Collusion Detected - Question - Page 4

Jim Kuhn · #31 05-02-2004, 01:20 AM

Jason,

Thank you for the reply. For anyone trying to follow this is the third hand outlined in the first post above. I was the only one that could have possibly won this hand. I would suggest everyone avoid Pacific Poker.

Thank you,

Jim Kuhn
Catfish4U
[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]

Jim Kuhn · #32 05-19-2004, 12:59 AM

This is the thread Jason referred in his post tonight.

Thank you,

Jim Kuhn
Catfish4U
[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]

Oski · #33 05-19-2004, 01:39 AM

Thanks for pulling this back out...I missed it the first time around. I cannot believe the responses you received from Pacific. Notwithstanding the fact they kept your money, I cannot believe they flat out reprimanded you for posting this in public. After all, they should be happy you did as the solution to this problem is better for online poker in general, and specifically for Pacific.

However, the paranoia in the response was frightening. I would not mind if some poster made policy of putting this on the permanent blacklist by reminding lurkers and such that Pacific is bad news.

I played there one time about a year ago, nothing seemed out of order, exept the software was slow, etc. However, after reading your post with the replies, there is no way these guys can restore credibility without a major overhaul.

Thanks again.

- Jason Allison

Jim Kuhn · #34 05-21-2004, 08:36 PM

I was very surprised of their response also. They had the chance to 'do the right thing and look good in the public forums' but they chose to run with the $367 that was cheated from me. Then they chastized me for bringing this to the publics attention. Pacific is scum as far as I am concerned!

Thank you,

Jim Kuhn
Catfish4U
[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]

Nepa · #35 05-21-2004, 11:22 PM

I'll never ever play on that site!

TimM · #36 05-21-2004, 11:25 PM

Nor will I. Any site can have collusion, it's what they do about it that counts.

crazy canuck · #37 05-22-2004, 05:05 AM

They had the chance to 'do the right thing and look good in the public forums' but they chose to run with the $367 that was cheated from me. Then they chastized me for bringing this to the publics attention.

Sounds like they hired nutzpoker's marketing director. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Jim Kuhn · #38 05-27-2004, 11:39 PM

Thanks for your support. Pacific does not 'do the right things for their players'!

Thank you,

Jim Kuhn
Catfish4U
[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]

Cubswin · #39 05-27-2004, 11:59 PM

Thanks for bumping this thread Jim. This does not bode well for pacific.

cubs

mosta · #40 05-28-2004, 11:38 AM

is pacific's position really completely unreasonable? fact is, there was another player on the river. maybe UTG was going to fold no matter who bet, but colluder 2 does change gears and suddenly bet into you. UTG probably caught a decent bit of the flop but thought he was probably behind you. now this other guy comes to life. what, did he spike two pair or a set? you call and now UTG likely is behind two guys, so he gives up. if the colluders had instead checked to you again and you bet out, then maybe UTG's plan was to take a shot at check-raise bluffing you out--legitimately. no one knows if you could have called. just because you have the best hand doesn't mean the pot is yours. what about cases where colluders take the pot down on the flop? do you expect Pacific to compare all the hole cards, and what? give it to the best hand at the time? deal turn and river cards themselves and give it to the winner of that simulated, no-betting hand? give it to the and with the most equity at that moment as determined by twodimes? or aportion it by equity?

I'm sorry--I don't mean to fault you when you clearly have been wronged. but no one in this thread seems to have given Pacific any credit for at least trying to do the right thing (in a situation which, on inspection, perhaps is not entirely cut and dry). (I know Party distributes colluders' money to all players who played against them. I don't know how they figure it out. But you don't have to be one that complained. They will just notify you--we are giving you their money, whether you ever suspected anything was going on or not. I doubt they try to give pots to "rightful" winners. I bet they just distribute by number of hands, or percent of money contributed to pots they won.)