how can this NOT be collusion?
 

i have a shitload of work to do so of course i start sweating the ub 300/600 game. everything seemed normal. no big pots recently, no huge suckouts, no signs of tilt

then this happens. A is a very well-known online high limit player. B seems to be playing ok too though i have not seem him around. C is the victim and from watching, he seems to be a huge LAG. he accused them of cheating after the hand and immediately left.

i am posting this because it's extremely disconcerting. i could understand how A and B would think that C doesn't have much of a hand since he's so aggressive when he does. but even if C folded, B would've had to fold and it would've looked terrible. i can't imagine good players could be this stupid.

i'll admit i don't know how these games play but this defies all logic


Hand #30428937-13526 at Owen Sound ($300/$600 Hold'em)
Powered by UltimateBet
Started at 02/Apr/06 05:22:12

C is at seat 0 with $31183.
A is at seat 2 with $15011.50.
B is at seat 3 with $22025.
FooledUB is at seat 4 with $61296.
The button is at seat 3.

FooledUB posts the small blind of $150.
C posts the big blind of $300.

C: -- --
A: -- --
B: -- --
FooledUB: -- --

Pre-flop:

A raises to $600. B re-raises to $900.
FooledUB folds. C calls. A
re-raises to $1200. B calls. C calls.


Flop (board: 5c 4d 9d):

C checks. A bets $300. B
raises to $600. C calls. A calls.


Turn (board: 5c 4d 9d 2s):

C checks. A bets $600. B
raises to $1200. C calls. A
re-raises to $1800. B calls. C calls.


River (board: 5c 4d 9d 2s 7h):

C checks. A bets $600. B
raises to $1200. C calls. A folds.




Showdown:

B shows Jh 8h.
B has Jh 8h 5c 9d 7h: jack high.
C shows 5d 7d.
C has 5d 7d 5c 9d 7h: two pair, sevens and fives.


Hand #30428937-13526 Summary:

$2 is raked from a pot of $13950.
C wins $13948 with two pair, sevens and fives.
----------------------------------------------------------------

Re: how can this NOT be collusion?
 

wow that looks terrible, i would report them. You can't claim cheating from a single hand, but this sure looks bad.

Re: how can this NOT be collusion?
 

Holy jesus that is such flagrant collusion. [censored] SICK. Those two should be kicked off the [censored] internet.

Out them
 

I reckon you should post the real hand history.

Re: Out them
 

[ QUOTE ]
I reckon you should post the real hand history.

[/ QUOTE ]


i'm really hesitant to do that until more people agree with me. as i said, one of them is a pretty big name player so i don't want to accuse him of cheating (yet)

Re: how can this NOT be collusion?
 

This definitely looks like cheating to me (collusion or one guy on two accounts). It really makes me curious what hand A held if the hand that had to showdown was J high. I would think the extra $1200 would be worth it even if A had just ace high. I hope the site responds.

Re: Out them
 

this is definitely collusion and as i said over aim they should be chastised by making their names public.

Re: Out them
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I reckon you should post the real hand history.

[/ QUOTE ]


i'm really hesitant to do that until more people agree with me. as i said, one of them is a pretty big name player so i don't want to accuse him of cheating (yet)

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't really care since I don't play those limits. But it sure seems like anyone who does deserves to make their own conclusions from anything this suspicious. Posting the hand is making no accusations, just showing that you found it suspicious enough to let potential opponents decide for themselves.

Re: Out them
 

Has UB been notified?? Maybe don't out them until there's a response from UB. It'd suck if they read this thread and cashed out before they got busted.

Re: how can this NOT be collusion?
 

[ QUOTE ]
This definitely looks like cheating to me (collusion or one guy on two accounts). It really makes me curious what hand A held if the hand that had to showdown was J high. I would think the extra $1200 would be worth it even if A had just ace high. I hope the site responds.

[/ QUOTE ]


well because B had been playing pretty normally, i wouldn't be surprised if A made a really big laydown. his play just strikes me as weird. he caps preflop. he bet-calls the flop. the turn is a deuce and he bet-3bets. the river is a blank and he bet-folds. the only hand that makes any sense to me is TT trying to induce a raise on the turn from a worse hand. but then why would he 3-bet?

maybe i'm underestimating how bad B is? i have him cold capping Q7s from the BB one hand so he's laggier than i thought. here is another though this conceivably makes sense


Hand #30428937-13235 at Owen Sound ($300/$600 Hold'em)
Powered by UltimateBet
Started at 02/Apr/06 04:16:58

A is at seat 2 with $23320.50.
B is at seat 3 with $41283.
C is at seat 4 with $35120.50.
The button is at seat 2.

B posts the small blind of $150.
C posts the big blind of $300.

