Re: PM me
 

I often sit at tables where I have 4+ of the players on AIM. I've never encountered any form of collusion. As in I've never given or been provided with information during a hand to anyone involved. Sure there are often hand discussions but always in retrospect. I know other people chat on AIM while playing the same table and that's fine with me. I've never had a reason to suspect people are colluding.
And just to get the record straight, there is no softplaying eachother just cause we're friends.

Re: PM me
 

[ QUOTE ]
Is there any ethical problem or is it considered cheating to invite a friend to come sit in a very juicy game granted that there is no discussion during hands?

[/ QUOTE ]

nothing wrong with that i do it all the time.

-Barron

Re: PM me
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Do you ever give advice to each other while in a hand?


[/ QUOTE ]

Nah. We're both good poker players and are plenty capable of playing our hands by ourselves. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] We're also often playing multiple tables each so it's not like the other guy is sitting there annalyzing the hand all that much anyhow.

[ QUOTE ]

Specifically, bk, I am wondering if you would ever do something like this: Schneids folds preflop. You bet the river and get raised - might you ever ask "yo schneids, does this clown ever bluff raise?"


[/ QUOTE ]

Nah, but we do give player run downs when one of us comes to the table sometimes...like their tendancies. Not during hands though.

What we do is most definately not cheating.

I'm sorry so many of you are so sensitive to it, though.

[/ QUOTE ]

i 100% agree w/ everything stated.

-Barron

Re: PM me
 

The average guy on the street who comes to know about this will just roll his eyes at your assurances. In law, they say that justice must not only be done, it must also be seen to be done. Similarly, with online poker, it is not only important for there to be no collusion, it is equally important that there be no perception of collusion.

The average guy is going to say "what motivates these guys to be on AIM other than to gain an advantage - even if unintentional and subtle - over guys not on AIM?"

Heck, the distractions that come with being on AIM would be enough for one to say "F*ck it" unless there were some associated adavantages gained from being on it. You would say that none of those gained advanatges are unethical. Many would disagree. It doesn't matter who is right on that score. In this context, the fact that they disagree should be enough to dissuade you from continuing the practice.

Incidenatlly, this is about the worst thread hijack (albeit unintentional) that I have seen. David Ross and his woes haven't been mentioned in the past 75 posts in this thread...heh

Re: PM me
 

[ QUOTE ]
The average guy on the street who comes to know about this will just roll his eyes at your assurances. In law, they say that justice must not only be done, it must also be seen to be done. Similarly, with online poker, it is not only important for there to be no collusion, it is equally important that there be no perception of collusion.

The average guy is going to say "what motivates these guys to be on AIM other than to gain an advantage - even if unintentional and subtle - over guys not on AIM?"

Heck, the distractions that come with being on AIM would be enough for one to say "F*ck it" unless there were some associated adavantages gained from being on it. You would say that none of those gained advanatges are unethical. Many would disagree. It doesn't matter who is right on that score. In this context, the fact that they disagree should be enough to dissuade you from continuing the practice.

Incidenatlly, this is about the worst thread hijack (albeit unintentional) that I have seen. David Ross and his woes haven't been mentioned in the past 75 posts in this thread...heh

[/ QUOTE ]

NOT TO MENTION the fact that my initial intent was to HELP daveross by witnessing his play while in action.
the people i do currently talk to online and discuss hands with while playing find it (and i find it as well) VERY helpful to everybody's games.

-Barron

PS- going over live hands while still fresh in our minds and /or not having to filter pokertracker to find them is a huge help and large motivation for this practice.

Re: PM me
 

[ QUOTE ]
If I knew for a fact that two players at my table were on IM, I would not feel comfortable even if I thought they were honest people. It is unreasonable for anybody to say that they are actively corresponding with somebody at the same table, and expect everyone to be comfortable with the idea.

Also, in the unlikely event that Party security did pick up on this, I don't think that anybody involved would have the right to complain about their account being frozen.

