[Justin7]

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?

[benandjerry]

Book is attemtping to twist their own terms to steal players funds. Even though it may theoretically be against their terms as long as they cease to play at the same table the moment a third player joins there is no foul. Book would profit from rake but choose to take player funds as effectivly as possible. Plain and simply theft, nobody should ever play at such site.

[cloudagh]

Collusion to do what? Book gets the rake. As long as no one else sits at the table it seems fine. If the book does not want them swapping cash then close their accounts or warn them and then return all funds. Absolutely no reason for the book to take a shot at them and steal. IMO

[Santo]

Certainly not collusion as long as there was never a 3rd player... May well be a breach of money laundering type rules though.. I'd pay them if they pass KYC procedures in case you need to follow up on the funds later, and limit them to 1 account per IP..

[harvesters]

Yes

[harvesters]

Yes

My bad misread the scenario - obviously no

[Trident]

Did one or the other deposit with a CC?

Was the play suspicious, like big raise with small reraise then original raiser folds etc.

Were they playing higher limits than than normal.

What are the rules concerning same IP, physical address etc.

I am sure there are more points that any security department would look at.

This has chip dump then CC ********** written all over it at first glance if one or both deposited with a CC or could be two guys who got caught dumping funds to a friend since it is like pulling teeth these days for a US to get paid on most Poker sites.

[benandjerry]

Did one or the other deposit with a CC?

Was the play suspicious, like big raise with small reraise then original raiser folds etc.

Were they playing higher limits than than normal.

What are the rules concerning same IP, physical address etc.

I am sure there are more points that any security department would look at.

This has chip dump then CC ********** written all over it at first glance if one or both deposited with a CC or could be two guys who got caught dumping funds to a friend since it is like pulling teeth these days for a US to get paid on most Poker sites.

I agree that it could be chip dumping. But one would think they'd give that as reason then, as per Justin's question the explanation for confiscating the funds was collusion so I ruled that one out. If they suspected chip dumping one player would have would have to withdraw the funds at which point they could close, and investigate. There was no mention of a withdrawal, or both players trying to clean out their accounts.

[On the come]

Without other players involved, it looks like more of a chip dumping case (assuming they are up to no good). What's their history here? Do they just dump back and forth while waiting for a mark to stumble in?

[FreeFall]

From what you've described fair.

How about we ask the question from an innocent point of view ( as we are innocent until guilty in the US ); What have the players done to be colluding? Is it colluding when I tell Jim and Joe to go bet on the "winning" side of the ravens next weekend and it wins?

As others are suggesting I think you need more on their previous history with the company, but this is all assuming that everyone is evil and they are all guilty which is true in Mexico. Not the US.

[HedgeHog]

Opinion: Should a Book be allowed to confiscate a Player's entire balance because of one mispriced bet?

Say a player wins $3000 on a single bad bet (should have won just $30). The rest of the player's action is perfectly fine and he runs his balance to $43,000. The Book then notices the original error and confiscates the entire balance instead of just the $3000 overpayment on the one bet. Player points out that the Book's own rule calls for the bet in question to get reduced to its proper odds (loss of 3k in profit), but the remaining action stands (+40k in this case). Book counters that the rule doesn't apply, because the player wouldn't have won so much w/o the original 3k he should have never received. How do you rule?

[touchback]

Did one or the other deposit with a CC?

Was the play suspicious, like big raise with small reraise then original raiser folds etc.

Were they playing higher limits than than normal.

What are the rules concerning same IP, physical address etc.

I am sure there are more points that any security department would look at.

This has chip dump then CC ********** written all over it at first glance if one or both deposited with a CC or could be two guys who got caught dumping funds to a friend since it is like pulling teeth these days for a US to get paid on most Poker sites.

Exactly... what is the volume and how did they fund their accounts... of course it is an automatic violation for the IP issue which most likely when checked will be under terms and conditions. Given how bad some service tech issues are and the fact that they have not even caught up or adjusted policy to better deal with IP, cloaker,and proxy issues you will just end up getting slammed as a customer.

