Opinion: is this collusion?

[Optional]

Is a person with full intent to kill stabs what turns out to be nothing more than an empty blanket guilty of attempted murder?


Not under US law.

Even with (unproven) intent to collude, this is clearly not a case of collusion.

Are you sure about that? Given you can charged with conspiracy to murder for merely talking about killing someone, surely acting on the plan, successful or not, will be against the law.

Can I also put poison in someones food but escape charge if its found before they eat it under US law?

[Santo]

It seems strange to me that collusion is the case the poker room is putting forward, can only imagine they have pretty badly formed TOS if there's no ban on two accounts from one IP etc..

[HedgeHog]

Instead of this hypothetical case, why not respond on the real 5D case, Justin. Grow a pair and respond in that thread. It's on the same page as this one.

[raiders72001]

Instead of this hypothetical case, why not respond on the real 5D case, Justin. Grow a pair and respond in that thread. It's on the same page as this one.

HedgeHog- I normally like your posts but the last two weeks every one of your post includes 5Dimes ignoring the topic being discussed.

[daneblazer]

What is the book doing even letting them on the same table with the same IP address? If I've so much as logged onto my poker account on a different computer miles away and someone logs in on that same CPU on a different account they shouldn't be allowed to play on the same table as me.

[HedgeHog]

HedgeHog- I normally like your posts but the last two weeks every one of your post includes 5Dimes ignoring the topic being discussed.

Yes, and I normally like your posts--even though they always appear in threads that involve outrage against SBR's ruling in favor of sponsor Books. How long before SBR gives you that mod position, buddy--God knows you earned it? Need to wipe that brown from your nose first.

[rumnblack]

HedgeHog- I normally like your posts but the last two weeks every one of your post includes 5Dimes ignoring the topic being discussed.

That's because the thread it's meant to be discussed in has been abandoned without even a hint of mediation.

[Justin7]

Is a person with full intent to kill stabs what turns out to be nothing more than an empty blanket guilty of attempted murder?


Not under US law.

Even with (unproven) intent to collude, this is clearly not a case of collusion.

That would probably be enough to convict of attempted murder. Was there an overt act, pursuing the crime? You can have attempt, even if the actual crime is impossible to commit.

[Justin7]

Instead of this hypothetical case, why not respond on the real 5D case, Justin. Grow a pair and respond in that thread. It's on the same page as this one.

I have been discussing this privately.

[mrpooh]

As long as it isn't a 100% chip dump, no. And hand history should be able to tell you that.

[On the come]

That's because the thread it's meant to be discussed in has been abandoned without even a hint of mediation.

Hijacking other unrelated threads is not the way to go about.

[pimike]

This all comes down to the players INTENT. If u can't prove intent, which with given facts you could not, therefore no foul.

[Ian]

Two friends are playing online at a six-person table. Assume they are from the same IP, and same room for this example. Four seats are empty. They are playing head to head.

The book closes the accounts and keeps everything, citing collusion.

Fair or foul?

What I am getting at...

If the players wanted a head to head match, they could do that at a two-player table. They chose a six-player table. No one has been hurt, but it looks like they are planning on colluding against anyone that enters the table.

If there is a plan to collude that hasn't been fully executed, what should a book do with the players?

The book has an obligation to all their other poker playing customers to 86 both accounts from the poker room even if the evidence of collusion isn't 100% iron clad. Additionally, the proper course of action for the book is to then temporarily freeze both accounts and audit their hand histories to make sure the pair haven't played at the same table in the past. If they have, the book should go over the hand histories and return money won from gamblers the pair successfully colluded against. Whatever money is left should be handed back to the two respective accounts before they are shown the door.

Normally I add the line "just my opinion..." after posts like this, but the steps I outlined above are Standard Operating Procedure. Any deviation from that course of action is atrocious from both a security and a CS point of view. For the book to confiscate the money and keep the cash for themselves is theft, plain and simple.

EDIT: If the floor personnel at a Vegas casino tried what the online site is trying to do, the floor people would face criminal charges and they would permanently lose their licenses/ability to work in Nevada casinos.

