Collusion Detected - Question

[Jim Kuhn]

I have detected collusion and will post a hand history and a copy of the letter to the poker site. How do people feel about user names in the hand history. Should I utilize user names or just say player 1, player 2 etc.?

[crockpot]

i would leave the names of the suspected colluders in, assuming you have a good case. whether or not the poker site does anything, you're informing the players here of people to watch out for.

[lunchmeat]

If you're going to accuse someone of collusion, then you should be damn sure you are right. Unless you are QED positive that the two players were colluding I would recommmend leaving the names out of the post...

Of course, you should definitely include the names in your letter to the poker site.

[zooey]

If you're sure of collusion, it shouldn't be too hard to find more than one suspicious hand, right? My rule of thumb has been two "captain obvious" hands, or several more for subtle collusion. (best hand, etc.) When I have reported people with more than one hand as evidence I've gotten good results from the sites.

Its a wacky world, and millions of hands are being played. I'm sure if you went through all the hands I've played online, you could find quite a few that looked suspicious (the way I played). It would be a lot harder, though to find two or more that pointed to collusion with the same player(s). Know what I mean?

So I would counsel not using real names until a very good case is proved.

Thoughtful of you to ask.

Best,

zooey

[scrub]

(1) Whether you leave the names in or not, you are going to need to post a lot more than one hand history for anyone who isn't an idiot to take you seriously. Unfortunately, this is the Zoo, so whether you have enough evidence or not, a bunch of people are going to take you seriously. Well, that or or claim it's all Cyndie's fault or tell you how to get half of the money you lose to collusion back through their new collusion affiliate program...

(2) I would err on the side of caution here. If you have enough hand histories to make a credible accusation (the fact that you used the singular in your post makes me suspect you don't), then post them without the player handles, and let everyone consider them. If the general consensus is that it's collusion, then by all means, go ahead and post them.

(3) Notify the site if you even have the slightest inkling that something fishy was happening. That way the site can keep a closer eye on the players involved and [hopefully] gather the necessary evidence themselves.

It's not worth publicly besmirching the reputations of the players in question if you don't have enough evidence to prove it. Especially since extremely poor play and collusion can look very similar. Why take the chance of souring a bad player on online poker? They're falling from the sky now, but will get to be scarce commodities in years to come.

scrub

[Jim Kuhn]

The following situation happened on Pacific Poker last night. The two players in question sat down within five minutes of each other. Also Colluder 1 sat down in a seat, left the table and colluder 2 sat in that same seat before a hand was played.

Several times colluder 1 would bet and colluder 2 would raise. They would also have colluder 1 check, colluder 2 bet and when it came around colluder 1 would (check)raise. The hand where I 'caught' them is outlined below. I immediately said 'that was not right. I think you two are colluding'. Colluder 1 immediately left the table even though the blinds were not on him. Colluder 2 sat out. I told the rest of the table 'these two have been colluding'. I left the table to view the history replayer. Sorry this is not easier to view or explain.

Hand 1916954993

Colluder 2 sits down and posts behind the button. Blinds call and first two players call, colluder 1 calls and player between colluders calls. Colluder 2 checks.

Flop Q [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] 4 [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] 4 [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]
both blinds check and both ep players check. Colluder 1 bets, between calls and colluder 2 raises. Colluder 1 reraises. They are trying to move between off of the pot. Between and colluder 2 calls.

Turn Q [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]
Colluder 1 bets between calls and colluder 2 gives up as it is clear between is committed to this pot.

River 7 [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]
Colluder 1 bets as a last ditch effort to buy this pot. Between calls.

Between J [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]4 [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] Flopped trip 4's made full house
colluder 1 10 [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] 2 [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] Nothing but a failed attempt to collude and steal a pot.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

hand 1916955879

colluder 1 calls utg, between calls and colluder 2 calls, the button and both blinds call.

Flop 9 [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] 9 [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] 5 [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]
Both blinds check, colluder 1 bets, between folds and colluder 2 raises. All fold to leave the colluders heads up.

Turn 10 [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]
1 checks 2 bets and 1 calls

River A [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]
1 bets 2 raises 1 calls
colluder 2 catches an ace on the river to make Aces. He reraised colluder 1 with nothing. Colluder 1 mucks but could not beat aces. He bet acting like he had trip nines on the flop, colluder 2 raised acting like he also had trip nines. They were successful at running all of the other players out of the pot.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

hand 1916956520

utg calls, colluder 1 calls, between folds, colluder 2 calls, I call with A [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] J [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img], button calls along with both blinds.

