|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Collusion Detected - Question
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.?
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Collusion Detected - Question
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.
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Collusion Detected - Question
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. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Collusion Detected - Question
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 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Collusion Detected - Question
(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 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Collusion Detected - Question
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] |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Collusion Detected - Question
[ 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 |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Collusion Detected - Question
The third example cost me $367. That is the one that alerted me they were colluding. Looking at the hand histories they were constantly betting/raising back to back to run people off of pots. There were other examples but I quit documenting them. This all happened in a period of about 20 hands.
Also, one sat down, got up and the other took his seat. They started playing at the same time and quit at the same time. It sure was fishy when I mentioned collusion and they both quit playing. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Collusion Detected - Question
I've seen a lot weirder plays than the first two, but the third hand is supremely shady. I think the first two hands may even detract from your case... maybe when you write Pacific you can list the third hand first. Good luck.
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Collusion Detected - Question
WHy worry about? Just play your cards. Right? In the end you still have make the best hand to win and if they are trying to push people out of the pot, they are donating to the cause
|
|
|