[meckis]

Seems like chip dumping, but even if it is true book should still return money to both accounts.

[HedgeHog]

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?

Depends on the Book. If it's a sponsor like 5D, SBR rules the Book is correct to keep everything and brings in its puppet mod to confirm the players were up to no good. If it's a non-sponsor, then the case is handed over to you where the crooked Book is likely exposed, possibly with a video included. That's how things work here now at Sponsor Be Right, watchdog for the advertisers.

[SlickRick1382]

Did one or the other deposit with a CC?

Was the play suspicious, like big raise with small reraise then original raiser folds etc.

Were they playing higher limits than than normal.

What are the rules concerning same IP, physical address etc.

I am sure there are more points that any security department would look at.

This has chip dump then CC ********** written all over it at first glance if one or both deposited with a CC or could be two guys who got caught dumping funds to a friend since it is like pulling teeth these days for a US to get paid on most Poker sites.

Agree with Trident here.

Need more facts to understand what exactly took place and whether their ruling was a fair one ...

[mtneer1212]

Foul. No one is being hurt here, book gets rake.

UNLESS - this is a ********** chip dump setup, or a hacked account setup.

[Justin7]

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?

[Optional]

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?

Boot them and return balance, or deposits if they have swapped much money.

[shari91]

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?

I think about a lot of things in my mind - some good, some not so much. Doesn't mean any of them come to fruition.

If a poker room is going to penalise someone for setting a supposed trap - even though no one even acted on it and therefore there's no proof of it - then wtf are we even doing? Proof of wrongdoing and someone claims ignorance is one thing... proof of no wrongdoing and the book just *thinks* the players are trying to ensnare others seems wacked out.

[wtt0315]

as long as both deposited where no money can be charged back then it should be ok.

[Optional]

I think about a lot of things in my mind - some good, some not so much. Doesn't mean any of them come to fruition.

If a poker room is going to penalise someone for setting a supposed trap - even though no one even acted on it and therefore there's no proof of it - then wtf are we even doing? Proof of wrongdoing and someone claims ignorance is one thing... proof of no wrongdoing and the book just *thinks* the players are trying to ensnare others seems wacked out.

That's a bit like saying the robber in the balaclava with a crowbar in his hand on your back doorstep should only be considered a harmless trespasser because you disturbed him before he got in.

If it's as obvious a situation as Justin7 makes it sound.

[touchback]

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?

My opinion... even if it appears that there may or may not be a plan to collude it is still an unproven plan. If a guy walks by a bank and is carrying a concealed weapon he may or may not have a plan to rob it. He has not robbed and can not be accused or even tried as a bank robber. Maybe he is an undercover officer. You have to prove either collusion is planned or collusion has taken place to use either as grounds to penalize said customer. All they have at the moment most likely is a IP violation of terms and conditions which should already be on the website... not added after the fact...

Did not see you Optional... responded to J7 right away... agree with you 100%.

[shari91]

That's a bit like saying the robber in the balaclava with a crowbar in his hand on your back doorstep should only be considered a harmless trespasser because you disturbed him before he got in.

If it's as obvious a situation as Justin7 makes it sound.

Sure, if you consider two people playing poker together from the same house the equivalent of that. However someone standing at my doorstep with a weapon and dressed a certain way clearly allows me to jump to a conclusion... but would I be let off if I shot the guy and killed him from my upstairs window before he even attempted to enter my house? Maybe in Texas I guess? But not many other places. How do we know that the players weren't just waiting for someone else to join and then one was going to bolt? Maybe they were just bored. How do we know that the players involved even knew that what they were doing was wrong ie at FTP matching IPs aren't allowed to sit at the same table. System blocks you. Not even sure if they're allowed at the same tourney as I haven't tried that. Maybe they're two newer guys just wanting to play online.

