Collusion Detected - Question

[MS Sunshine]

I don't see why you were so bothered by my list of top winning NLH players. It's not like I could have possibly have named you on it.

Have a nice day.

MS Sunshine

[Jim Kuhn]

On the one reraise he was getting like 3 or 4 to one pot odds. He had a lower middle pair? That seems like a no brain call. Also, what was the other guys cards? They better have been good but I am afraid they were not. I think some cell phone records would be very valuable here. I would say that was collusion. I think Lee Jones needs to grow bigger balls!

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]

[N4CER1]

Use the names, it makes no difference.....Collusion is at most of the live tables....there is poker bot programs that are just like Ultimate Bets Buddy list that show each hand to the other players on your buddy list...4 or 5 playes can be at the same table and all see each others cards....

I know 3 guys who use Roger Wilco with heads sets on and play big limit online all of the time......

What an advantage they have!!!

[Joe Tall]

[ 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.

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.


[/ QUOTE ]

Jim,

I was at the table when this happened. I had just sat down and remember it specifically as I couldn't imagine what you layed down here. I then noticed that you said something and thought it real strange that one of those players ran off and the other froze in his tracks, sitting out. He may have played one or two hands until he read the chat box, I believe.

Unfortunately, it was the only hand I witnessed as I was waiting for my blinds and I believe and wasn't paying 100% attention.

Looking over these hand histories, I agree with you.

I'll keep an eye out for these players in the future.

Peace,
Joe Tall

PS: AJs, raise preflop. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[Rushmore]

I think it is just the second hand which might detract, as it did not involve the patented bet/no-call on the river between the two colluders.

The first looks like they just got in over their heads, with the remaining colluder making the error of trying to buy the pot on the end, as opposed to the more prudent check-fold to what looks like an inevitable bet on the end.

The third is the poster child for bad collusion, but certainly looks like collusion nonetheless, especially given their reactions to your chat.

To be honest, I think the whole thing is getting out of hand, and am really scaling back my online play hours. I believe the sites have about a 50% chance of eventually ensuring the integrity of their games against collusion, etc., as their incentive and motivation in this regard is in conflict with the players'.

Until then, I think I'll just sit on my winnings, for the most part.

[Jim Kuhn]

More than 48 hours later here is their reply. I do not get the feeling that Pacific cares much about the possibility of collusion on their site. They sure are not in a hurry to investigate. It took them more than 48 hours to forward to the appropriate department.

I have requested a cash out for the majority of my funds. I am not playing there at all until their investigation is complete. I would not suggest anyone play there at this time.

Thanks,

Jim

Hello Jim,

Thank you for contacting us.

Thank you for your detailed report. I have forwarded this matter to the
relevant department for investigation.

Please be advised for Security reasons, the results of investigation
cannot be disclosed. I assure you that these matters are investigated
throughly and dealt with accordingly.

Your satisfaction is very important. Please contact us whenever we may
be of further assistance. We are here for you 24 hours a day, everyday.

Kind Regards,
Mandi
Member Support Representative
Pacific Poker


************************************************** *********************

[Mike Fox]

This is John McNally from the Operations Department at Cassava
(Gibraltar) Ltd. who operates Pacific Poker.

Jim, thank you for taking the time to bring this to our attention and I will be contacting you directly when I have completed my investigation into this matter.

I have reviewed your correspondence and I would like to assure you that we take these matters very seriously.

Any player who colludes with or attempts to collude with any other player while using our Service may be permanently banned from using the Service and their account may be terminated immediately.

We have developed and employ sophisticated proprietary technology designed to seek out and identify players acting in collusion, as well as any other fraudulent or unlawful use of our Service.

The Company will always do its best to investigate complaints registered against players suspected of collusion, and I am currently in the process of examining the detailed game history you have provided. Rest assured, I will take all action necessary should any discrepancies be discovered.

Kind regards,

John McNally

Operations Department
Cassava (Gibraltar) Ltd.
operations@cassava.net

[M.B.E.]

Mr. McNally,

When you have completed your investigation, will you post the conclusion you have reached? (As Lee Jones did recently on r.g.p.)

By the way, welcome to 2+2. Just out of curiosity, why did you choose the username "Mike Fox"?

[Jim Kuhn]

Here is Pacific's response.

This is the reply from your Pacific Poker Investigation team. First I will copy your response and then I will respond with my comments.

This message is not flagged. [ Flag Message - Mark as Unread ]

Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 12:43:38 +0000 (GMT)
From: "Operations" <operations@cassava.net> Add to Address Book
To: "Jim Kuhn" <xxx_xx@yahoo.com>
Subject: Pacific Poker Investigation (KMM12074343I1817L0KM)


Dear Jim,

I am Russell Medley from the Operations Department at Cassava
Enterprises (Gibraltar) Ltd. I am writing in response to your previous
e-mail.