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: AIM sniffers used by online sites
 

Roy Cooke in the latest CP on online collusion:

It is easier to cheat on the Internet and easier to catch the cheaters. The net effect is that when management invests in the technology and personnel to protect players, Internet games are well-protected.

Each program upgrade includes more sophisticated methodology for identifying cheaters. Software flagging is a big part of anti-collusion efforts, and you’ll forgive me for not itemizing exactly how PlanetPoker does that, or how our competitors do it. Suffice it to say that it’s not difficult to write a routine that identifies situations that may involve cheating and then flags them. In addition to flagging anomalous plays that might indicate collusion, most sites match credit cards, surnames, banks, addresses, ISPs, IP addresses, e-mails, zip codes, deposit and withdrawal patterns, and more.

One of my favorite defenses is sniffers. There are lots of different types of sniffers, and they sniff out lots of different things. One kind is an itty-bitty program on your client base that determines whether you’re running instant messaging software. It matches what you’re running to what other players at your table are running. A match moves you up the flagging list. With such computer technology, it is possible to be proactive, ferreting out the cheaters and bouncing their butts from the site.

END OF QUOTE

I have no idea if Party is this proactive and has these "sniffers" in place. But if they do, you guys should probably stop this AIM business. Well, I think you should stop anyway Barron but that's just a personal opinion and I would think no less of you if you chose to continue doing what you are doing.

Re: PM me
 

i am not as much responding to you personally diablo as the whole thread, but i have talked on IM many times while playing in the same games/tables as both BK and schneids, and not once did either of them pull anything like that.

its obviously going on in online poker, but certainly not with these two.

fwiw the 'after the hand' talk has been huge in helping my game, but the chatting about a hand while in it is cheap IMO.

Re: AIM sniffers used by online sites
 

there isn't a more upfront and straight shooter on here than davidross but in the mist of 600BB downturn or whatever it is temptation would be pretty darn high.

Anyways this has moved way off course so someone help the poor guy out already

Re: AIM sniffers used by online sites
 

[ QUOTE ]
One of my favorite defenses is sniffers. There are lots of different types of sniffers, and they sniff out lots of different things. One kind is an itty-bitty program on your client base that determines whether you’re running instant messaging software. It matches what you’re running to what other players at your table are running. A match moves you up the flagging list. With such computer technology, it is possible to be proactive, ferreting out the cheaters and bouncing their butts from the site.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is nothing to stop a poker client from capturing all of your incoming and outgoing network traffic. If you want to see this in action, look for a program called Ethereal, or something similar. All of your IM conversations are sent unencrypted, so it would be easy to see exactly what was being discussed. Of course, if they collected everyone's traffic, this would be useless because it is such an enormous amount of data to sift through.

But if they use some kind of automated heuristics as Cooke describes, they could easily catch people who are conversing while at the same table, and snoop on the conversation. I really hope they don't do this, and instead only use these clues to take a closer look at the play, but it is a real possibility.

My $0.02 on the IM/Collusion Digression
 

I think it's time that those of us who play a lot of poker campaign for poker software that somehow detects and is incompatible with IM software. I'm willing to accept that many of you have used it in good faith and benefitted from it and resent having your use of IM for wholly unrelated purposes restricted, but it seems to me that the longer view is that we need to continually erect barriers to collusion.

It seems to me that rejection of this idea would be partly rooted in the fact that what is occurring is collusion -- because doesn't the better player benefit the most from each new barrier to collusion (unless he is the colluder)?

Re: My $0.02 on the IM/Collusion Digression
 

The people who want to collude are going to do it, messaging software or not.

That, and blocking something like AIM would affect so many people and many of the crappy players probably wouldn't play. they are there to relax and probably are having conversations with people on aim and would be pissed if they couldn't.

Collusion is pretty ez to notice online anyhow.

desperate to end this thread n/m
 

[img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

Re: My $0.02 on the IM/Collusion Digression
 

[ QUOTE ]
The people who want to collude are going to do it, messaging software or not.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd guess that there are a large class of opportunistic colluders and any new hindrance would reduce the amount of collusion.