Part of me loves when J7 puts out these obscure questions because they make me question my beliefs and I always love to see others' interpretations... the other part of me feels like I'm being played like a marionette because he has all of the facts and we're fed them piece meal.

[boeing power]

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?

Give them a warning that they are being monitored.

[touchback]

Give them a warning that they are being monitored.

Or this.... or even come right out an ask, I am sure that will deal with a possible issue before it arises... are you going to rob that bank because we are watching. The end...

[touchback]

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?

Final answer... FOUL. The book cannot prove collusion at this point so cannot close the accounts and seize the funds based on collusion. It is only a IP violation based on parameters of said assumption... which said assumption I do not believe to be 100% accurate considering many card rooms will not allow play from multiple seats with the same IP now. The main problem is proxy IPs and cloakers that are used to get around this standard software restriction.

[On the come]

We can't say fair or foul at this point. Justin7 is leaving out too much information. Maybe they're known scammers to the book. Maybe they have already been kicked out and warned not to return. Maybe they are just donks.

[TomG]

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.

[raiders72001]

From what's presented, it's not collusion. I would need a lot more info if I were making the decision to figure out why they weren't playing heads up. Have the players played at the same table in the past? Were they just trying to meet rollover requirements on a bonus? Hand history for chip dumping.

[jeter12171]

yes it is collusion had a big problem like that transfering funds to a friend

[HedgeHog]

So a book should be allowed to confiscate funds based on what someone (s) might be thinking of doing? No way. Let's say I am having impure thoughts of my sexy neighbor down the hall, does this make me guilty of rape?

PS This is just a hypothetical example and I've "punished" myself repeatedly for it.

[Derp]

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?

This is "thought crime" and if they go down that road where would the limit on possible infractions be for any player? Barring any other suspicious activity that could result in fraud or charge back I'd say let them off with a stern warning and then monitor them closely for awhile. If they are real fraudsters the rep who talks to them to explain the rules should sniff it out if they know their job.

[Derp]

Opinion: Should a Book be allowed to confiscate a Player's entire balance because of one mispriced bet?

Say a player wins $3000 on a single bad bet (should have won just $30). The rest of the player's action is perfectly fine and he runs his balance to $43,000. The Book then notices the original error and confiscates the entire balance instead of just the $3000 overpayment on the one bet. Player points out that the Book's own rule calls for the bet in question to get reduced to its proper odds (loss of 3k in profit), but the remaining action stands (+40k in this case). Book counters that the rule doesn't apply, because the player wouldn't have won so much w/o the original 3k he should have never received. How do you rule?

Totally different situation here. You're saying a guy gets an unexpected winfall because of a grading mistake and uses that money to run up a big balance? If that's the case the house would be entitled to take back all winnings that were generated from the $3000. To be fair they could re-enter all subsequent wagers at an adjusted price ie. instead of $550/$500 it would be $5.50/$5. This scenario reminds me of the guy who mistakenly got $80K or something like that deposited in his bank account and ran out and sepnt it all. He knew it was a mistake, he knew the money wasn't his and after his spending binge was over he had to face the legal consequences and who would disagree that he shouldn't?

[Kindred]

If they weren't planning to collude they wouldn't sit at a six max table and pay rake. Same IP, they could play at pay money tables and settle up after the game saving the rake.

And that's assuming there were no HU tables for them to play on.

I wouldn't feel safe playing on a site that lets two guys from the same IP address sit at a table with me. People who think this gives the book too much power, then refund deposits instead of confiscate funds. You can't just let them fleece the rest of their customers..even if they got caught before technically cheating.

[HedgeHog]

Is this Collusion?

See my post #11 and know that it involves 5D. Facts are the same, but dollar amounts may be slightly off. The OP, SBR's finest mediator (my honest belief), expresses an opinion that the player should be paid--PER 5D's OWN RULES. Afterwards, he's never heard from again in that thread as SBR allegedly attempts to whitewash the case for their sponsor. Is this collusion or has Justin7 chosen personally not to back his beliefs because of some other reason.