[muffins]

Seems sufficient to close accounts but insufficient to retain funds

[Dunhill]

Well, you should just check the rules at pokerstars and apply those rules to whatever case you have now. I know that they keep everything in a case of chip-dumping and in a case of collusion they refund the players that were affected by this and I believe they keep the rest as well.

If you don't want to apply the PS rules to this case;
the room should check if it was a case of chip-dumping (can easily be found by checking HH) or if they colluded before (again very easy to see by reviewing the HH). If there's no chip-dumping and no player was affected by these 2 colluding, they should just refund the deposits and either restrict them from playing at the same table (like pokerstars/full tilt does) or just ban them alltogether if their software is unable to do that.

[The Giant]

There isn't enough evidence to determine one way or another.

If they were working together to grind out rollover points, or if they've been playing at tables with other people, then it's obviously collision.

But maybe it's something innocent, like a husband teaching his wife the game of poker.

Impossible to know, need more information. Assuming this is an isolated incident, they should've gotten a warning, and if you're only allowed one IP per household, eliminate one of the accounts and transfer the funds to the other.

[Dunhill]

But maybe it's something innocent, like a husband teaching his wife the game of poker.

Actually I just remembered reading something like this some time ago on 2+2 or PS. A guy created an account on pokerstars while on vacation and played at the same table (a couple of sngs) as his wife who was at home and had an acc created from their home ip. Pokerstars froze their accounts and after a few emails back and forth the punishment from pokerstars was that their accounts got suspended for 7 days.

After the 7 days passed they had their balances as before suspension and the only difference was that they were unable to play at the same tables.

[Phildo]

What I am getting at...

If the players wanted a head to head match, they could do that at a two-player table. They chose a six-player table. No one has been hurt, but it looks like they are planning on colluding against anyone that enters the table.

If there is a plan to collude that hasn't been fully executed, what should a book do with the players?

If they are literally in the same room and want to play heads up without doing anything shady, they should probably use a deck of cards and a table instead of paying rake and possibly being able to collude with others when they show up.

They could be chipdumping, waiting to screw over people that sit at the table, hustling rakeback and/or reward points, or this very weird action could be the thing that clued the site to look into the accounts and find other examples of collusion.

[On the come]

I like what Ian is saying; the book does have the responsibility to protect all players, but I disagree on two points.

1. "Whatever money is left should be handed back to the two respective accounts before they are shown the door."
I feel like this gives the cheat (not this one in particular, just in general) a license to steal. Best case senario he gets away with it; worse case he loses his illgotten gains, but gets his buy in back. He is then likely to return or try again at another shop, because there is no penalty to his actions.

2. "If the floor personnel at a Vegas casino tried what the online site is trying to do, the floor people would face criminal charges and they would permanently lose their licenses/ability to work in Nevada casinos."
I don't think this is true. To start with, the cheat would likely go to jail. I don't know where the funds would go, but surely they wouldn't be paid out on his way to the paddy wagon.

[Ian]

2. "If the floor personnel at a Vegas casino tried what the online site is trying to do, the floor people would face criminal charges and they would permanently lose their licenses/ability to work in Nevada casinos."
I don't think this is true. To start with, the cheat would likely go to jail. I don't know where the funds would go, but surely they wouldn't be paid out on his way to the paddy wagon.

People can't be thrown in jail for merely acting suspiciously. Theft, however, is still theft regardless of how shifty the victim(s) of that theft may be.

[skrtelfan]

even if the chips are dumped that shouldnt matter unless one player deposited fraudulently or otherwise fraudulently obtained them. could have just been two friends trying to loan money from one to the other in a very dumb manner

[Dark Horse]

nm.

[byronbb]

I think the book can do this because the players can reasonably be assumed to be neither profiting or losing at the game they are playing. There is obvious reason to believe they are basically playing with one bankroll and that they share wins and losses together. This IS what they would be doing if a 3rd party entered and played them. Therefore, it is reasonable assume they are doing the same heads-up, and therefore the game they are playing with each other IS crooked, dishonest, and involves a collusion, because it can reasonable be assumed to share wins and losses. Furthermore their play is probably designed to appear reckless or fishy to entice a victim into their game. This is collusion.