how can this NOT be collusion?

[limon]

[ QUOTE ]
the fact that there are examples of them NOT colluding imo only strengthen the above hypothesis.

Barron

[/ QUOTE ]

correct. at a 300/600 game one colluded hand per 50 is enough to feed a family of criminals.

[DcifrThs]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
the fact that there are examples of them NOT colluding imo only strengthen the above hypothesis.

Barron

[/ QUOTE ]

correct. at a 300/600 game one colluded hand per 50 is enough to feed a family of criminals.

[/ QUOTE ]

its now very clear to me that these guys are like 19:1 favorites to be colluding.

Barron

[ggbman]

curtains,

look at that turn call. He has absolutley no hand no draw. if he played like this usally, he would literally probably lose several thousand dollars an hour and bust out of the game. the fact that he does that only against hogbird andis still playing thise game indicates that there are underlying circumstances here...

[brick]

[ QUOTE ]


NYPlayer: 9d 8d
dumbanimal: -- --
piejay: -- --
hogbird: -- --

Pre-flop:

NYPlayer raises to $600. dumbanimal re-raises to
$900. piejay folds. hogbird re-raises to $1200.
NYPlayer calls. dumbanimal calls.

Flop (board: Tc Ah 5c):

hogbird bets $300. NYPlayer folds. dumbanimal
calls.

Turn (board: Tc Ah 5c As):

hogbird bets $600. dumbanimal calls.

River (board: Tc Ah 5c As 4s):

hogbird checks. dumbanimal checks.

Showdown:

hogbird shows Kd Ac.
hogbird has Kd Ac Tc Ah As: three aces.
dumbanimal mucks cards.
(dumbanimal has 9h Jh.)

[/ QUOTE ]

Looks like collusion to me.

Wouldn't dumbanimal either make a move at the pot or fold ealier in the hand if he was playing normally? It's as if they wanted to give the illusion of bad play, so that the bet/raise/fold pattern didn't show.

Also, wouldn't Hog bet this river normally?

[whodaman]

i agree, dumbanimal's turn call and river check tell me he doesn't mind spewing to hogbird, what else could it mean?

[El Diablo]

All: Sick.

NYP: 3 or 4 that look this bad in 250 is huge. Colluders, unless complete idiots, have to pick their spots.

[DcifrThs]

i just submitted the following email:

[ QUOTE ]
here are some more hands that together lead one to believer there is collusion. im almost sure of it simply b/c they have become very good at it.

some hands are the OPPOSITE of collusion and were liekly played in that manner to avoid detection. some of the hands appear to be blatent collusion but in the context of the other non-collusion hands, it allows one to say "oh, well its possible they are just bad players."

but in context of the OTHER hands that are very very very hard to be anything other than collusion, it appears these two are GOOD at colluding and have thus far escaped detection.

further, i know the response i get will be something like:

"As you requested, we have reviewed the game in question and we have concluded that it is unlikely that everything looks OK. However, we will follow up on these players making sure they play following our poker etiquette, rules, and regulations."

the reason i expect this response is because it's highly unlikely they would collude in a way in which they'd GET CAUGHT. they do it and also play other hands normally.

if you think they'd collude more than 1 hand out of every X then let me ask,

how much would you expect two colluders to earn if they colluded 1/100 hands?

how much would you expect them to earn if they colluded 50/100 hands?

100/100 hands?

0/100 hands??

which has the highest expectation over 50k hands??

clearly the answer is the 1/100 hands b/c then there is enough NON colluding hands to escape UB's detection

AND MORE IMPORTANTLY it would give UB the leeway to claim they reviewed the hands and saw nothing wrong.

UB has a large vested interest in proving no collusion on their site.

UB cannot control those that are colluding but would like to appear as if they could.

UB can ban and confiscate colluders' funds but they can easily create a new account.

UB may not have the wherewithawl to determine collusion even when their "poker experts" look into it.

therefore, with all those thoughts in mind, i submit to you the following hands:

30428937-13235, 30428937-13526

and all of the below:

[/ QUOTE ]

what followed was a text version of all the hands in NY players' post.

i also made some more comments afterwards but not anything significant.

we'll see what they say.

Barron

[DcifrThs]

[ QUOTE ]
All: Sick.

NYP: 3 or 4 that look this bad in 250 is huge. Colluders, unless complete idiots, have to pick their spots.

[/ QUOTE ]

they probably started out w/ 1 out of 250 or so but then got greedy.

Barron

[The Bride]

So I only play in mid-limit games, but when friends ask if I'm worried about collusion, I've always said no, because a) most pots are contested HU, and b) the number of times I get trapped between two players engaged in a raising war is really small.

Isn't the fact that these hands are often ending up three-handed suspicious in itself? And isn't their relative seating (one seat apart) also suspicious? Couldn't UB look at where these two typically seat themselves at the table?

[andyEB]

They sure do play a lot of pots together that are 3-way. They don't have to collude when one of them makes a hand (and there odds are improved just by making the pots 3-way). I don't play even close to this limit but this looks absolutely terrible.