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

[PokerBob]

[ QUOTE ]
If you looked like like PokerBob, you'd know why he always seems angry.



[/ QUOTE ]

fyp

[MitchL]

[ QUOTE ]
yeah it sucks, now to collude I have to go back to the old tug-ear-pat-head-rub-belly stuff, it was a easier when I could just text my cards to my partners.

[/ QUOTE ]

And they have obv figured the "Hey buddy, you getting out of line?" routine so now its really gonna get rough.

[JoEyPeNeLoPe]

fwiw i've played nlh and bot mix against OP and he sucks at all forms of poker.

[*TT*]

[ QUOTE ]
fwiw i've played nlh and bot mix against OP and he sucks at all forms of poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thats uncalled for JoEyPeNeLoPe, the OP's ability to judge collusion is at question, not his ability to play. If its true (and its not fair to let one person be the judge and jury without evidence) sucking at all forms of poker just means he is no better than the vast majority of posters here, keep that in mind.

[JoEyPeNeLoPe]

sorry

[Diana Ross Fan]

[ QUOTE ]

- People who SWEAR they are witnessing collusion are usually wrong (already knew that one)


[/ QUOTE ]

Therefore we must flame anyone who dares point it out to us. Now heads back in the sand.

[Michael Davis]

"Thats uncalled for JoEyPeNeLoPe, the OP's ability to judge collusion is at question, not his ability to play."

I think you are totally wrong here. While it may be possible but unlikely that someone could play well but for some reason or another think collusion is rampant where it is not, it is impossible for a player who does not play well to accurately judge collusion in an aggressive game.

Inversely (I think), it should be obvious that somebody who starts this thread and goes against the word of somebody such as Schneids in this spot is very likely not very good at poker.

-Michael

[PokerBob]

[ QUOTE ]
"Thats uncalled for JoEyPeNeLoPe, the OP's ability to judge collusion is at question, not his ability to play."

I think you are totally wrong here. While it may be possible but unlikely that someone could play well but for some reason or another think collusion is rampant where it is not, it is impossible for a player who does not play well to accurately judge collusion in an aggressive game.

Inversely (I think), it should be obvious that somebody who starts this thread and goes against the word of somebody such as Schneids in this spot is very likely not very good at poker.

-Michael

[/ QUOTE ]

i agree. if one cannot comprehend the nuances of the game, it is not all unreasonable to assume that they will not be able to differentiate between what is collusion and what is typical play.

[*TT*]

[ QUOTE ]
"Thats uncalled for JoEyPeNeLoPe, the OP's ability to judge collusion is at question, not his ability to play."

I think you are totally wrong here. While it may be possible but unlikely that someone could play well but for some reason or another think collusion is rampant where it is not, it is impossible for a player who does not play well to accurately judge collusion in an aggressive game.

Inversely (I think), it should be obvious that somebody who starts this thread and goes against the word of somebody such as Schneids in this spot is very likely not very good at poker.

-Michael

[/ QUOTE ]

Michael - he crossed the line by making a blanket statement without providing evidence, which is in effect slander. If we allowed that to occur I could make the same statement about you or Bob (which of course would be wrong, I know that from personal experiance) and I'm sure at a very minimum hundreds of people would believe just because they read it on the internet, which is grossly unfair. If JoEyPeNeLoPe backed up his words with examples then I feel it would have been fine, at that point it is no longer his word vs the world (of course just the word of some posters who are proven experts in the field ala Schneids would be acceptable) and we could have all made our own judgments based on these examples. In short I have no problem with him saying the OP is a bad player, but it crosses the line when it becomes slanderous by insinuating we should all rely on his unproven word rather than evidence. Its all good though, JoEyPeNeLoPe said he is sorry, no harm done.

[*TT*]

[ QUOTE ]

i agree. if one cannot comprehend the nuances of the game, it is not all unreasonable to assume that they will not be able to differentiate between what is collusion and what is typical play.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree 100% with this statement, which is the ironic part of my reply to Michael.