Re: Cheating: looking for links to old discussions
 

And there they go again. Another $50 STT and they just happen to hit the same table. Oh, and they both joined another Mini Step 3. They've been hammering the steps together tonight.

I wanted to play some steps but they've hogged it all night.

Re: Cheating: looking for links to old discussions
 

Anyone reading this. Go to $50 STT Table 67017, add the two Jeff's to your buddies. Yes, they even have the same name.

And just check your buddies every hour or so to see how colluding works.

Re: Cheating: looking for links to old discussions
 

[ QUOTE ]
Anyone reading this. Go to $50 STT Table 67017, add the two Jeff's to your buddies. Yes, they even have the same name.

And just check your buddies every hour or so to see how colluding works.

[/ QUOTE ]
Watching now, thanks.

Re: Cheating: looking for links to old discussions
 

They seem to have messed up there as one of them got the usual seat 3 but the other must have missed his seat 4 and had to sit at 9. No doubt they'll correct that next time.

Re: Cheating: looking for links to old discussions
 

This is getting sick now. I've got a mini step 2 ticket but for the 2nd night running I can't play it because they are playing every table sitting together. They'll be reserving their usual seats 3 & 4 any moment in the $50 STT's.

Party don't seem to care, they didn't even reply to my mail.

Re: Cheating: looking for links to old discussions
 

How are they colluding? Not questioning you. But if you've seen them this much you should be able to use it against them. Just a thought.

Re: Cheating: looking for links to old discussions
 

[ QUOTE ]
How are they colluding? Not questioning you. But if you've seen them this much you should be able to use it against them. Just a thought.

[/ QUOTE ]

Would you rather play a STT that pays top 2 with 9 random players or would you pick the game that had two friends sitting next to each other.

One is fairly safe for the blind steal. Plus there's the old chestnut trick of raising, the other reraising then the other folding when he now has about 15/1 to call. But hey, they both have healthy stacks now.

Then when there are 3 players left and you have folded. They are heads up. One flops a full house with the button and checks it down.

I can't think why anyone would pick that game.

Re: Cheating: looking for links to old discussions
 

[ QUOTE ]

I personnaly think full teaming by 2 players is likely -Ev overall, as the maximum return is 7k for both, as opposed to 9k if they played singly. If they are good enough to win on their own, they are definitly better off playing on their own. Also, of course, 1 person getting in means only 3 other spots for the other person to get in. Diminishing retuns would have to rule here, and 3 or more doing it would be simply ludicrously stupid.


[/ QUOTE ]

Ummm.... wrong?

Re: Cheating: looking for links to old discussions
 

if they seem good at it I'd stay away. If you pick up something they do alot, I'm sure you can exploit it. You would only be playing 7 players and 2 acting as 1. The 7 wouldn't know this but you would. If the 1st cheater limps and the second minraises and the 1st then goes all in to squeeze any limpers you can exploit this is you wait for the right spot. And since you know its coming but the other 7 don't it is your advantage.

staying away is a good option though. i'm just trying to think how to help you out.

Re: Cheating: looking for links to old discussions
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I personnaly think full teaming by 2 players is likely -Ev overall, as the maximum return is 7k for both, as opposed to 9k if they played singly. If they are good enough to win on their own, they are definitly better off playing on their own. Also, of course, 1 person getting in means only 3 other spots for the other person to get in. Diminishing retuns would have to rule here, and 3 or more doing it would be simply ludicrously stupid.


[/ QUOTE ]

Ummm.... wrong?

[/ QUOTE ]

i can't even vaguely figure out what structure he's talking about as he editted the original post, but anyone who thinks that two intelligent players who play well working together will achieve worse results than if they each played alone, even if they each played alone and never sat together, is totally retarded. that's like saying that if you have a friend who plays exactly like you do, and you decide to split action with him over a set of 1000000 tournaments, you're increasing your variance.

c