Collusion? What do you think?

OmgUrMom · 02-06-11, 02:07 AM

well if they are cheaters they are dumb because folding 95 is ez there so it didn't help them at all too play it out the way they did. he could of raised the AK and 95 guy could fold. same result.

was a bad player by dadger but he is probably just a poor player. what buyin level is this?

Pap45murF · 02-06-11, 02:10 AM

No. The 95 (me) wasn't in. McCarter was, but since he folded on the turn, it doesn't show his cards.

And it was 20 dollar Double or Nothing (which is chock full of regulars that multi-table like myself... lot of people with 3 gold stars next to their names (top amount of stars you can get for money played))

RANDAZZO · 02-06-11, 02:31 AM

Double or nothing are full of morons

Pap45murF · 02-06-11, 02:34 AM

It all depends Randazzo. Some sites at some stakes are people who like the concept or just like going all-in every hand. But lately, the games are lasting 30-40 minutes, with people using zen-like patience to grind out that rent money. There are about 3 players on my site that are on every single table from 10 am to midnight, not exaggerating.

More accurate to say, full of grinders and morons.

Of course... now that I think about it. Internet poker rooms in general are full of morons. That's why the game is still around.

iQon · 02-06-11, 03:01 AM

Not seeing your point. The whole point of colluding IMO, would be to cheat money from others. This ended up just trading money if they were in cahoots.

Mccarter (fellow "victim", I suppose) tried bluffing on the flop.

chipsaremoney paired a Jack on the Turn, placed another bet which took Mccarter out. Dadger had a legitimate gutshot all along.

I get the sense that Dadger is one of those guys who can't let AK go. Even if it were offsuit, I think he was calling with hopes of pairing and had no regard to the likely straight on the board.

Pap45murF · 02-06-11, 03:28 AM

Forget everything I speculated until the river. It's 2 dudes in the hand. The first guy leads out a min bet. You have the nut flush. Is there any reason NOT to raise?

I mean it's a rule in poker that you can't check the nuts on the river in position or else you get penalized. This rule exists to prevent collusion. Calling a min bet when last to act with the nuts is just as big a "red flag" to me.

darys · 02-06-11, 04:06 AM

why don't you report it to the mod and see what happens?

iQon · 02-06-11, 04:12 AM

I actually didn't see that part, but still; just one hand. If you noticed a trend between the two, you should try putting together a more conclusive hand history.

Also, to my understanding the rule is that you can not simply CHECK in position with the nuts. I've never heard about having to check-raise because you have the nuts.

Yes, he SHOULD have raised but if the other guy folds... same pot. Difference being that's where they would have failed at colluding. Had a fold occurred, the hole cards would have remained private. I just get the sense they're fish looking at how they played their hands. Not colluding.

Like I said, you should put together more hands if there's more to this.

Pap45murF · 02-06-11, 04:36 AM

Yeah, there were only 3 similar hands where they acted like that. I made notes on both of them to see if theyre in the same room again and what not. I was just voicing my suspicions. Chips got so wrapped up in defending my accusations/jokes that he busted out anyways.

daneblazer · 02-06-11, 10:33 AM

More than likely you just caught a few idiots, but you'll need more of a sample size than that to prove collusion.

scarface2738 · 02-06-11, 11:10 AM

does'nt look all that much like collusion to me.

Kaladarus · 02-06-11, 12:27 PM

Cheating for sure no question about it. Report that.

the_situation · 02-07-11, 02:43 AM

VERY fishy playing. who calls with the nut flush? email PokerStars Collusion and theyll look into it. If your right, youll likely get a nice reward.

the_situation · 02-07-11, 02:43 AM

Anyone who says that isnt fishy obviously knows nothing about poker.

MadTiger · 02-07-11, 04:11 AM

Questionable? Yes.

But can you guarantee, without a doubt, that the only explanation for it is collusion between these two players? No.

I HATE cheaters, from friendly, no-money games all the way up to the Olympics. But, if there isn't enough evidence, you have to just leave it alone.

OmgUrMom · 02-07-11, 06:22 AM

Originally posted by the_situation

Anyone who says that isnt fishy obviously knows nothing about poker.

davidchong · 02-07-11, 07:54 AM

no raise preflop.

sinmiedo · 02-07-11, 08:30 AM

the merge network is loaded with collusion play
in the past i reported several cases on a 5 dollars buy in sng but they concluded that it was not collusion at all
when it clearly it was.
i cannot remember exacly the player name but the situation was like they always check to the river their heads ups and always never raised their bets/
finally got 1st and second

mighty maron · 02-07-11, 10:10 AM

Check/calling with the nuts on the river is suspicious. The only rationale is that the nut flush holder is multi-tabling a ton and just missed it. Otherwise clear colluision imo

Mylak · 02-07-11, 12:54 PM

Even most weak retarded idiot multi tabling fish wouldn't check/call the nut flush on the river. Come to think of it, someone who has the ablility to multi tble would never check/call there. That's about as obvious as it gets.