Obvious Collusion at *edited* (Long -Cliff Notes at bottom)
 

MOD NOTE: I edited the title to make it not show the name of the club. I will not comment on these specific allegations other than to say that at various times part of my job has been to explain to people that aggressive poker is not collusive in nature. -RR


Was in MN this week visiting family...

Played the 15-30 at Canterbury and did pretty well (won a couple racks in about 6 hours).

Walked in today and decided to take a 1 rack ($1,000) shot at the "big" game, 30-60.

I kind of just wanted to splash around and have a good time, see how the locals played, and see some cards.

I know PokerBob is a frequent poster on this forum, so I'm sure we'll hear from him soon (he was at my table)... HOWEVER, if he hasn't in the past brought up the fact that there is OBVIOUS collusion in that 30-60 game... then he is either involved or has decided not to let anyone know.

There was at least 2 obvious teams of 2 players or more working that room... and that's just what I could observe in the 3 hours I played in the 30-60.

When I got there around 2pm, there was a main game and a 5 handed must move going. Two of the players at the must move tried to pretend as though they didn't know eachother when my brother and I first sat down; however, eventually through over-hearing their conversation with the dealers, the cat was out of the bag and I realized that they are best friends and noticed something about them playing raquetball together (one had a shaved head and the other was a taller man with dark hair, a black trendy cap, and long teeth).

These guys, in addition to one other "team" I observed were OBVIOUSLY working together.

A perfect example of their colluding was as follows...

My bro is under the gun with 10-10... he raises, Colluder #1 three-bets and says some phrase to his friend with the word "buddy" in it. I'm guessing "buddy" is some type of code word they use as I heard them use this several times prior to using a whip-saw move. Needless to say, colluder #2 four-bets. Both blinds and my bro folded.

Flop was 2-4-9 offsuit. C#1 checked... C#2 bet... C#1 folded the flop for 1 bet (mind you, the pot had 11 1/2 bets in it). Anyone that plays limit poker never folds the flop for one bet in an eleven bet pot... it just didn't make sense. If he was just a bad player, he would have peeled for overcards/ a pair/ or to pick up a draw; if he was a good player, he would know that the pot was laying him odds to continue with almost any hand.

This exact move happened several times.

Another move that was obvious to anyone paying attention was the following:

C#1 would raise under the gun and get a caller or two. C#2 would make it 3 bets on the button (I'm sure if this was to drive out the blinds and/or just to charge more bets to the players in between who hadn't re-raised).

C#1 would call. On the flop the two colluders would ask a question along the lines of "hey pal, you're not getting out of line over there are you?".

Based on the response and/or head-shake between the two, one of the two would fold the hand on the flop. They were OBVIOUSLY best-handing the field after the flop depending on who flopped the bigger hand and/or draw. This became obvious to me on a hand where the UTG raiser continued on with the pot, his friend 'colluder #2' folded the flop, and C#1 turned over something like 6-9 off suite for 2 flopped pair.

Finally, right before moving to the main game, I busted one of them out and asked them point blank if "buddy" was a code word for 3 Bet or just a code word for "I have a big hand".

As expected, the colluders did exactly what good colluders should do when I questioned them about their tactics. They didn't deny it, didn't make a big scene, didn't argue with me, and they just kind of waited to see if I was going to call the floor. I'm almost positive that anyone not colluding would have made a stand against the fact that someone was calling them a cheat.

Coincidentally, right as I started making an issue, we all got moved to the main game due to there being four seats open (Ironically, this raises another question: What are the chances of the main game loosing 4 players at the exact same time unless all of these players that racked up were working together?!? How many times have you actually seen a full ring game loose FOUR players at once in limit poker?).

Once at the main game, the two colluders took an immediate break and walked off together to obviously talk strategy.

When they returned I was only at the table for about 30 minutes before getting busted (1/2 from bad play and 1/2 from bad luck)... after they returned from their break they appeared to knock off the colluding.

Another situation that I observed was from another team of colluders sitting next to eachother in seat 4 and 5.

C#1 would be under the gun with a hand like KK. He would limp, and C#2 would raise, a few on the table would call, UTG would make it three-bets, and C#2 would fold for one bet.

IT WAS SICKENING. Being a mid-limit player in LA... I've seen some good teams, some horrible teams, and everything in between. I've been cheated by teams I didn't know existed until years later. I'm 100% sure that what I say is accurate and important to anyone playing poker in MN.

I glad to say that I didn't observe the same thing at the 15-30 game. I don't know if this was just luck, or if all the big cheats were in the 30-60 game when I was playing 15-30 on Memorial day.