[ QUOTE ]
That, and blocking something like AIM would affect so many people and many of the crappy players probably wouldn't play. they are there to relax and probably are having conversations with people on aim and would be pissed if they couldn't.

[/ QUOTE ]

If they want to gamble they will get over it.

[ QUOTE ]
Collusion is pretty ez to notice online anyhow.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've spotted inept colluders, but I'd never say that collusion is easy to spot. I think Sklansky has said he could device schemes that no one could detect even if they knew to look for him colluding.

Re: My $0.02 on the IM/Collusion Digression
 

It's funny how naive I am sometimes. Every once in a while I'm in a hand with 2 others and they both take a ridiculously long time to act on what seem to be simple decisions. I never thought for a minute about them IM'ing each other.

Re: Getting desperate for help
 

David,

Check out this coaching offer from James282. He has a great rep here and what sounds like a good way to coach "over your shoulder". You'll see some testamonials from players on the thread.

Good luck.

Re: My $0.02 on the IM/Collusion Digression
 

web page

Read this article

Exerpt

[ QUOTE ]
One of my favorite defenses is sniffers. There are lots of different types of sniffers, and they sniff out lots of different things. One kind is an itty-bitty program on your client base that determines whether you’re running instant messaging software. It matches what you’re running to what other players at your table are running. A match moves you up the flagging list. With such computer technology, it is possible to be proactive, ferreting out the cheaters and bouncing their butts from the site.



[/ QUOTE ]

Easily bypassed though with 2 computers. Play on your desktop and collude on your laptop. Cheaters are gonna cheat and the higher end internet game is highly vulnerable.

Re: Getting desperate for help
 

[ QUOTE ]
David,

Check out this coaching offer from James282. He has a great rep here and what sounds like a good way to coach "over your shoulder". You'll see some testamonials from players on the thread.

Good luck.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have to say I have never talked to James282 but he seems to be one of the better players here at limit holdem and I would recommend him as a coach.

Also I've found, both from being the coach many times and a student, that good coaching over your shoulder from an expert player is the fastest way to improve ones game.

That being said I think you should buy as much time as you can afford because it's worth it.

Re: Getting desperate for help
 

James is no longer coaching.

Re: My $0.02 on the IM/Collusion Digression
 

First off,

My apologies to David for also hijacking this thread and going off on this collusion/detection tangent here.

[ QUOTE ]

The people who want to collude are going to do it, messaging software or not.

[/ QUOTE ]

First off, using IM software to chat and play poker and collude is about as stupid as robbing a bank vault and not wearing gloves thus leaving fingerprints all over the vault.

Secondly if you are 4 tabling, I don't know how you can manage to type in real time what to do on a 4 flush board when you hold the King to that flush are are wondering if you should raise while all in time trying to discuss if your partner in crime had the Ace. It is impractical and a time waster.

If you are colluding at the 30/60 level and higher, then you can easily afford to purchase a 2nd computer at a lower cost, as well as a second internet connection (for a different IP address) registered under a different name. This second computer and Internet connection would not be used for IM. Just jumping back from computer to computer is a big hassle.

You would load something up like TeamSpeak 2. It's a voice chat program that is used for online gaming (I used it for World of Warcraft and Dark Age of Camelot) and it saves a ton of typing and re-typing.

Likewise your partner(s) in crime would do the same. If you are too cheap or can't afford to this, you can use the phone, but if you and your partner(s) live in different States or countries, then your phone bill is really going to rack up and in the long haul cost you more than this set up.
You also shouldn't be colluding 30/60 and higher if you can't afford an extra 1k system and an extra $20/month on the broadband.

[ QUOTE ]
Collusion is pretty ez to notice online anyhow.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't fully agreew with this. At an expert level of cheating, I believe it is not that easy to detect and I believe both online and live games have been colluded for well in the millions over the past few years.

I don't mean people would cheat and collude with an elmentary thought of the following:

Colluder 1: flops the nut straight straight
Colluder 2: flops dicksquat
Fish: Caught in between colluder 1 and colluder 2 with Top pair and gutshot draw.

