On the subject of colluders in online o8 games
 

So, Ive played approximately 500,000+ hands on Pokerstars (possibly more, but last time I actually got the official # from them it was a bit below 500k) and I have only now received my first email from Pokerstars which says I was a victim of colluders and received a (measly) credit.

Now, I have never taken the time to scrutinize sufficiently whether or not my opponents were colluding. I have been at tables where it seemed that way and expressed verbally that I would contact Support and once about 1 year ago I actually asked support to look into two people, but they found nothing.

Anyways, is this a sign that colluding on Pokerstars is fairly rare, or is it just fairly rarely reported? What are your opinions?

Re: On the subject of colluders in online o8 games
 

Wiseheart - How would you catch two players who played in the same game from their own homes and who simply communicated their cards to each other, say by CB or ham radio, and perhaps in code?

Buzz

Re: On the subject of colluders in online o8 games
 

Buzz,

If we are still talking online poker you would catch them by observing their betting/folding patterns relative to each other.

The main problem is, it is easy to see when high level players are colluding cause there are many eyes always watching (for instance the accusation by grimmstar day before yesterday in BBV that two players were softplaying at the 25/50 nlhe game gathered a lot of attention) Yet at the lower levels, the only people watching are usually the players themselves. In that case, it is up to the player to look for suspicious behavior and report it.

For instance, I thought it suspicious and annoying that a player kept folding their SB in a SnG to a BB that had hardly any chips, yet they would always push when I was BB.
By itself this is not too unusual, but when that player is always folding to the same person's BB in many SnGs then there is reason to believe something funny might be going on. Then you compare all the hands they have played to determine if that is true.

IMHO. (Buzz that means In my honest opinion)

Re: On the subject of colluders in online o8 games
 

The anti-collusion algorithms look for suspicious betting patterns. So, if one of those players were involved in pots with trash, when the other had a lock, and was raising, it attracts attention.

If they're just passively sharing info and sutbtely adjusting the odds, then the extra 4 seen cards, will only be a very slight long run benefit for marginal decisions, not really worth the trouble may be?

Re: On the subject of colluders in online o8 games
 

the extra 4 seen cards, will only be a very slight long run benefit

I think four extra cards seen would be a big edge. In many cases it would allow you to bluff or bluffcatch with great confidence. Often you could narrow your estimate of opponent holdings substantially based on the extra four cards as well.

Re: On the subject of colluders in online o8 games
 

[ QUOTE ]


IMHO. (Buzz that means In my humble opinion)

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: On the subject of colluders in online o8 games
 

[ QUOTE ]
the extra 4 seen cards, will only be a very slight long run benefit

I think four extra cards seen would be a big edge. In many cases it would allow you to bluff or bluffcatch with great confidence. Often you could narrow your estimate of opponent holdings substantially based on the extra four cards as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

When I read the original post last night that was the first thing that came to mind. You would not need to use betting patterns to collude you could simply use extra card information.

I did some twodimes tests on hands and you can certainly swing small dogs like 48% into small favorites like 52% by knowing 4 dead cards. I don't even want to know the effects of knowing 8 dead cards.


Of course this could explain why some players who seemingly get their money in bad all the time are winners - and all anyone can do is blame it on running hot.

Re: On the subject of colluders in online o8 games
 

This is why I will not play online for real $. It's just too easy to collude.

Re: On the subject of colluders in online o8 games
 

About a month a go i notified poker stars about 2 players playing in the same Sit& Go tournaments (PLO8)on a regular basis and asked them to investigate.
I found them by accident. Sharkscopeing the game i was in i noticed two players with a ROI of over 20%. Being curious i checked out their previous results and guess what,they had played in the same last eight Sit& n Goes with exactly the same entry time to the tournaments.
Today i got an email ;
PokerStars has become aware of two players who were working together in our Sit
& Go tournaments to the detriment of other players. You were involved in at
least one tournament with these players and as a result you may have been
adversely affected.

Got a small credit to my account.

I am not bothered about the compensation i am just gratefull to Stars for looking into the matter and taking action.

Re: On the subject of colluders in online o8 games
 

Is there a reason to keep their names a secret?

Re: On the subject of colluders in online o8 games
 

No but i would soonner not .They have both been banned.

Re: On the subject of colluders in online o8 games
 

I would guess that you found the culprits that were in the same games as I was playing in macawboy. Thanks for taking the action to get them looked at.

Assani, I always thought IMHO was the way I did it, but it could go either way I guess, and so for now on Ill consider it to be humble.