Anyways, I felt the need to give you the heads up.

Anyone from the Canterbury Club that disputes these facts are either oblivious, or are part of a team working to STEAL your money.

*Cliff Notes- Canterbury club in MN has lots of cheats in their big limit game.

Re: Obvious Collusion at the Canterbury Club (Long -Cliff Notes at bot
 

Never been to Canterbury so I won't comment on that, but it's not really that uncommon at all for a main game to be full for a few hours with nobody leaving then suddenly lose a bunch of players, in fact it happens pretty often. In the games I play if someone suggested this was a result of people playing in "teams" I would soil myself with laughter because multiple spots opening up are usually the result of the terrible players running out of dollars which will either prompt the winning but still crappy players to leave or sometimes some of the other fish that like to play with their horrible buddies.

Also you should probably tell your buddy that folding TT for 2 more bets there is awful.

The few times I have thought that people might be working together in a game as a result of an unusual play I have later decided that they were just morons.

Re: Obvious Collusion at the Canterbury Club (Long -Cliff Notes at bot
 

I would have approached security OUTSIDE the room and reported the activity. These jokers were so blatently obvious from what you wrote.

If they had half a brain they would use chips or certain noises using chips to direct action, and reveal hands.. Like 2 taps= raise, 1 tap= fold.

Re: Obvious Collusion at the Canterbury Club (Long -Cliff Notes at bottom)
 

I have heard of cheating in the game, but have never obviously witnessed it. The term "buddy" is used in the 15 and 30 game by many players. It comes from HSP. I have been called buddy literally hundreds of times @ CP, its just slang. I dont think your evidence is at all conclusive. That game can be tough, the players have played many hours together and many game select and probably roll off each other. Bc, there are no higher games the player pool becomes tight-nit though I dont think to the point of having teams.

Re: Obvious Collusion at the Canterbury Club (Long -Cliff Notes at bot
 

[ QUOTE ]

Also you should probably tell your buddy that folding TT for 2 more bets there is awful.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree... I don't want to make this a strategy session, but I think he is looking at something like 3 unique over cards and/or an over pair... very hard to dodge all of them on the flop. Furthermore, set value goes down because if you don't flop top set (and it's four bet preflop) you could easily be looking at set over set if the board brings more broadway cards than just your 10.

In addition, Canturberry club allows 5 bets on each street, so if he called, he was probably actually calling 3 more bets pre-flop, not just the two.

[ QUOTE ]

The few times I have thought that people might be working together in a game as a result of an unusual play I have later decided that they were just morons.

[/ QUOTE ]

I tend to agree. AND- I hate to make these claims on such a small sample size. However, my brother and I have played poker fairly regularly for 6-7 years and we both thought the cheating today was fairly obvious. Also, another buddy of mine was sitting on the rail watching the game while waiting for a 15-30, he caught on too before I even said anything.

100% collusion going on in the game.

Re: Obvious Collusion at the Canterbury Club (Long -Cliff Notes at bot
 

i don't even know where to begin with this BS, but I will start with this statement....
[ QUOTE ]
HOWEVER, if he hasn't in the past brought up the fact that there is OBVIOUS collusion in that 30-60 game... then he is either involved or has decided not to let anyone know.

[/ QUOTE ]

you are making a very serious accusation here. if you have any evidence, then either bring it or shut the [censored] up.

Re: Obvious Collusion at the Canterbury Club (Long -Cliff Notes at bottom)
 

[ QUOTE ]
I have heard of cheating in the game, but have never obviously witnessed it. The term "buddy" is used in the 15 and 30 game by many players. It comes from HSP. I have been called buddy literally hundreds of times @ CP, its just slang. I dont think your evidence is at all conclusive. That game can be tough, the players have played many hours together and many game select and probably roll off each other. Bc, there are no higher games the player pool becomes tight-nit though I dont think to the point of having teams.

[/ QUOTE ]

I the game is a "local" game. I know that when you are playing with a small pool of players (maybe only 80-90 that play on a regular basis in that game) you get to know eachother and have strong reads.

HOWEVER, this is just further proof to my claim. One of the colluders played A-K VERY hard from all posisitions... even 5 betting a tight player several times preflop. Therefore, if you "knew" your opponent, you would be LESS likely to fold for one bet on a small flop as you would KNOW he may only have AK and or being betting with total air here.

