Collusion in a 4th STEP?

[Marcotte]

If the table talk comes after the SB folds I don't have much of a problem with it. It's unlikely that BB actions on this hand (with only 98 chips left) will have an impact on the final finishes, though it is possible if there is another very short stack.

Anytime someone says something at a poker table you have to consider the source. I generally don't believe what my opponents tell me about the stregth or weakness of their hand. (Which is not to say that I believe the opposite.)

I doubt the buttons table talk influenced the play of the hand if BB is any kind of reasonable player. Also, while unintended collusion is bad, if they really wanted to cheat they wouldn't do so in the table-chat.

[ilya]

[ QUOTE ]
Party's response will look something like this:

Dear Chief_911,

Thank you for contacting PartyPoker support, we appreciate your input. If you could send us the tournament number you have a concern about, we will gladly look into it.

Michelle Gupta
PartyPoker Support Representative


PartyPoker Support,

I already told you the tournment number, it was the subject of my first email. Here it is again _________.

Nick
Chief_911



Dear Chief_911

Thank you for contacting PartyPoker support, I apologize for the misunderstanding about your concern regarding 4th step tournament number 160814. If you could please tell me the screen names of the players involved in the incident, I will be happy to look into it.

Karen Gupta
PartyPoker Support Manager


PPS,

I already told you the names, but here they are again....
Why does it seem like you don't even read the emails I send?

Nick



Dear Nick,

Thank you for contacting PartyPoker support, and again, I apologize for the misunderstanding. If you could please tell me your account name, I will look into the matter as quickly as possible.

Roger Gupta
PartyPoker Support Leader



Roger,

You guys suck. I already gave you all of the information necessary to look into this and there is clear colusion going on... don't you care?

Nick
Chief_911



Dear Nick,

Thank you for contacting us again, and I apologize for the misunderstanding. I have investigated the tournament number in question and spoke with the technical support manager. It appears that there were no problems with the server during the tournament. We will therefore not be able to refund your entry fee.

Thank you for your continued patronage.

John Williams
PartyPoker Support Supervisor

[/ QUOTE ]

Classic [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[boedeker]

well apparently my chat has been banned for 10 days. hope youre happy.

[Chief911]

You're lucky it wasn't on Stars, where they actually do something about stuff like this. If you are expecting me to feel sorry for you because you had your chat banned, I dont. The kid wasn't going to call with 63o. Obviously that would have been stupid, but he wasn't. Thus his "with 6 3"

Bottom line is, you colluded, and the end result was me bubbling out, costing me $535. I'll trade you 10 days of no chat for $535. Sound fair?

Quit your bitching and pull your head out of your ass next time.

Nick

[citanul]

I wasn't there until like one minute after this occurred, but something tells me that a) pretty much any time that you have 63, you assume your cards are live and b) he was going to call.

I don't remember how many players were left at this time either, I think it was 11, and there were a few short stacks. I don't think that you can directly blame boedeker's play and or chat for your bubbbling out.

From the time I got there, he went all in EVERY hand on his table, when he had the table covered. Thus, he was trying his best to bust someone. It appeared that you folded every hand until you were all in on the big blind. This may have been reasonable, but probably was not optimal considering other factors.

I'm not sure if chatting about your hand while you are heads up is explicitly against party's rules. It probably is. However, I really can't feel that this is collusion. I am especially concerned by those people who believe that if he had been lieing about his cards, then it would have been ok, but since he told the truth, it was fine. Players CONSTANTLY talk about their hands. The VERY typical move is the re-steal and then announcement of having a pair in your hand while the other person is considering a call. I see this perhaps 10 times a day.

I can't think that you would have a problem here if boedeker had had say, 66, and the guy got the same chat, called, and lost with the destroyed hand. You'd probably have typed something like "lol" in the chat box.

Boedeker/redhotballz can be a bit of a jackass at the tables, as can many players, but I don't think that he was aware of any rule that would prohibit you from talking about your hand while the hand is heads up and you are all in. Is this prohibitted in live play? Are you allowed to talk about your hand while you are last to act and considering calling an all in player, heads up? Live? Is he just not allowed to respond? That seems like, live, a huge freeroll on the part of the person who has the turn to act, since he's allowed to say anything he wants and you aren't allowed to react in any way.

Anyway, I think that the idea that you should be refunded your entrance is pretty ridiculous. I think that redhot got approximately the punishment he deserved, perhaps he should have had a longer chat suspension.

my 2 cents,

citanul

[M.B.E.]

[ QUOTE ]
Is this prohibitted in live play?

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes. Tournament Directors Association rules provide:

"34. Players, whether in the hand or not, may not discuss the hands until the action is complete. Players are obligated to protect the other players in the tournament at all times. Discussing cards discarded or hand possibilities is not allowed. A penalty may be given for discussion of hands during the play."

Obviously this rule is for tournaments only, not cash games. Also this rule has been controversial, with some top players speaking out against it. However, the rule was enforced at this year's WSOP and other top tournaments.

[citanul]

What about Greg's infamous "I guess we've got a coinflip then" or whatever it was he said exactly?

citanul

[TacoVendor]

I emailed Party a few months ago about collusion in a $50 STT.

The quick story... 4 of us left and all have stacks that are within 200 of each other. The two colluding were sitting at opposite ends of the table. I had noticed nothing out of the ordinary to that point.

Then in Spanish a chat between them starts: 'call me back so we can put these two out'. The other replies 'my sister is on the phone'. After a few hands and the first has a large stack and the other is well short, in Spanish again 'tell her to get off of the phone and call me'. The reply 'ok she is almost done' and 'slow your play'.

I have never seen anything even near that type of chat before but I guess they figured that it would not be noticed in Spanish. I went out 3rd and looked back through the history - not one hand in the whole game did they go past the flop together, and if one raised at any point (even with multiple callers) the other dropped.

I sent in the history, the specific lines of chat, tournament number, etc. to Party support and called them right away as well. I was told that they would review the game and the players past history.

Of course it all ended with 'it looks suspicious, but there was nothing that could be done'. 'No indication of past collusion', and that there were 'very few' times these players played together. Not enough to be out of the ordinary.

The best I got out of it is that they would note the accounts for those two in case something was brought up in the future.

Good luck with your efforts.

[M.B.E.]

[ QUOTE ]
Then in Spanish a chat between them starts: 'call me back so we can put these two out'. The other replies 'my sister is on the phone'. After a few hands and the first has a large stack and the other is well short, in Spanish again 'tell her to get off of the phone and call me'. The reply 'ok she is almost done' and 'slow your play'.

...

I sent in the history, the specific lines of chat, tournament number, etc. to Party support and called them right away as well. I was told that they would review the game and the players past history.

Of course it all ended with 'it looks suspicious, but there was nothing that could be done'. 'No indication of past collusion', and that there were 'very few' times these players played together. Not enough to be out of the ordinary.

[/ QUOTE ]
There is no conceivable "innocent explanation" for that. It is overt, demonstrable collusion. The players should have had their accounts closed, and any funds won in tournaments they played together confiscated and given to the players who were cheated.

I would love to see a response in this thread from PartyPoker security people. How are we supposed to trust the site when they don't take action when given clear proof of collusion?