Flop A [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]K [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]9 [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]
utg bets, colluder 1 calls, colluder 2 calls, I raise, button calls, blinds fold, both colluders call.

Turn 7 [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]
Check to me and I bet, button folds, utg calls along with both colluders.

River 2 [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]
Check to colluder 2 and he bets, I call, utg folds, colluder 1 (check)raises, colluder 2 reraises, I fold. Colluder 1 folds. Colluder 1 checkraises and folds for one more bet with $367 in the pot. He was not bluff checkraising with a bettor and me calling. He may have been bluffing if he bet out.

I immediately said 'that was not right. I think you two are colluding'. Colluder 1 immediately left the table even though the blinds were not on him. Colluder 2 sat out.

What are everyones thoughts on this situation? They even acted guilty when I accused them of colluding. I think they were colluding but were also at times trying to play normal. These three hands were chosen out of a grand total of twenty hands total they played. There were also others where they appeared to 'be playing together'. I will write Pacific on the above situation.

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]

[RaDiCaLReeD]

Could someone outline basic things to look for from colluding?

[scrub]

[ QUOTE ]
Hand 1916954993

Colluder 2 sits down and posts behind the button. Blinds call and first two players call, colluder 1 calls and player between colluders calls. Colluder 2 checks.

Flop Q 4 4
both blinds check and both ep players check. Colluder 1 bets, between calls and colluder 2 raises. Colluder 1 reraises. They are trying to move between off of the pot. Between and colluder 2 calls.

Turn Q
Colluder 1 bets between calls and colluder 2 gives up as it is clear between is committed to this pot.

River 7
Colluder 1 bets as a last ditch effort to buy this pot. Between calls.

Between J 4 Flopped trip 4's made full house
colluder 1 10 2 Nothing but a failed attempt to collude and steal a pot.


[/ QUOTE ]

This one is either not collusion or horrendously executed. Not terribly convincing.

[ QUOTE ]
hand 1916955879

colluder 1 calls utg, between calls and colluder 2 calls, the button and both blinds call.

Flop 9 9 5
Both blinds check, colluder 1 bets, between folds and colluder 2 raises. All fold to leave the colluders heads up.

Turn 10
1 checks 2 bets and 1 calls

River A
1 bets 2 raises 1 calls
colluder 2 catches an ace on the river to make Aces. He reraised colluder 1 with nothing. Colluder 1 mucks but could not beat aces. He bet acting like he had trip nines on the flop, colluder 2 raised acting like he also had trip nines. They were successful at running all of the other players out of the pot.


[/ QUOTE ]

Last time I checked, it wasn't that unusual for a paired board flop to get raised by a player not having trips.

[ QUOTE ]
hand 1916956520

utg calls, colluder 1 calls, between folds, colluder 2 calls, I call with A J , button calls along with both blinds.

Flop A K 9
utg bets, colluder 1 calls, colluder 2 calls, I raise, button calls, blinds fold, both colluders call.

Turn 7
Check to me and I bet, button folds, utg calls along with both colluders.

River 2
Check to colluder 2 and he bets, I call, utg folds, colluder 1 (check)raises, colluder 2 reraises, I fold. Colluder 1 folds. Colluder 1 checkraises and folds for one more bet with $367 in the pot. He was not bluff checkraising with a bettor and me calling. He may have been bluffing if he bet out.


[/ QUOTE ]

This one is really pretty suspect. I would email support. I'm typically more concerned by situations where suspected colluders trap opponents for extra bets when one holds a strong hand than by players who seem to be trying to "run people off of pots" early in hands. But jamming the river on a big pot and then folding for an extra bet is pretty sketchy.

scrub

[Jim Kuhn]

Watch for people sitting down and leaving at the same time. When two persons are always in the pot together. They raise and reraise back to back to lose the rest of the field. They check raise and have their partner bet with powerful hands to maximize the pot.

Colluders are often difficult to catch. I noted this one hand and reviewed the history. They had several suspect hands even though they were only at the table for about 30 minutes together. Support should be able to review all of their play together. Many times colluders are so bad that they both actually lose money. They do cause alot of disruption to the game with their erratic play.

[RaDiCaLReeD]

someone needs to design a collusion alert plugin for PT.