Re: On the subject of colluders in online o8 games
 

Wiseheart - Suppose two partners had an agreement to split fifty-fifty, and also knew their confederate's cards.

Colluding would not so much be a matter of soft playing their confederate as getting out of a split pot hand when they were both going the same one-way, and simply choosing to play the better hand of the two while folding the other hand.

When I have suspected people, it has mainly been when they greedily raised inappropriately on the third betting round and then folded on the fourth so as not to have to show their cards. That particular facet and other telltale signs of collusion (such as soft playing each other in a tournament) could be avoided. Partners could use the extra information cleverly enough so that nobody would know they had an unfair edge.

Omaha-8 is not always highly dependent on a mathematical evaluation (odds or E.V.) - but sometimes it is. Sometimes it would definitely be a big advantage for partners to know the whereabouts of those extra four cards. I think they could use the information subtly enough that you would never even guess there was collusion.

I have seen people cheating at cards by colluding. Thus there is no doubt in my mind that some people will cheat by colluding if they think they can figure out a way to get away with it. If two or three individuals playing in the same on-line game and making their cards known to their confederate(s) were not blatant, then IMHO [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] they'd be virtually impossible to catch, and if they played well, they'd have a huge advantage.

I haven't spent much time thinking about how to cheat on-line and not get caught, but it seems to me that it would not be difficult at all, so long as you were not excessively greedy.

Buzz

Re: On the subject of colluders in online o8 games
 

Good analysis, so for me the key question becomes do I devote mental resources to actively trying to find colluders in my game or do I rely on Pokerstars to catch them (the ones that are obvious enough to catch) and just never worry about the subtle colluders because there is nothing to be done?

Re: On the subject of colluders in online o8 games
 

[ QUOTE ]
The anti-collusion algorithms look for suspicious betting patterns. So, if one of those players were involved in pots with trash, when the other had a lock, and was raising, it attracts attention.

[/ QUOTE ]Hi Rob - That's nifty. (I'm not being sarcastic).

[ QUOTE ]
If they're just passively sharing info and sutbtely adjusting the odds, then the extra 4 seen cards, will only be a very slight long run benefit for marginal decisions, not really worth the trouble may be?

[/ QUOTE ]Having that information would give me an extra edge. Omaha-8 is largely a drawing game.

For example, if I were drawing for the nut flush on the turn, without knowing my partners cards, I'd have maybe 9 outs out of 44 unknown cards if I wasn't worried about the board pairing. Odds against making the flush would be 35 to 9, or 3.9 to 1. However, if I knew my partner had folded four small hearts, the odds against making the flush would be 35 to 5 or 7.0 to 1. That would be a substantial difference. Or if I knew my partner had folded a hand with no hearts, the odds against making the flush would be 31 to 9, or about 3.4 to 1. Thus by knowing my partner's cards, I could pinpoint the particular ratio between the extremes of 3.4 to 1 and 7.0 to 1, rather than using 3.9 to 1. It wouldn't always matter much, but sometimes it would.

For me a winning session can be two or three big scoopers, and I primarily play limit Omaha-8. In a pot limit game one big win would go a long, long way. It would be very handy to have enough of an odds edge to stay out of a few big losers and participate in a few big winners.

Buzz

Re: On the subject of colluders in online o8 games
 

[ QUOTE ]
so for me the key question becomes do I devote mental resources to actively trying to find colluders in my game or do I rely on Pokerstars to catch them

[/ QUOTE ]Wiseheart - I don't know. What's the pay-off for you if you report someone for collusion?

Our circumstances are different since I play in brick and mortar casinos. I watch for collusion and quit the table when I suspect it. If the floor manager is good and we have rapport, then I quietly report it to the floor manager on my way out of the casino. (I'm not saying that's the best way to deal with it).

Buzz

Re: On the subject of colluders in online o8 games
 

To set up a successful collusion O8 team would in my opinion require a knowledge of the game that would allow the player to beat the game for a nice winrate playing fairly, and would take more effort within a hand than one might think to really utilize the edge knowledge of extra 4 cards possess. I think this situation makes it much less likely that anyone really capable of the kind of colluding that would cut into a winning player's profit would generally not be playing games below 10/20. At higher levels, there is more scrutiny and a smaller player pool, so it becomes more obvious who might be working together. I have never been too worried about colluders in the games i have been playing over the past year, which range from 15/30 to 100/200, although I most likely have been the victim of cooperative playing and cardsharing. If certain games or players start being unusually hard to beat I might be more on the lookout for this kind of thing, but so far it seems that the good players are hard to beat and the bad players easy. The edge of the former group comes from skilled play that is very comprehensible to me and the consistent losing of the bad players can be understood as the opposite. I will definitely post on 2p2 if my experience in this area changes.