Colluder 1 bets, fish calls, Colluder 2 raises. This goes on to the river and then colluder 2 folds.

This is stupid, obvious, and instantly sets up flags.

On a more intermediate level cheating I could see two colluders doing the following:

Fish: Has K [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]K [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] and raises UTG
Colluder 1: Has A [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]Q [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] and calls in MP.
Colluder 2: Has 4 [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]5 [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] in BB and calls.

Flop is 7 [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]T [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]2 [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]

On the flop, Fish bets, Colluder 1 raises. Colluder one talks to Colluder 2 on TeamSpeak and tells him/her that he gots a bigger flush draw. Both agree that the Fish very likely has a pocket pair and depending on the pair is a favorite in the hand. Colluder 2 decides to fold, knowing obviously well he is drawing dead, but more he does not give out more money to the favorite of the hand who is the fish, thus if the Fish's hand does stand up, he is going to win less money. Whereas has Colluder 1 and Colluder 2 did not know each other's hands, the Fish very likely would make at least 2 or 3 more BB throughout the course of the hand if the Ace or flush or some wacked up runner runner doesn't get there. In short the fish is cheated out of a bigger pot.

Anyways I'm sure the poker sites have got all this figured out and have extreme security measures to counter and detect even this type of set up... at least I hope. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Lawrence

Re: Further clarification
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Just to clarify further: the guy with the hand still in play can tell the guy who folded but the guy who folded can't tell the guy still in play. That way there is no knowing that your K high flush is the nuts because the A was folded PF.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. No problem there, and live, no confusion there. Where the confusion begins is that there is no way of knowing exactly what is being discussed when the hand is played out online. I have no doubt that BK, Dcfr, NLS, and others on 2+2 do not cross the bounds of ethical discussion during play but, this being a public forum available to all who wish to read it, it is essential that it be clearly stated what is and is not ethical and acceptable discussion during the play of a hand if discussion during the play of a hand is to be discussed at all.

-Brad

[/ QUOTE ]

Did you CHEATERS ever hear of one player per hand?

Re: PM me
 

[ QUOTE ]
There have been threads posted in the past where regulars here who are friends have posted about IMing each other about a big fish or two making a high limit game very attractive, then jumping into the game together. I suspect stuff like this is more common than most would think.

[/ QUOTE ]

YES I agree with this completly and alraedy assumed these big 2+2 are cheating softly in this manner.
Mike

Re: PM me
 

You guys are such freakin babies. So if I'm playin 30/60 at canterbury and it's a fantastic game and I call up schneids and tell him to come down and get in the game, he comes down, we sit next to eachother and sweat eachothers hands that what we're doing is unnethical? B [censored] S. What we're doin is the same thing, it's just online and it's completely fine. Get over it.

Re: PM me
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
NONE OF THOSE QUESTIONS ARE OK!!!!!

not during the play of the hand. even if bk is at a different table and schnieds is in the process of playing a hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are high. Trying to enforce some sort of "one player to a hand" rule online is beyond retarded.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of coarse but admitting you are a cheat and being one looks very bad among your peers IMO
mike

Re: PM me
 

He's not a cheat, nor is he admitting to being a cheat.

Re: PM me
 

[ QUOTE ]
For the record Diablo I'm pretty sure I trust any read I have more than any read BK has, and I'm pretty sure he feels the same about his reads. Especially considering that opponent A may play a hand one way against me and another way against BK. Our IMming if we're on the same table is purely for recreational value, no different from conversing in a live game. I see your point about this being a concern online and I'm sure it happens from time to time.

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought you superstars were playing 10 games at once - Oh now your chatting for recreation value. This is very unnerving, wish I knew your ID's so I could stay away!
Mike

Re: PM me
 

[ QUOTE ]

I thought you superstars were playing 10 games at once - Oh now your chatting for recreation value. This is very unnerving, wish I knew your ID's so I could stay away!
Mike

[/ QUOTE ]

Wraaaaaaaaaaaaaaah.