We were disappointed that you chose to contact ourselves with your
concerns, and publish these on the forums at the same time. We had
hoped that your previous experiences on Pacific Poker and membership loyalty
would count for more than this, and that you would have allowed us the
time to respond fully to your concerns. These issues need to be
investigated before we can form a full response to your concerns, and
we would have appreciated your patience in this matter. Please be assured
that these are isolated incidents on our site.

Your initial e-mail was forwarded to our department by the Pacific
Poker Member Support Team. We take all complaints of this nature very
seriously and perform an investigation using all of the tools
available. I can inform you that we had already become aware of the two players
you mentioned through our own surveillance, and these games were under
review. Your detailed complaint certainly helped us to confirm what we
were already suspicious of.

Our usual response time for Security E-mails is 48 hours, as this
allows the investigation to be undertaken and any results to be confirmed. Our
tools for investigating these types of concerns are multiple and
complex, we run different programmes on the hands concerned, which can
be many themselves.

I can inform you that the two members you informed us of have been
blocked by our security team, and will never return to our site. Any
funds gained through these collusion activities have been confiscated
by ourselves, and will not be paid out to the colluders. I would stress
though that these funds will not be kept by us, since it is not our
money. These funds will form part of our tournament and raffle prizes
which are redistributed back to our members, in accordance with our
sites philosophy.

Unfortunately I will not be able to refund the money that you lost
through these actions. It cannot be clear how these actions effected
the outcome of these hands. Therefore the funds that you contributed to
these raked hands will form part of the amount redistributed to our
members.

As of your alertness and cooperation in this matter, and because you
helped in our constant campaign against this type of activity, I will
be able to issue your account with a $50 bonus for you to wager on our
tables.

We would have preferred you not to have posted your concerns on the
public forums, but to have allowed us the time and courtesy of doing
our security investigations. If you could please contact us and only us
regarding these unfortunate incidents.

If you require any more assistance with this matter, please do not
hesitate to contact us, we will be happy to help.

Kind Regards,

Russell Medley

Operations Department,
Cassava Enterprises (Gibraltar) Ltd
operations@cassava.net

My responses are as follows:

'We were disappointed that you chose to contact ourselves with your
concerns, and publish these on the forums at the same time. '

You should be thankful for the opportunity to receive free publicity and show that you are harsh with colluders and ensure your customers are treated fairly 'when colluders steal their money'. On several forums you could have gained alot of respect.

'I can inform you that we had already become aware of the two players
you mentioned through our own surveillance, and these games were under
review.'

So you were already aware these player had been cheating? How long had they been cheating? How long were you going to let them cheat? What is the normal process? Do you normally wait for someone to complain?

'Any funds gained through these collusion activities have been confiscated by ourselves, and will not be paid out to the colluders.' 'Unfortunately I will not be able to refund the money that you lost through these actions. It cannot be clear how these actions effected the outcome of these hands. '

I am providing you the opportunity to reconsider prior to posting this on all of those poker forums. There are two viewpoints for this situation. Looking at my viewpoint, I was clearly cheated out of $367. You admit this in your response. I would like my $367 back. You can check my playing history over the past 18 months. I have clearly been one of your top 100 rake generating players. I am not a flea looking for a quick buck. From your viewpoint, you admit they were cheating and I lost the $367 pot. If the pot is rightfully returned to me I will post your new and better response on those poker forums. This will gain you much more than $367 worth of advertising and credibility in the online poker world. Your previous response sure does not look very good as you admit they were cheating and you knew they were cheating prior to my complaint.

This is totally unacceptable! It is very clear how their actions cost me this $367 pot. There were only three of us in the pot. The two colluders and myself. They were cheating and had their funds confiscated. Who else is left to give the funds to? I had the best hand and clearly would have won this pot if the cheaters would not have check raised and reraised me out of the pot! Furthermore you admit that you knew they were cheating prior to this hand. You knew they were cheating, let them continue, I get cheated out of $367 and you confiscate and keep their funds? This certainly does not seem fair to me. I feel you still owe me the $317 that was in my pot that you confiscated from the cheaters. At least please tell me why I would not have won that hand. I had the best hand and was obviously calling until the cheaters pulled their antics! I ask you to please reconsider and pay me the $317 that is owed to me. This will provide your site with much more respect in the eyes of thousands of poker playing readers of these poker forums. Thank you for reconsidering these actions.

Thank you,

Jim Kuhn
Catfish4U
(xxx)xxx-xxxx

[jasonHoldEm]

[ QUOTE ]
Unfortunately I will not be able to refund the money that you lost through these actions. It cannot be clear how these actions effected the outcome of these hands. Therefore the funds that you contributed to these raked hands will form part of the amount redistributed to our members.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow...I had to go over this twice to make sure I read it correctly.

Jim, I'm very sorry for your loss and I appreciate the time you put in bringing this to our attention. Needless to say I'll never play another hand at Pacific as this site obviously values promoting itself over the safety and protection of its players.

jHE