Re: Obvious Collusion at the Canterbury Club (Long -Cliff Notes at bot
 

[ QUOTE ]
i don't even know where to begin with this BS, but I will start with this statement....
[ QUOTE ]
HOWEVER, if he hasn't in the past brought up the fact that there is OBVIOUS collusion in that 30-60 game... then he is either involved or has decided not to let anyone know.

[/ QUOTE ]

you are making a very serious accusation here. if you have any evidence, then either bring it or shut the [censored] up.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree Bob. However your tone is a bit on the guilty-defensive side.

He already gave plenty of evidence. Someone 3 betting and then folding to a single bet is HIGHLY suspicious.

Re: Obvious Collusion at the Canterbury Club (Long -Cliff Notes at bot
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Also you should probably tell your buddy that folding TT for 2 more bets there is awful.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree... I don't want to make this a strategy session, but I think he is looking at something like 3 unique over cards and/or an over pair... very hard to dodge all of them on the flop. Furthermore, set value goes down because if you don't flop top set (and it's four bet preflop) you could easily be looking at set over set if the board brings more broadway cards than just your 10.

In addition, Canturberry club allows 5 bets on each street, so if he called, he was probably actually calling 3 more bets pre-flop, not just the two.

[ QUOTE ]

The few times I have thought that people might be working together in a game as a result of an unusual play I have later decided that they were just morons.

[/ QUOTE ]

I tend to agree. AND- I hate to make these claims on such a small sample size. However, my brother and I have played poker fairly regularly for 6-7 years and we both thought the cheating today was fairly obvious. Also, another buddy of mine was sitting on the rail watching the game while waiting for a 15-30, he caught on too before I even said anything.

100% collusion going on in the game.

[/ QUOTE ]

this is absurd. i hate to burst your bubble, but you guys simply suck at limit poker. i watched one of you raise preflop, get 3bet from the blind, then call. flop comes like QT8 with 2 clubs, blind bets, you raise, blind 3bets, you fold. in your initial rant you say no one folds in a pot that big, yet you did.

and having your 'buddy' watch and agree means nothing. i have played with him before. he is simply awful.

Re: Obvious Collusion at the Canterbury Club (Long -Cliff Notes at bot
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
i don't even know where to begin with this BS, but I will start with this statement....
[ QUOTE ]
HOWEVER, if he hasn't in the past brought up the fact that there is OBVIOUS collusion in that 30-60 game... then he is either involved or has decided not to let anyone know.

[/ QUOTE ]

you are making a very serious accusation here. if you have any evidence, then either bring it or shut the [censored] up.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree Bob. However your tone is a bit on the guilty-defensive side.

He already gave plenty of evidence. Someone 3 betting and then folding to a single bet is HIGHLY suspicious.

[/ QUOTE ]

i don't recall that hand, but i know the 2 guys he is talking about. i have played a great deal with them both. they are not a team. period.

and being friends with people in the game means nothing. i play HARDER against my friends than anyone else and am CONSTANTLY [censored] with them/putting them in bad spots.

the guy who made this post limped K6s utg in a 9 handed game. he clearly doesn't know much about limit hold'em.

Re: Obvious Collusion at the Canterbury Club (Long -Cliff Notes at bot
 

[ QUOTE ]
I have heard of cheating in the game, but have never obviously witnessed it. The term "buddy" is used in the 15 and 30 game by many players. It comes from HSP. I have been called buddy literally hundreds of times @ CP, its just slang. I dont think your evidence is at all conclusive. That game can be tough, the players have played many hours together and many game select and probably roll off each other. Bc, there are no higher games the player pool becomes tight-nit though I dont think to the point of having teams.

[/ QUOTE ]

i have never seen anything that i suspected as collusion in any game at canterbury.

Re: Obvious Collusion at the Canterbury Club (Long -Cliff Notes at bot
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
i don't even know where to begin with this BS, but I will start with this statement....
[ QUOTE ]
HOWEVER, if he hasn't in the past brought up the fact that there is OBVIOUS collusion in that 30-60 game... then he is either involved or has decided not to let anyone know.

[/ QUOTE ]

you are making a very serious accusation here. if you have any evidence, then either bring it or shut the [censored] up.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree Bob. However your tone is a bit on the guilty-defensive side.

He already gave plenty of evidence. Someone 3 betting and then folding to a single bet is HIGHLY suspicious.

[/ QUOTE ]

i don't recall that hand, but i know the 2 guys he is talking about. i have played a great deal with them both. they are not a team. period.

and being friends with people in the game means nothing. i play HARDER against my friends than anyone else and am CONSTANTLY [censored] with them/putting them in bad spots.

the guy who made this post limped K6s utg in a 9 handed game. he clearly doesn't know much about limit hold'em.