A: -- --
B: -- --
C: -- --

Pre-flop:

A raises to $600. B calls. C
re-raises to $900. A calls. B calls.


Flop (board: Ah 8h 6h):

B checks. C bets $300. A
calls. B raises to $600. C re-raises
to $900. A calls. B calls.

Turn (board: Ah 8h 6h 6c):

B checks. C bets $600. A
raises to $1200. B re-raises to $1800.
C folds. A calls.

River (board: Ah 8h 6h 6c As):

B bets $600. A folds. B is
returned $600 (uncalled).



Hand #30428937-13235 Summary:

$1 is raked from a pot of $9600.
B wins $9599.
----------------------------------------------------------------

Re: Out them
 

[ QUOTE ]
Has UB been notified?? Maybe don't out them until there's a response from UB. It'd suck if they read this thread and cashed out before they got busted.

[/ QUOTE ]


i did

Re: how can this NOT be collusion?
 

well that could be collusion too assuming A B and C are the same players... but the hand looks very legit as a player should fold his flush on that river.

Re: how can this NOT be collusion?
 

[ QUOTE ]
well that could be collusion too assuming A B and C are the same players... but the hand looks very legit as a player should fold his flush on that river.

[/ QUOTE ]


C was different. C is a seemingly very good player who plays all the time

UB wrote back saying they'd investigate it

Re: how can this NOT be collusion?
 

I was watching when this hand happened...did seem very odd...

Re: how can this NOT be collusion?
 

I am VERY interested in any reports of collusion in this specific game. I have heard that it happens and I think it might be true to some extent.

I think UB needs to take a serious look into any such allegations, especially because this is the crown-jewel for high limit fize limit ring games on the net in my opinion.

Re: how can this NOT be collusion?
 

That is not how you cheat a LAG out of his money.

Re: how can this NOT be collusion?
 

I can't answer -- The hand certainly does look strange. If they were colluding and C knew they were colluding, he might have considered staying at the table because their "collusion" sure looks like spew if he player right.

Theoretical question for anyone who wants to guess -- how much is collusion worth in BB/100 in this situation if the victim knows you're doing it? If you consider this to be only a 2-player game, where one player holds two hands, that player has these advantages (1) The double bet (2) Knowledge of 2 additional cards (3) Ability to trap . Are there more? Is this really worth more than .5 BB/100? As the above hand shows, you can give your opponent on some tough decisions, but I didn't see a theoretical advantage. Now factor in that you can't be too overt. I don't get it, I just don't see the incentive to collude at limit hold'em for the risk.

Re: how can this NOT be collusion?
 

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but since B's hand is so strong, wouldn't it make more sense from a collusion standpoint for C to fold river and get A to call? This makes me think it's just a tilted bluff or something along those lines.

edit: this is RE: hand 1

Re: how can this NOT be collusion?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but since B's hand is so strong, wouldn't it make more sense from a collusion standpoint for C to fold river and get A to call? This makes me think it's just a tilted bluff or something along those lines.

edit: this is RE: hand 1

[/ QUOTE ]

B has jack high, and C is the victim.... what are you talking about??

Re: how can this NOT be collusion?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but since B's hand is so strong, wouldn't it make more sense from a collusion standpoint for C to fold river and get A to call? This makes me think it's just a tilted bluff or something along those lines.

edit: this is RE: hand 1

[/ QUOTE ]

B has jack high, and C is the victim.... what are you talking about??

[/ QUOTE ]misread river action oops

Re: how can this NOT be collusion?
 

Personally, I'm surprised that this isn't *more* of an issue in games where the stakes are so high and the player pools are so small.

Re: how can this NOT be collusion?
 

post the names. the information is already public. It's not like you collected this off of a wiretap.

Re: how can this NOT be collusion?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Personally, I'm surprised that this isn't *more* of an issue in games where the stakes are so high and the player pools are so small.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree, Nate. I was thinking about this the other day. I'll leave the real high limit stuff to the 2+2 elite, cause even if I had the game to play at that level I just dont think I could play with confidence that everything is on the up and up.

Therefore, I just keep sloshin' through the muddy low limit waters with the rest of the mudcats.

TSP

Re: how can this NOT be collusion?
 

I'm not really going to bother looking that hard at the hand, and just say that its boreline silly to see one hand stick out and think that collusion was going on. Maybe if you watched 50 hands you could build a good case for it.

