Re: Collusion on UB – UB say not
 

As I said in my first post, I have emailed them to let them know of this thread. I've received no response.

Re: Collusion on UB – UB say not
 

[ QUOTE ]
They also played very passively when the only two left in the hand (relative to how they were playing against others).

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with your concern about collusion. It is my #1 concern about playing poker on the internet. You did the right thing in contacting support and providing them with your concerns. But I don't think the above statement helps your case at all.

Savvy colluders wouldn't do this. After there were just 2 of them left in the hand, one of them would continue to play the hand strong and force the other to fold, so they wouldn't have to show down their hands at the end. It would also deprive you of seeing what they played when you called up the HH.

If they both have legitimate hands then I think they would play their hands as you normally would and not soft play each other because if they are partners soft playing makes no sense.

Re: Collusion on UB – UB say not
 

[ QUOTE ]
Savvy colluders wouldn't do this. After there were just 2 of them left in the hand, one of them would continue to play the hand strong and force the other to fold, so they wouldn't have to show down their hands at the end. It would also deprive you of seeing what they played when you called up the HH.

[/ QUOTE ]
For the most part this is what they did. One would bet and the other would fold. I think once one of them reraised and then the other folded (not 100% on that but it's in the histories).

Only twice did we see both of their hands. When both had AK and the time autiger had T9 against A7 (2057, 2062).

Re: Collusion on UB – UB say not
 

2046 and 2106 are the only hands that look to me like there might be collusion, and 2046 is pretty marginal. I don't think your case is particularly strong, and since UB can see the hole cards I see little reason not to accept their judgement.

Hyperaggression preflop and on the flop then passivity on the big bet streets is a standard characteristic of shorthanded play.

Re: Collusion on UB – UB say not
 

Didn't study your hand histories, so I don't know if this applies in your case or not.

But my first reaction to "two people were reraising each other like crazy when there were others in the pot, but softplaying when they were heads up" isn't collusion. I would suspect one maniac and one astute good player trying to isolate the maniac - who, having succeeding in isolating him, now takes it to showdown as cheaply as he can unless he has a very powerful hand.

Re: Collusion on UB – UB say not
 

[ QUOTE ]
Only twice did we see both of their hands. When both had AK and the time autiger had T9 against A7 (2057, 2062).

[/ QUOTE ]

i'd tend to side with UB (i don't play there), as their people have access to hole cards for every hand and have a much more complete picture.

if it IS collusion, it should be even more obvious to them than it is to you. What would they gain by doing nothing about it?

Re: Collusion on UB – UB say not
 

hi,

i read through all of this because i think collusion is a serious issue that could threaten online poker if not addressed properly by the sites.

here is my conclusion.

1. UB DOES have great experts looking at these claims. i think annie duke is one that looks at all of them, along with others. in this case i think they examined it in-depth.

2. i think you had decided that no mateer what they told you, your suspisions were correct so you were not going to accept anything but agreement.

3. UB would not be making such bold statements that there was no collusion if they were not sure.


please don't take my post wrong. i'm the first to give the player credit for catching something and then let the site prove otherwise. i feel that UB has done their due dilligence and proven otherwise within their own security department and i trust UB.

you did not get form letters. they made a very strong case for their claim that all is OK and if i were you i would accept this and move on. if you don't like the decision, don't play UB anymore, but i think that most posters will agree that you have not made your case.

best of luck

Re: Collusion on UB – UB say not
 

[ QUOTE ]
2046 and 2106 are the only hands that look to me like there might be collusion, and 2046 is pretty marginal. I don't think your case is particularly strong, and since UB can see the hole cards I see little reason not to accept their judgement.

Hyperaggression preflop and on the flop then passivity on the big bet streets is a standard characteristic of shorthanded play.

[/ QUOTE ]
Then showing me the hole cards should make sense then. But they won't do it. I'm not asking for every players hole cards for every hand i've played on UB. If you accept their judegement because of this, then this is an excuse they can make every time and by your definition you will have to accept it. The only 2 hands I can see both there cards, I think are suspicious. Taken alone they are not suspicious but taken in context with the other 100+ hands they are.