[/ QUOTE ]

K6, k that's pretty sad for 30/60 LHE

Re: Obvious Collusion at the Canterbury Club (Long -Cliff Notes at bot
 

lol?

Re: Obvious Collusion at the Canterbury Club (Long -Cliff Notes at bot
 

Here I'll say this and just sit back and watch people make fun of you:

I have played ~1200 logged hours in the cp 30/60.

I am friendly with most players and friends with a few.

On average when I play there I know 7.5 of the players at the table.

Not once have I ever suspected collusion or cheating of any kind.

I know who you're referring to, both are laggy and can get out of line often.

Get over yourself.

[ QUOTE ]
C#1 would be under the gun with a hand like KK. He would limp, and C#2 would raise, a few on the table would call, UTG would make it three-bets, and C#2 would fold for one bet.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have never, ever seen this happen in this game, ever. If it did I would be pretty upset. I think you're full of s---.

Re: Obvious Collusion at the Canterbury Club (Long -Cliff Notes at bot
 

[ QUOTE ]
Here I'll say this and just sit back and watch people make fun of you:

I have played ~1200 logged hours in the cp 30/60.

I am friendly with most players and friends with a few.

On average when I play there I know 7.5 of the players at the table.

Not once have I ever suspected collusion or cheating of any kind.

I know who you're referring to, both are laggy and can get out of line often.

Get over yourself.

[ QUOTE ]
C#1 would be under the gun with a hand like KK. He would limp, and C#2 would raise, a few on the table would call, UTG would make it three-bets, and C#2 would fold for one bet.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have never, ever seen this happen in this game, ever. If it did I would be pretty upset. I think you're full of s---.

[/ QUOTE ]

there was a hand in the main game where a tight regular limped utg, someone raised, the collusion accuser 3bet, utg tanked and then called 2 cold. he had KK and was doing some awful acting that we mocked him for after the hand. he did not 4bet preflop. he whiffed a c/r in there at some point. we laughed at him after the hand. this guy accusing of collusion is a moron.

Re: Obvious Collusion at the Canterbury Club (Long -Cliff Notes at bot
 

[ QUOTE ]
Two of the players at the must move tried to pretend as though they didn't know eachother when my brother and I first sat down;

[/ QUOTE ]

I was in the game before you got there and when you arrived. They did not "pretend" to do anything. You guys bought in for a total of $1600-$1800. There are multiple fish who buy in for several thousand each in that game frequently. You guys did not present this great opportunity that only comes along once in a great while and so they had to capitalize on it by colluding. Get over yourself.

Re: Obvious Collusion at the Canterbury Club (Long -Cliff Notes at bot
 

[ QUOTE ]


Finally, right before moving to the main game, I busted one of them out and asked them point blank if "buddy" was a code word for 3 Bet or just a code word for "I have a big hand".


[/ QUOTE ]

who did you bust out? the only people i recall busting from the must-move game were you and your bro.

Re: Obvious Collusion at the Canterbury Club (Long -Cliff Notes at bot
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I have heard of cheating in the game, but have never obviously witnessed it. The term "buddy" is used in the 15 and 30 game by many players. It comes from HSP. I have been called buddy literally hundreds of times @ CP, its just slang. I dont think your evidence is at all conclusive. That game can be tough, the players have played many hours together and many game select and probably roll off each other. Bc, there are no higher games the player pool becomes tight-nit though I dont think to the point of having teams.

[/ QUOTE ]

i have never seen anything that i suspected as collusion in any game at canterbury.

[/ QUOTE ]

i have, but not by anybody in any game above 8/16. Thats the thing about live collusion, if you are good enough to get away with then you have to be outsmarting the toughest players in the game. Why take this risk if you are simply smarter and can outplay them. I cnat imagine that top players would allow this to go on unchecked.

Re: Obvious Collusion at the Canterbury Club (Long -Cliff Notes at bot
 

[ QUOTE ]
i don't even know where to begin with this BS, but I will start with this statement....
[ QUOTE ]
HOWEVER, if he hasn't in the past brought up the fact that there is OBVIOUS collusion in that 30-60 game... then he is either involved or has decided not to let anyone know.

[/ QUOTE ]

you are making a very serious accusation here. if you have any evidence, then either bring it or shut the [censored] up.

[/ QUOTE ]

i should point out that if this is true of me, it must then also be true of the other players in that game. so, you are accusing bicyclekick, schneids, worm33, vehn, mitchl and a variety of other well-respected limit players of either (a) turning a blind eye to or (b) being involved in cheating. not smart.

