ridiculous collusion on party 3/6

[Evan]

[ QUOTE ]

2) Party did not refund any players. They normally refund players who were damaged due to colluding

[/ QUOTE ]
Regardless of whether or not this is true proof that there wasn't collusion, which it isn't, it hardly makes any sense. Party's decision that there was no collusion hardly makes the OP more or less correct for suspecting that there was.

[ QUOTE ]

3) There is no evidence that the two players live in the same location

[/ QUOTE ]
Dude, you can make your location whatever you want.

[ QUOTE ]
One of my current favorites is when Sfer & GOT went head to hed on the river for 5+ bets when Sfer only had Ace high.

[/ QUOTE ]
GoT and CDC, even though they are both Asian, are not the same person.

[Reef]

[ QUOTE ]
you thanked him for closing the accounts of two fish? you're an idiot

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll sacrifice a few dollars for the integrity of the game. Everyone here would be singing to a different tune if these two crackheads knew anything about the game.

[Reef]

[ QUOTE ]

There is far more evidence they they were not colluding, than they were colluding.

1) They continued to raise eachother heads up


[/ QUOTE ]

which allowed for one villian to fold to the other on the river, without a showdown.

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
Everyone here would be singing to a different tune if these two crackheads knew anything about the game

[/ QUOTE ]

It would also be a different post initially. Doesn't this line paint a broad stroke, even against maniacs? Sure, change the variables in any case and it's a different tune. I was going by the info provided. Which wasn't much.

b

[Reef]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Everyone here would be singing to a different tune if these two crackheads knew anything about the game

[/ QUOTE ]

It would also be a different post initially. Doesn't this line paint a broad stroke, even against maniacs? Sure, change the variables in any case and it's a different tune. I was going by the info provided. Which wasn't much.

b

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think that the variable - how good could they cheat - should make any difference. Cheating is cheating.. right?

[GuyOnTilt]

If these two are colluding, you should welcome it. They really, really, really, really suck at it. Their line of play is a gold mine for you, and is prety much the exact opposite of how to successfully collude. It should be super easy to extract money from these donks. Stop whining and start learning how to play.

I'd think it's more likely that they're two buddies donking at low limits than guys trying to profitably collude.

GoT

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
I think they colluded

[/ QUOTE ]

If it's only based on the very limited info you provided, I think you jumped the gun.

Just how many complete maniac games, with multiple maniacs, have you been in? It doesn't sound like many. They do exist. At all limits.

But again, I don't think there's anything wrong with asking a site to look into something. Better safe than sorry. But this does look like a knee-jerk reaction.

b

[bernie]

Good points.

Much like casinos banning a winning BJ players for 'fear' that they are cardcounters. Even when they aren't.

b

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think that the variable - how good could they cheat - should make any difference. Cheating is cheating.. right?

[/ QUOTE ]

There are many other variables to factor in. Not just the hindsight that Party banned them. 2 guys jamming pots isn't cheating.

I guess the question should be asked if anyone has been in games where multiple , 2+, maniacs are jamming hand after hand with basically nothing. For all those that agree that this limited sample provided was proof of collusion, I would expect the answers to be a resounding, No. That doesn't mean you don't keep an eye on the situation. And yes, maybe ask the site to keep an eye on the guys.

But no one with any real experience in these games would jump to that conclusion based on only 9 hands.

b