Re: how can this NOT be collusion?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not really going to bother looking that hard at the hand, and just say that its boreline silly to see one hand stick out and think that collusion was going on. Maybe if you watched 50 hands you could build a good case for it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nah, this one hand is pretty good evidence that collusion is going on. It's pretty silly to disregard one case of blatant collusion just because you don't have other examples on hand.
-James

Re: how can this NOT be collusion?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm not really going to bother looking that hard at the hand, and just say that its boreline silly to see one hand stick out and think that collusion was going on. Maybe if you watched 50 hands you could build a good case for it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nah, this one hand is pretty good evidence that collusion is going on. It's pretty silly to disregard one case of blatant collusion just because you don't have other examples on hand.
-James

[/ QUOTE ]

i agree.. and i think it's kind of important to get the names out.

Re: how can this NOT be collusion?
 

out some ho's plz

Re: how can this NOT be collusion?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not really going to bother looking that hard at the hand, and just say that its boreline silly to see one hand stick out and think that collusion was going on. Maybe if you watched 50 hands you could build a good case for it.

[/ QUOTE ]

The point is if you see what you suspect is collusion in just one hand, you report it to the site and then they watch enough hands to see their is a good case for it or not.

It is possible that player B is just a stupid bluff monkey who was on tilt or just sucks at life. But let UB decide whether that's the case or not.

Re: how can this NOT be collusion?
 

I don't see collusion in this hand. The reasoning to support the case for collusion is circular. It goes like this:

Fact: Players A and B were in a hand in which the betting pattern was one of the patterns that colluders might employ.

Bad reasoning by the court: If players A and B made their betting decisions based upon what the court assumes they made their betting decisions on, namely, that they are colluding, then their betting indicates collusion.

Well duh.

Toss in some tilt here and a misclick there and some booze here and a misread there and a billion-dollar bankroll here and maybe even some good old fashioned "bad playing" there, and the case never even makes it to court.


Tommy

Re: how can this NOT be collusion?
 

it is circular until you see their holecards, yes.

Re: how can this NOT be collusion?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Personally, I'm surprised that this isn't *more* of an issue in games where the stakes are so high and the player pools are so small.

[/ QUOTE ]

im thinking this is the main reason that the highest NL games (like 200-400nl) on the net are almost always HU matches.

Re: how can this NOT be collusion?
 

Why would a colluder show down the weak hand? Why not reraise and fold to a cap, which is bad in most cases but more reasonable than calling 2 cold with jack high?

Re: how can this NOT be collusion?
 

the colluders didn't want to showdown their hand tahts why they made it two bets to go on teh river. PLayer c the victim called and A folded. B had to show since c called his raise

Re: how can this NOT be collusion?
 

this looks like collusion, but A could have AdKd, and thought both of them were on draws.

player B could have just been an tilting idiot for one hand, and if he put C and A on draws also, then the river raise works out.

i recommend not playing in the game if these two players are sitting down, or watching them more closely, but you can't prove anything from one hand.

Re: how can this NOT be collusion?
 

[ QUOTE ]
this looks like collusion, but A could have AdKd, and thought both of them were on draws.

player B could have just been an tilting idiot for one hand, and if he put C and A on draws also, then the river raise works out.

i recommend not playing in the game if these two players are sitting down, or watching them more closely, but you can't prove anything from one hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah it's like when you pass a guy in a car driving really slowly and erraticly in the right lane. Later the same car passes you but all of a sudden there is a guy and a girl in the car.

I'm sure you can't infer anything from a single instance but you can make a real good guess.

BTW I don't even play limit but this is about as bad as I see people play at .5/1 when drunk and tilting.

Re: how can this NOT be collusion?
 

--nm--

Re: how can this NOT be collusion?
 

the turn is the only street where they two guys dont take the opportunity to raise the victim out. cappping the turn here from B's perspective should be a must if they are taking every chance to get the victim out.

however, it may be that B can represent more hands when the river card falls when he/she just calls the turn and raises the river.

either way, this is amazingly fishy. in a bad way.

im not one of those guys that has played near 1mil hands in my lifetime but for all the hands i have played, this is the most blatent cheating ive ever seen.

Barron

Re: how can this NOT be collusion?
 

post their names please. I am not one for witchunts or anything... but this hand is extreme- and almost definitely collusion.

Re: how can this NOT be collusion?
 

FWIW, I'm in the not-beyond-the-shadow-of-a-doubt camp.

If I were in your shoes, Josh, I'd report them to UB (which it looks like you've already done), and field PMs from people who might be interested in playing in this game and would like to know the identities of the players involved. But I think a public shaming is a bit much. I'm having a little bit of trouble wrapping my head around the fact that trying to get a calling station to fold in a huge pot is an ineffective collusive strategy.

Re: how can this NOT be collusion?
 

FWIW my buddy is player C and as soon as this hand happened he sat out and vowed never to play with these guys again.

He told me who player A was and I was pretty shocked. Definetely didn't seem in line from what I've heard/know about this person, but I guess anything is possible.