Re: Obvious Collusion at the Canterbury Club (Long -Cliff Notes at bot
 

[ QUOTE ]
i don't even know where to begin with this BS, but I will start with this statement....
[ QUOTE ]
HOWEVER, if he hasn't in the past brought up the fact that there is OBVIOUS collusion in that 30-60 game... then he is either involved or has decided not to let anyone know.

[/ QUOTE ]

you are making a very serious accusation here. if you have any evidence, then either bring it or shut the [censored] up.

[/ QUOTE ]

The evidence is in the obvious play of the colluders.

I observed you play for about 7 hours over the past 2 days and I personally don't think you are involved at all. However, I'm suprised you've never even brought up the possibility before.

You play pretty straight up as far as I can tell for that crazy game.

HOWEVER, it's very obvious there are a couple teams that are playing off combined bankrolls.

I would bet my bottom dollar that the two friends that were playing with us today in the short handed game, then moved with us and took a dinner break together are working off the same bankroll, and are making moves against the table on a regular basis. If you don't know who I'm talking about, it's the two buddies that were talking about playing raquetball together.

I think if you sat back and looked at their specific play, you'd see what I'm saying is correct. You know darn well that NO-ONE in that game folds the flop for 1 bet (especially after putting in 4-5 bets preflop).

I'm not some punk-kid / troll with 23 posts. I've been around a LONG time and learned to identify most of the angles / cheaters while playing at the commerce. You ARE getting cheated at that game if you aren't one of the best handing teams that are working the Canturbery club.

Maybe you are such a good player that you are still winning at that game -OR- maybe you have sub-consciously adjusted to the fact that they cheat and are staying out of pots where the best handing teams are cheating... but let me assure you... there ARE colluders at your game.

Personally, I don't really care. I doulbt I'll ever be back out here again. However, I felt an obligation to inform 2+2er's what's going on.

Re: Obvious Collusion at the Canterbury Club (Long -Cliff Notes at bot
 

lolololololololol

Re: Obvious Collusion at the Canterbury Club (Long -Cliff Notes at bot
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I have heard of cheating in the game, but have never obviously witnessed it. The term "buddy" is used in the 15 and 30 game by many players. It comes from HSP. I have been called buddy literally hundreds of times @ CP, its just slang. I dont think your evidence is at all conclusive. That game can be tough, the players have played many hours together and many game select and probably roll off each other. Bc, there are no higher games the player pool becomes tight-nit though I dont think to the point of having teams.

[/ QUOTE ]

i have never seen anything that i suspected as collusion in any game at canterbury.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that I was playing like [censored] and messing around a lot. I did some goofy stuff like call 2 bets cold with middle pair and I did limp with a TON of suited Kings and Aces (as I personally think big suited cards go WAY up in value in a crazy games where flushes are your best bet to scoop).

HOWEVER, if you really think that people who play short handed 30-60 are in the habbit of 4-5 betting preflop to drive out a middle player or a blind... then that same player check folds the flop... you're high

Re: Obvious Collusion at the Canterbury Club (Long -Cliff Notes at bot
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


Finally, right before moving to the main game, I busted one of them out and asked them point blank if "buddy" was a code word for 3 Bet or just a code word for "I have a big hand".


[/ QUOTE ]

who did you bust out? the only people i recall busting from the must-move game were you and your bro.

[/ QUOTE ]

We took some money off a couple guys before the must move... the truth is... I knew when I sat down that I didn't bring enough cash with me to play right in that game. I just wanted to splash around for a rack or two, see if I could hit a rush of cards, and pay for a nice dinner with poker winnings. Didn't happen, we ate pizza instead of steak, I'm not complaining about that.

In addition, I have NO vested interest in making any of this up. I posted several examples of what are KNOWN to be amateur colluder moves, and the best you can do is explain that I played K-6 from under gun. What kind of defense is that?

I don't know of any of the other 2+2er's you're talking about. The only player at the table today besides you that seemed to be a good TAG was the Matt Hughes looking fellow sitting to your right. You two seem to be playing ABC poker... I can't imagine how you aren't catching on to what I'm talking about. You can talk about how horrible my limit game is, or how horrible the limit poker play of my friends are. That's not the issues. The issue is that there was obvious best-handing and whip-sawing going on at that table... PERIOD.

Re: Obvious Collusion at the Canterbury Club (Long -Cliff Notes at bot
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


Finally, right before moving to the main game, I busted one of them out and asked them point blank if "buddy" was a code word for 3 Bet or just a code word for "I have a big hand".