Re: PM me
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If I knew for a fact that two players at my table were on IM, I would not feel comfortable even if I thought they were honest people. It is unreasonable for anybody to say that they are actively corresponding with somebody at the same table, and expect everyone to be comfortable with the idea.

Also, in the unlikely event that Party security did pick up on this, I don't think that anybody involved would have the right to complain about their account being frozen.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is completely insane. At limits above 30/60 online, many of the players know each other personally. They know each other's aim. They know each other's phone #s. This is just a reality of online poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't want to berate the point because I know it is useless, and that there is a whole high-stakes subculture out there.

But that is what the chat window is for. That is why observer chat is allowed. You want to say high to a friend... open up his table and type in "Hi" for all to see.

No problem with that. IM, the other players can't see. Although this would not be enough to deter me from playing, IMO it is unreasonable to expect anyone to be comfortable with this situation.

[/ QUOTE ]

WOW - yes the chat window is for chatting not IM. I have friends in these games too with the IM in their is no way we would be chatting to each other even about the weather!
Paluka I am not impressed, using IM instead of the chat box is like wispering to your friend in a BM during the hand. I don't care if it is about some broad it is very unethical!
Mike

Re: PM me
 

[ QUOTE ]
Paluka I am not impressed, using IM instead of the chat box is like wispering to your friend in a BM during the hand. I don't care if it is about some broad it is very unethical!

[/ QUOTE ]

are you kidding? So if a friend and i are talking about what we did last weekend and we're sitting at the same table it's unethical?

Get a clue. This is unbelievable. You've lost all credibility in my eyes, and I'm sure I have in yours. It's ok though. Maybe we could get this settled over an AIM convo while playing on the same tables. That might settle it.

Re: PM me
 

[ QUOTE ]
He's not a cheat, nor is he admitting to being a cheat.

[/ QUOTE ]

Like I said use the chat box - IM is very unethical.
Bike you are in a live game and in the middle of the hand you start wispering to each other about the weather. You don't think other players would find this unethical at the table?

Re: PM me
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
He's not a cheat, nor is he admitting to being a cheat.

[/ QUOTE ]

Like I said use the chat box - IM is very unethical.
Bike you are in a live game and in the middle of the hand you start wispering to each other about the weather. You don't think other players would find this unethical at the table?

[/ QUOTE ]

That's so different. Nobody cares to read our goofy conversation on the chat box, nor is it a public conversation, nor is it cheating, nor do I care if you think it is, nor am I going to stop.

Re: PM me
 

ROFLMAO. Are you talking about Diablo?

We all know Diablo cheats. He cheated at online boggle for goodness sakes.

Re: PM me
 

[ QUOTE ]
ROFLMAO. Are you talking about Diablo?

We all know Diablo cheats. He cheated at online boggle for goodness sakes.

[/ QUOTE ]

LMAO. I wasn't, but that's funny as hell! Good call, I completely forgot about that.

Re: PM me
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Paluka I am not impressed, using IM instead of the chat box is like wispering to your friend in a BM during the hand. I don't care if it is about some broad it is very unethical!

[/ QUOTE ]

are you kidding? So if a friend and i are talking about what we did last weekend and we're sitting at the same table it's unethical?

Get a clue. This is unbelievable. You've lost all credibility in my eyes, and I'm sure I have in yours. It's ok though. Maybe we could get this settled over an AIM convo while playing on the same tables. That might settle it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry Ive lost your credibility, I never said you were a cheat - I said this is very unethical IMO
I stand by my opinion. And yes talking in front of the table is fine (that is what the chat box is for online)
MIke
YEs maybe that would settle

Re: PM me
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
He's not a cheat, nor is he admitting to being a cheat.

[/ QUOTE ]

Like I said use the chat box - IM is very unethical.
Bike you are in a live game and in the middle of the hand you start wispering to each other about the weather. You don't think other players would find this unethical at the table?

