important aside, the difficulty with Ultimate Bet is that you cannot see the location of the players. They'll state the country of origin but not the city as on the other major sites. You should ask if their cities are alike or near each other. I know that this doesn't totally rule out collusion but it will make colluders hesitate if their cities are known.

regards,
carlo

Re: Collusion on UB – UB say not
 

Wow, hand 2044.

Hand #6029924-2044 at Edgewater ($3/$6 Hold'em)
Powered by UltimateBet
Started at 21/May/05 04:06:13

autiger2000 is at seat 0 with $234.
mic maple is at seat 1 with $113.75.
cigar16 is at seat 3 with $215.25.
steelhead is at seat 4 with $60 (sitting out).
Imposter1 is at seat 5 with $184.
The button is at seat 0.

mic maple posts the small blind of $1.
cigar16 posts the big blind of $3.

autiger2000: -- --
mic maple: -- --
cigar16: -- --
Imposter1: 9h 5c

Pre-flop:

Imposter1 folds. autiger2000 raises to $6. mic
maple re-raises to $9. cigar16 folds. autiger2000
folds. mic maple is returned $3 (uncalled).



Hand #6029924-2044 Summary:

No rake is taken for this hand.
mic maple wins $15.

In conjunction with some of the other hands, this does look like collusion. Maybe direct UB to this thread to show that people think worse of them because they aren't doing more?

Re: Collusion on UB – UB say not
 

I emailed support@ultimatebet.com with a link to this thread. I received a form email back stating 'At Ultimate Bet we take collusion very seriously blah blah blah.........' I am not sure if they will respond to this thread. It would certainly be in their best interest to respond here also.

Thank you,

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