[/ QUOTE ]

who did you bust out? the only people i recall busting from the must-move game were you and your bro.

[/ QUOTE ]

We took some money off a couple guys before the must move... the truth is... I knew when I sat down that I didn't bring enough cash with me to play right in that game. I just wanted to splash around for a rack or two, see if I could hit a rush of cards, and pay for a nice dinner with poker winnings. Didn't happen, we ate pizza instead of steak, I'm not complaining about that.

In addition, I have NO vested interest in making any of this up. I posted several examples of what are KNOWN to be amateur colluder moves, and the best you can do is explain that I played K-6 from under gun. What kind of defense is that?

I don't know of any of the other 2+2er's you're talking about. The only player at the table today besides you that seemed to be a good TAG was the Matt Hughes looking fellow sitting to your right. You two seem to be playing ABC poker... I can't imagine how you aren't catching on to what I'm talking about. You can talk about how horrible my limit game is, or how horrible the limit poker play of my friends are. That's not the issues. The issue is that there was obvious best-handing and whip-sawing going on at that table... PERIOD.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your ability to read hands is pretty much the same ability to detect collusion.

Re: Obvious Collusion at the Canterbury Club (Long -Cliff Notes at bot
 

do you even feel like addressing my points? I have played hundreds of hours with both of those guys, both are laggy and can get v out of line against weak plays (i.e. limping) and obv scared shortstacks looking for steak dinners.

Re: Obvious Collusion at the Canterbury Club (Long -Cliff Notes at bot
 

maybe the kid is right

Re: Obvious Collusion at the Canterbury Club (Long -Cliff Notes at bot
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
i don't even know where to begin with this BS, but I will start with this statement....
[ QUOTE ]
HOWEVER, if he hasn't in the past brought up the fact that there is OBVIOUS collusion in that 30-60 game... then he is either involved or has decided not to let anyone know.

[/ QUOTE ]

you are making a very serious accusation here. if you have any evidence, then either bring it or shut the [censored] up.

[/ QUOTE ]

The evidence is in the obvious play of the colluders.

I observed you play for about 7 hours over the past 2 days and I personally don't think you are involved at all. However, I'm suprised you've never even brought up the possibility before.

You play pretty straight up as far as I can tell for that crazy game.

HOWEVER, it's very obvious there are a couple teams that are playing off combined bankrolls.

I would bet my bottom dollar that the two friends that were playing with us today in the short handed game, then moved with us and took a dinner break together are working off the same bankroll, and are making moves against the table on a regular basis. If you don't know who I'm talking about, it's the two buddies that were talking about playing raquetball together.

I think if you sat back and looked at their specific play, you'd see what I'm saying is correct. You know darn well that NO-ONE in that game folds the flop for 1 bet (especially after putting in 4-5 bets preflop).

I'm not some punk-kid / troll with 23 posts. I've been around a LONG time and learned to identify most of the angles / cheaters while playing at the commerce. You ARE getting cheated at that game if you aren't one of the best handing teams that are working the Canturbery club.

Maybe you are such a good player that you are still winning at that game -OR- maybe you have sub-consciously adjusted to the fact that they cheat and are staying out of pots where the best handing teams are cheating... but let me assure you... there ARE colluders at your game.

Personally, I don't really care. I doulbt I'll ever be back out here again. However, I felt an obligation to inform 2+2er's what's going on.

[/ QUOTE ]

your observation means nothing. you were in a game with me for maybe 2 hours.

you seem to think it is OBVIOUS that there are teams colluding, yet you limp K6s utg in a bad 9handed 30/60 game, a play that is OBVIOUSLY atrocious. it is clear that your powers of observation suck.

as far as betting your bottom dollar, i thought you left it at table 31.

looking at their specific play, i know that they suck. i have played with them TONS. they know not to [censored] with me, and although they are not good at poker, they know that i am and would easily sniff out any funny-business.

you clearly DO care, as you took the time to write this. but painting yourself as some sort of Paul Revere who is warning the rest of 2+2 is laughable.

you and your bro suck and busted, but that does not mean the game is crooked. stop limping K6s UTG, and stop folding TT in a shorthanded game. my god.

Re: Obvious Collusion at the Canterbury Club (Long -Cliff Notes at bot
 

[ QUOTE ]


Not once have I ever suspected collusion or cheating of any kind.

I know who you're referring to, both are laggy and can get out of line often.

Get over yourself.

