Collusion Detected - Question

[TimM]

[ QUOTE ]
no one in this thread seems to have given Pacific any credit for at least trying to do the right thing


[/ QUOTE ]

How is keeping money that colluders stole from other players the right thing?

At least Party does not benefit when they find someone guilty of collusion. That would be a huge conflict of interest.

How would you like it if you were being sued in a court where the judge and jury get awarded the damages instead of the plaintiff?

[mosta]

i agree with you, if they are just going to pocket it, that is dirty and unethical. they say they are going to distribute it to players via promotions and bonuses. I have no idea whether to believe them. I think it would be better to give it to the players victimizied by the collusion. my point is just that it is tricky to figure out who, of those players, would be entitled to what. every player in a pot at any point is affected in their decision making by what every other player does and simply by the number of other players there. you can not determine what the hand would have been "without the colluders there". it's like when the sports columnists say, shaq shot 20% from the line, if he could have made two more free throws they would have won, he cost them the game. No--because at the point that shaq made those extra points it would have changed the situation of the game, changed the score differential, which would have affected the other teams strategy, etc.

that pot was $317. he got $50. UTG got nothing. the blinds and the button, who were also in the pot at some point, got nothing. how fair or unfair is that to each person--I don't know. we don't know how the other players would have played without the colluders. some may have gone further with their hands and outdrawn or outplayed Kuhn. some may have folded pre-flop. maybe the button wouldn't have limped without the two colluders limping up front. okay, then why is Kuhn entitled to button's contribution to the pot? with the collusion there, the entire pot is tainted. you can't award the pot to anyone without the other players being victimized.

again, I'm sorry that Kuhn was victimized, but it's not entirely clear that giving him that pot is the fairest solution. giving it to promos? I don't think I especially like that either. I think my favorite solution is to distribute the money in colluders' accounts in proportion to what each player contributed to each pot that a colluder won. that I think comes closes to "undoing" those tainted pots. how feasible that is for the poker site to figure out, I don't know. but I do think that the accusations and invective leveled against Pacific in this thread is at least somewhat unfair. and no I don't work, or even play, there.

[TimM]

I do agree that simply awarding Jim this one pot is not necessarily the best solution. Sites should have some formula already in place, like party does, to deal with these cases.

Using colluders seized accounts for promotions and bonuses is not right though. If they were going to fund those out of pocket anyway, this is no different than keeping the money. If they use this money to add new promotions, they still gain from it if it helps their business.

[Jim Kuhn]

I totally agree the money should go DIRECTLY back to the players and not the poker sites bottom line. They are having promotions regardless of confiscating players funds. Hopefully all of their promotion money does not come from the cheated 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]

[Jim Kuhn]

I think this is the post that Webster alluded to a couple of hours ago. Maybe this is why Pacific does not allow multi tables. They expect you to concentrate and detect their collusion for them. Be especially cautious when playing at 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]

[BugSplatt]

It is bad enough when you get duped by two colluders; it is worse when the site adds insult to injury. You should have got your money back. Pacific's response, "Oh, we know you got screwed out of $367 so here's fifty bucks to soften the blow," was a joke. Their unethical response is going to cost them many times over the $367 they should have returned to you.

[ejess]

Here's another player they'll never see again, bye bye Pacific.

[Blarg]

Too bad there's no happy ending to this story.

Thanks for posting it though. I admired your active yet controlled and reasoned response.

There are plenty of sites happy to get my trade. I think I'll give it to them instead of Pacific.

[Jim Kuhn]

Pacific Poker management seems to look more at their bottom line rather than what is best for their players. They were not very helpful and very slow in their responses. Rather than try to do what was best they seemed to want to do nothing and hope I would just forget about it.

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]

[Pirc Defense]

Highly interesting thread.

The running assumption is that the major poker sites are making money hand over fist. Millions and millions a day.

Pacific is one of the larger sites, no? Top 10, I presume? Why, then, are they sweating $367? People argue vehemently that an online site would not "skim" from the games, because they are making so much money, and because doing so could possibly cause the site to go out of business if skimming were proved. Yet here we have one of the major poker sites going to battle over $367. Hmm.

I just have a gut feeling that some things are not adding up in the online poker world. Can't put my finger on it, though.