[/ QUOTE ]

That's so different. Nobody cares to read our goofy conversation on the chat box, nor is it a public conversation, nor is it cheating, nor do I care if you think it is, nor am I going to stop.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, first off I might of jumped to quick b/c I was an a very pissed off mood already b/c a bunch of students played in a big online tourney together at the university on the weekend and one of them won with tons of help. They suggested they were not colluding.
When this thread started bike they were not claiming to talk about there goofy weekend. They claimed they were using IM in this thread for one purpose only "to discuss hands" This pissed me off. I don't care if they are waiting to the hand is over, it just doesn't look or sound good to me.
Mike

Re: PM me
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
He's not a cheat, nor is he admitting to being a cheat.

[/ QUOTE ]

Like I said use the chat box - IM is very unethical.
Bike you are in a live game and in the middle of the hand you start wispering to each other about the weather. You don't think other players would find this unethical at the table?

[/ QUOTE ]

That's so different. Nobody cares to read our goofy conversation on the chat box, nor is it a public conversation, nor is it cheating, nor do I care if you think it is, nor am I going to stop.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, first off I might of jumped to quick b/c I was an a very pissed off mood already b/c a bunch of students played in a big online tourney together at the university on the weekend and one of them won with tons of help. They suggested they were not colluding.
When this thread started bike they were not claiming to talk about there goofy weekend. They claimed they were using IM in this thread for one purpose only "to discuss hands" This pissed me off. I don't care if they are waiting to the hand is over, it just doesn't look or sound good to me.
Mike

[/ QUOTE ]

We do discuss hands after the fact. I don't think that's cheating either. People do that at live games too, if you wanna go back to that.

WORST THREAD OF THE YEAR
 

I've never had the displeasure of reading a thread with more whining, babbling, moronic statements than this one. Like a bunch of cackling old women playing rack rummy or cribbage or something.

Even the first post, "desperate for help", is gay enough. Then all the other crap about .01/.02 and cheating?

Get rid of this damn thread so I can read some legitimate mid/hi limit discussion without scrolling down through this crap.

This sucks.

TSP

Re: WORST THREAD OF THE YEAR
 

yeah, we need to move on to regular discussions. you can drop by, let us know your thoughts, and then make yet another announcement about how you're quitting because you can't beat the game. now THAT'S quality discussion!

Re: WORST THREAD OF THE YEAR
 

[ QUOTE ]
Get rid of this damn thread so I can read some legitimate mid/hi limit discussion without scrolling down through this crap.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah because it's really hard to scroll past one thread.

Re: PM me
 

Hogger-

It is the *appearance* of possible collusion that you deem unethical, and I have to agree that you have a point. In a live game, I wouldn't want someone I'm in a hand against to start receiving whispers from the guy sitting next to him. If he's talking about the weather, then he can do it loud enough for everyone to hear. Most card rooms have a rule, "one player to a hand" and it can be enforced. So in this respect, I agree with you.

FWIW- I think you're making too large of an issue out of it here though. There is nothing you or I can do about online collusion. It can and does occur. I have written it off as a cost of doing business in the way that a company would write off bad accounts. If two people want to IM or even talk on the phone, you cannot prevent them. The question is, what is it costing you?

I also believe it might occur less than you think. I for one, believe bike when he says he doesn't collude even though he has every opportunity to do so. I was once in an online game with a good friend of mine who I play live with all the time. We talked about the game and the players, and how they play, but not once did either of us think to collude even though it would've been very easy to do! It was like an unwritten rule that both of us were above that. I didn't help him and he didn't help me. I'm happy to say that the subject was never even brought up. I played my hands and he played his. Once (I was out of the hand), he made a flush and got raised on the river. He was thinking out loud on the phone, "Can this guy have the ace?". I mucked the ace of the suit and didn't tell him until after the hand. I wondered if he'd get mad, but he didn't say a thing.

This is a very long winded way of saying that while people are sure to collude, there are also many many other players capable of IMing each other while maintaining the integrity of the game. I've always said that most people who would cheat aren't very good anyway.