[ QUOTE ]
C#1 would be under the gun with a hand like KK. He would limp, and C#2 would raise, a few on the table would call, UTG would make it three-bets, and C#2 would fold for one bet.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have never, ever seen this happen in this game, ever. If it did I would be pretty upset. I think you're full of s---.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well... if you were sitting at the table today around 2 pm you would have seen this happen. Seat 4 had KK under the gun and they pulled this move.

I had JJ on the button and the guy to my right almost got trapped with QQ in this hand for a lot of extra bets. The only thing that saved us was that he (QQ) and I both checked behind on the turn with the guy with KK was obviously trying to get in a check raise on the turn. For anyone sitting at the table, I even made a joke about living in Burbank, CA and knowing a bad actor when I saw one. I said out loud that I wasn't going to fall for that move... the player with KK just kind of put his head down, and had a laugh with his friend.

Re: Obvious Collusion at the Canterbury Club (Long -Cliff Notes at bot
 

[ QUOTE ]

HOWEVER, if you really think that people who play short handed 30-60 are in the habbit of 4-5 betting preflop to drive out a middle player or a blind... then that same player check folds the flop... you're high

[/ QUOTE ]

your bro did the same thing. care to address that?

Re: Obvious Collusion at the Canterbury Club (Long -Cliff Notes at bot
 

[ QUOTE ]
as far as betting your bottom dollar, i thought you left it at table 31.


[/ QUOTE ]

I'll give you credit... that was actually pretty funny.

However, anytime you feel like playing 40-80 or 60-120... or better yet...25-50 stud or 30-60 stud high-low... feel free to look me up at the commerce and or HP

Re: Obvious Collusion at the Canterbury Club (Long -Cliff Notes at bot
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


Not once have I ever suspected collusion or cheating of any kind.

I know who you're referring to, both are laggy and can get out of line often.

Get over yourself.

[ QUOTE ]
C#1 would be under the gun with a hand like KK. He would limp, and C#2 would raise, a few on the table would call, UTG would make it three-bets, and C#2 would fold for one bet.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have never, ever seen this happen in this game, ever. If it did I would be pretty upset. I think you're full of s---.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well... if you were sitting at the table today around 2 pm you would have seen this happen. Seat 4 had KK under the gun and they pulled this move.

I had JJ on the button and the guy to my right almost got trapped with QQ in this hand for a lot of extra bets. The only thing that saved us was that he (QQ) and I both checked behind on the turn with the guy with KK was obviously trying to get in a check raise on the turn. For anyone sitting at the table, I even made a joke about living in Burbank, CA and knowing a bad actor when I saw one. I said out loud that I wasn't going to fall for that move... the player with KK just kind of put his head down, and had a laugh with his friend.

[/ QUOTE ]

wow. you are accusing the guy with KK of colluding????? that is hysterical. you are a [censored] moron.

Re: Obvious Collusion at the Canterbury Club (Long -Cliff Notes at bot
 

[ QUOTE ]
do you even feel like addressing my points? I have played hundreds of hours with both of those guys, both are laggy and can get v out of line against weak plays (i.e. limping) and obv scared shortstacks looking for steak dinners.

[/ QUOTE ]

I understand both of these guys are Laggy... so how do you explain one of them making it 4 or 5 bets preflop, then folding the flop for one bet?

Don't LAG players usually call down short handed to the river with anything they can 5 bet preflop with????

-OR- maybe there is just a standing rule between the crazy locals that you jam it preflop and only continue after the flop with a real hand... I don't know... but the whole deal was suspect.

Re: Obvious Collusion at the Canterbury Club (Long -Cliff Notes at bot
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

HOWEVER, if you really think that people who play short handed 30-60 are in the habbit of 4-5 betting preflop to drive out a middle player or a blind... then that same player check folds the flop... you're high

[/ QUOTE ]

your bro did the same thing. care to address that?

[/ QUOTE ]

NOT true... my bro... the one with the glasses check raised the flop several times short handed with something like bottom or mid pair... then if he ran into resistance and the opponent 3 bet him... he would get away from the hand. Not sure if this is weak strategy or not, but that is for another forum.

However, at NO time did he have a hand that he folded on the flop after putting in 4 bet preflop... that is just a lie.

Re: Obvious Collusion at the Canterbury Club (Long -Cliff Notes at bot
 

pbob has already said you screwed up the action on your previous hands I doubt you got that one right.

Re: Obvious Collusion at the Canterbury Club (Long -Cliff Notes at bot
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

HOWEVER, if you really think that people who play short handed 30-60 are in the habbit of 4-5 betting preflop to drive out a middle player or a blind... then that same player check folds the flop... you're high

[/ QUOTE ]

your bro did the same thing. care to address that?