As for the hyperaggression I urge you to show me a single 3/6 shorthand game where 2 players used this tactic so frequently against each other but yet played so passively when they were the only ones left in the pot (actually forget 3/6 show me any shorthanded game where this happened). After all it is a "standard characteristic of shorthanded play" so it should be easy to show me this!
[ QUOTE ]

i'd tend to side with UB (i don't play there), as their people have access to hole cards for every hand and have a much more complete picture.

if it IS collusion, it should be even more obvious to them than it is to you. What would they gain by doing nothing about it?

[/ QUOTE ]
Why won't they answer any of my questions directly or show me the hole cards? If those hole cards are their proof then surely I should see it from these cards too. The two hands where I can see both players hole cards are suspicious hands. Also the fact that 2 players accussed them independently of collusion says something, seeing as I have never seen one person accuse someone of such a thing never mind 2 inside 20 minutes (and that is over many thousands of hands).
[ QUOTE ]

1. UB DOES have great experts looking at these claims. i think annie duke is one that looks at all of them, along with others. in this case i think they examined it in-depth.


[/ QUOTE ]
Then why not address the raise reraise frequency in their reply? After all that is the accusation I am making. Any in-depth reply surely wouly would address this? Why not address hands where these 2 players played against each other instead of hands which are entirely irrelevant?
[ QUOTE ]

2. i think you had decided that no mateer what they told you, your suspisions were correct so you were not going to accept anything but agreement.


[/ QUOTE ]
I'm pretty sure collusion was involved. All the signs I observed pointed to it. If UB made a reasonable argument why it did not occur I would have accepted it. They didn't. They just said (paraphraseing)"From our investigations you're wrong" without addressing any of my accusations directly.
[ QUOTE ]

3. UB would not be making such bold statements that there was no collusion if they were not sure.


[/ QUOTE ]
And here was me thinking the exact opposite was true, that they'd say that collusion was not happening unless they had undeniable proof.
[ QUOTE ]

please don't take my post wrong. i'm the first to give the player credit for catching something and then let the site prove otherwise. i feel that UB has done their due dilligence and proven otherwise within their own security department and i trust UB.

[/ QUOTE ]Do you think they have proven otherwise? Proof implies they can actually be sure it hasn't happened. Can you show me where this proof is? (I can post all emails in full and documents sent in both directions if needed)
[ QUOTE ]
you did not get form letters. they made a very strong case for their claim that all is OK and if i were you i would accept this and move on. if you don't like the decision, don't play UB anymore, but i think that most posters will agree that you have not made your case.

[/ QUOTE ]
What are form letters? What is their case that everything is ok, cause I sure have missed it? I won't be playing there again. Most posters have not said that.

all you savy players and posters
 

have failed to hit on the obvious!

what you really want is to ensure the games are fair, correct? - UB did all they could with what they have( J8s aggressive in a 3/6 game pleeezzz) happens all the time

the responsibily for UB is ensuring these 2 "suspects" arent sitting in at the same 3/6 game next week with the same MO - and i for one believe the larger sites take this very seriously and will monitor future behavior of suspected cheats.

that being said i admire you for your followup work - i would've just left after the game started smelling funny

Re: all you savy players and posters
 

[ QUOTE ]
have failed to hit on the obvious!

what you really want is to ensure the games are fair, correct? - UB did all they could with what they have( J8s aggressive in a 3/6 game pleeezzz) happens all the time

[/ QUOTE ]I'm not saying that each individual hand here couldn't happen. But I am saying that all of this taken togeher is very very suspicious and in my mind collusion.
[ QUOTE ]
the responsibily for UB is ensuring these 2 "suspects" arent sitting in at the same 3/6 game next week with the same MO - and i for one believe the larger sites take this very seriously and will monitor future behavior of suspected cheats.

[/ QUOTE ]If that is all the sites use to protect against collusion then i'd be seriously worried. Seeing as UB tend to inform them that they were investigated and all!
[ QUOTE ]

that being said i admire you for your followup work - i would've just left after the game started smelling funny

[/ QUOTE ]If everyone did that why should the sites bother about dealing with collusion? These cases have to be reported to players. Otherwise the sites can do as they please.