Paranoia or contact support? 10-20 NLH

[Rococo]

I have never played online in a game where I suspected anything sketchy. This experience made me wonder.

I sit down in a 6 handed 10-20 game. Game is composed of the following players: one unknown player who seems OK and has $4000 in front; two solid players with stacks of approximately $3500 and $5000; and two weak short stack players (both seated next to each other). I am seated to the left of the unknown player and to the right of the short stacks.

There is an excessive amount of "over the top" chatter among the solid players and the unknown player. There is a lot of talk about "bitch-slapping", calling each other fish, etc., but no one seems to be getting pissed off. I also notice that one of the solid players seems to be open limping a lot more than I would expect a solid player to limp.

Then a hand comes up where one of the short stacks open raises UTG for $50. Solid player makes it $125 to go. Unknown player calls. Weak player UTG calls. Flop comes 9 [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] 6 [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] 2 [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]. UTG checks, solid player bets $200. Unknown player calls. UTG folds.

Turn is a brick. Before he plays, solid player types in the chat line: "I'm not trying to play against the big money at the table. I was going after the [weak player UTG]. I have a good hand, but I'm going to check." Turn goes check-check. River is another brick. It goes check-check as well. Solid shows K [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]K [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]. Unknown player folds without showing.

I leave the table shortly after this hand, having lost a little because I was completely card dead and playing tight.

Another player that I like to play against opens a shorthanded table $600 max buy in. I sit in and within five minutes, the two solid player from the previous table sit in and start yapping again. I leave after about ten minutes.

FWIW, there were very few higher limit games running at the time that I was playing. I am a known player on the site. I certainly do not crush the higher limit games, but on the other hand, I am certain that other players do not perceive me as a mark.

I will be the first to admit that if this was a collusion stategy, it wasn't at all sophisticated and won't last long. I also understand that I should get up from the table if I feel uncomfortable for any reason.

Those points aside, would others have been suspicious given the circumstances that I describe. If so, how would you handle it? I also would be curious to know whether anyone believes that the knowledge that other players were colluding could offset the value to the colluding players of working together.

[TonyBlair]

Were the effects of last night's Ecstasy wearing off?

People collude all the time online in one way or another. MSN sees to that. If you feel particularly suspicious, inform support and move on.

[Rococo]

I never suggested that collusion didn't happen, and I never suggested that I was going to struggle to carry on with my life as a result of this experience.

So let me get this straight -- you advice boils down to this -- "contact support if you want to contact support".

Thanks a lot.

[bobman0330]

Only contact Party support if you want an exercise in frustration. They won't do a damn thing unless these people are stupid enough to split the proceeds via inter-account transfer or collude so obviously that their $7/hr. Indian call-center pros can spot it.

I was playing a Step 4 once, down to 4 handed (2 move), 2 big stacks and 2 short, and one big stack said to the other, "Don't get into a pot with me, let's just bust these other 2 short stacks." The other player agreed. I pushed my next reasonable hand and busted.

According to PP, this verbal agreement to collude is not collusion. So, I don't know what kind of response you can hope to get. (PP support conversational gem: "If you had been smart, you could have used the knowledge that they were colluding to your advantage.")

Ah, Partypoker... if they didn't have SO MANY fish, i would relish closing my account with them.

[BluffTHIS!]

This seems to me to just be "coffeehousing", i.e. chat designed to induce a certain action in the opponent, in this case a check. He just probably didn't want to be bet/raised off the best hand or put his money in on a K flush draw if he were already beat and just wanted it checked down to the end, and the other player went for it. This also can't be collusion since the 3rd player was already out of the hand, and if they were two buddies they wouldn't need to chat to just check it down from there.

[Rococo]

Perhaps. Unknown's smooth call on the flop was weird and looked like an attempt to keep the short stack involved in the hand (which wouldn't necessarily suggest collusion if Unknown had a big hand, which he apparently did not). I wondered if the chatter on the turn was an attempt to make overt collusion look like what you described as "coffehousing".

Like I said, I may be paranoid, but it sure felt like a funny line from two good players -- especially the river check by the player with KK.

[Leptyne]

I suppose it would be naive to think that there is money changing hands and there isn't somebody trying to steal it. Since people seem to be expected to cheat on their income tax, their expense account, doing car repairs, etc. there is a pretty good chance that somebody is cheating on-line, or trying to, at this very moment. Since I play 10 seat tables almost exclusively cheating or collusion there is much less likely to have any impact, or generate any income to cheats. The smaller the game the easier it would be so 2-1 would be perfect. Collusion would seem to be pretty simple via instant messaging or cell phone. Add in different accounts (and aliases) at Empire and others, along with multiple accounts (Spouse, child, etc.) and it would be difficult to detect.

Difficult, but not impossible. It seems like the kind of thing that would easily generate a pattern, thus making it possible to search.

We're talking some really, really big bucks here for Party/Empire and I would think they would do a better job of security and customer relations. I think this is a market driven issue and as the problem continues to grow players will seek a more secure site.

Sorry I don't have anything more constructive to add. The leaks in my game have a MUCH bigger impact on my bank account than collusion.

[Ulysses]

This does not look like collusion at all to me.

[iceman5]

I played a live $2/$5 hand not too long ago.

2 guys limped, I raised to $30 with QQ and got 3 callers. The 2 limpers and a cold caller directly to my left.

The flop came all rags. I bet $100 and the guy on ly left called. The others folded. I knew immediately that I was beaten. Nobody at this table was calling $100 best and he looked very confident.

The turn came and I sat there for a second and checked. he then said "Im not going to bet the hand, lets check it down". I didnt reply, but I checked the river and so did he.

He had KK. I had never seen the guy before that night but we did have some friendly chatting going between us.

That might look like collusion to an outsider. I have no idea why he did it.