[/ QUOTE ]

NOT true... my bro... the one with the glasses check raised the flop several times short handed with something like bottom or mid pair... then if he ran into resistance and the opponent 3 bet him... he would get away from the hand. Not sure if this is weak strategy or not, but that is for another forum.

However, at NO time did he have a hand that he folded on the flop after putting in 4 bet preflop... that is just a lie.

[/ QUOTE ]

ugh. he raised preflop and got 3bet from the blind. he called. flop QT8. he raised the flop and got 3bet. when he is closing the flop action, he is getting 13:1, yet he folded. in your retarded OP, you say Anyone that plays limit poker never folds the flop for one bet in an eleven bet pot

i think you are very very dumb.

Re: Obvious Collusion at the Canterbury Club (Long -Cliff Notes at bot
 

[ QUOTE ]
pbob has already said you screwed up the action on your previous hands I doubt you got that one right.

[/ QUOTE ]

i am obviously lying to protect the colluders.

Re: Obvious Collusion at the Canterbury Club (Long -Cliff Notes at bot
 

Can you guys please keep arguing about this? I still have to write a paper that's due in like 10 hours and have a class in 8 hours and the newhizzle/cassidy match is over so I need something to occupy myself with.

Re: Obvious Collusion at the Canterbury Club (Long -Cliff Notes at bot
 

[ QUOTE ]
Can you guys please keep arguing about this? I still have to write a paper that's due in like 10 hours and have a class in 8 hours and the newhizzle/cassidy match is over so I need something to occupy myself with.

[/ QUOTE ]

i think i am done. no one is this stupid. this has to be a leveling attempt. i have been gotten.

Re: Obvious Collusion at the Canterbury Club (Long -Cliff Notes at bot
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Two of the players at the must move tried to pretend as though they didn't know eachother when my brother and I first sat down;

[/ QUOTE ]

I was in the game before you got there and when you arrived. They did not "pretend" to do anything. You guys bought in for a total of $1600-$1800. There are multiple fish who buy in for several thousand each in that game frequently. You guys did not present this great opportunity that only comes along once in a great while and so they had to capitalize on it by colluding. Get over yourself.

[/ QUOTE ]

The amount of money that one specific player buys in for in limit poker is absolutely irrelevant. two bets are two bets. Stealing 3 bets is still 3 bets no matter how much I have on the table, or in my pocket. Cheating and colluding in limit poker has nothing to do with the opponent or the amount of cash they buy in for. It has to do with best handing and squeezing.

I'm done wasting my time arguing with people that don't want to observe the game. I have a feeling you are trapped in your own tunnel vision because you happen to be winning players.

I'm flying out in the morning and won't be back for a couple years. I'm sure most of the regulars at that card room will be bust by the time I make it back to this lovely fly-over state.

All and all I had a pleasant experience in MN... and I even was polite today when I dropped $1500 in the 30-60. The plan was to come back and play for real... but to tell you the truth... I drank to much wine with the excellent Pizza from Carbone's.

For those of you playing at Canterbury... just keep an eye out...

Maybe for the better players (presumably the ones posting on 2+2) you guys are accidently sniffing out these cheats and avoiding them sub-conciously... but I assure you... it is happeing.

Re: Obvious Collusion at the Canterbury Club (Long -Cliff Notes at bot
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

HOWEVER, if you really think that people who play short handed 30-60 are in the habbit of 4-5 betting preflop to drive out a middle player or a blind... then that same player check folds the flop... you're high

[/ QUOTE ]

your bro did the same thing. care to address that?

[/ QUOTE ]

NOT true... my bro... the one with the glasses check raised the flop several times short handed with something like bottom or mid pair... then if he ran into resistance and the opponent 3 bet him... he would get away from the hand. Not sure if this is weak strategy or not, but that is for another forum.

However, at NO time did he have a hand that he folded on the flop after putting in 4 bet preflop... that is just a lie.

[/ QUOTE ]

ugh. he raised preflop and got 3bet from the blind. he called. flop QT8. he raised the flop and got 3bet. when he is closing the flop action, he is getting 13:1, yet he folded. in your retarded OP, you say Anyone that plays limit poker never folds the flop for one bet in an eleven bet pot

i think you are very very dumb.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not true... if its the hand you are talking about the flop was Q-10-2...

The under the gun limper was the one driving the action ( he had a set of dueces) and my brother was in the BB with Q-10.

He got in several bets on the flop and turn... then said out loud... "you got a set of dueces"... and he check called the river.

I think you have this hand backwards.