Re: On the subject of colluders in online o8 games
 

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
If they're just passively sharing info and sutbtely adjusting the odds, then the extra 4 seen cards, will only be a very slight long run benefit for marginal decisions, not really worth the trouble may be?

[/ QUOTE ]Having that information would give me an extra edge. Omaha-8 is largely a drawing game.


[/ QUOTE ]
Undoubtedly, but you're a skilled disciplined player, not someone trying to get rick quick!

To use those adjusted odds, you'ld have to be a skilled player, most likely able to win without cheating. Those few % on calls, is less than the uncertainty provoked by bluffing, isn't it?

Whilst it is an advantage to have more info (especially avoiding good calls which actually have few outs due to opponents holdings); that is not going to be the main factor in cheating someone.

To exercise a small long term edge, they'd have to be on same table for a large amount of hands.

So whilst it is some concern, there's no need for becoming "Waranoid". In a Live card room, with regular players who know each other, or have an arrangement with the dealer, there's an even bigger problem.

You are right, but we should keep a sense of proportion. After all most reading this are probably playing profitably?

Re: On the subject of colluders in online o8 games
 

[ QUOTE ]
In a Live card room, with regular players who know each other, or have an arrangement with the dealer, there's an even bigger problem.

[/ QUOTE ]Rob - I'll agree there may be a problem, but I'm not sure it's any bigger of a problem. You can at least see what's going on. And in the games in the big casinos in which I play the dealers regularly get switched after less than an hour, and there's a shuffling machine so that two decks are constantly alternated. And most participants watch as the dealer deals. And sometimes a floor manager also watches. False dealing under these conditions may not be not absolutely impossible but it is pretty far fetched, enough not to be much of a consideration.

Any collusion is between players in the game - and you can at least watch what they are doing. I'm sure collusion occurs (I've seen it occur.) but I think you have a better chance of spotting it when it does occur than when you're playing anonymous on-line opponents, although it is neat that hand betting patterns can be analyzed by algorithms for on-line play. Alas, that kind of checking is impossible in a live card room.

Buzz

Re: On the subject of colluders in online o8 games
 

[ QUOTE ]
To set up a successful collusion O8 team would in my opinion require a knowledge of the game that would allow the player to beat the game for a nice winrate playing fairly,...

[/ QUOTE ]Hi 2handed - I agree. However, I don't think some individuals are above cheating, even if they are able to beat the game without cheating.
[ QUOTE ]
...and would take more effort within a hand than one might think to really utilize the edge knowledge of extra 4 cards possess.

[/ QUOTE ]It would take much more effort. I think some individuals would be willing to expend the extra effort to assure a higher profit.
[ QUOTE ]
I think this situation makes it much less likely that anyone really capable of the kind of colluding that would cut into a winning player's profit would generally not be playing games below 10/20.

[/ QUOTE ]That's part of the hope in sticking to low limit games.
[ QUOTE ]
At higher levels, there is more scrutiny and a smaller player pool, so it becomes more obvious who might be working together.

[/ QUOTE ]Yes. But I think very clever confederates could make it not very obvious.
[ QUOTE ]
I have never been too worried about colluders in the games i have been playing over the past year, which range from 15/30 to 100/200, although I most likely have been the victim of cooperative playing and cardsharing.

[/ QUOTE ]Hard to say. Perhaps.
[ QUOTE ]
If certain games or players start being unusually hard to beat I might be more on the lookout for this kind of thing,

[/ QUOTE ]Exactly. I think that's about all you can do.
[ QUOTE ]
but so far it seems that the good players are hard to beat and the bad players easy.

[/ QUOTE ]Makes sense to me.
[ QUOTE ]
I will definitely post on 2p2 if my experience in this area changes.

[/ QUOTE ]Thanks.

As dean, I got to sometimes see the seedy side of people. Even some individuals I highly respected before the glimpse turned out to have feet of clay. (Perhaps we all do in one way or another - but some definitely more so than others). At any rate, I have seen cheating in poker games and I'm wary of it.

Buzz

Re: On the subject of colluders in online o8 games
 

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
I think this situation makes it much less likely that anyone really capable of the kind of colluding that would cut into a winning player's profit would generally not be playing games below 10/20.

[/ QUOTE ]That's part of the hope in sticking to low limit games.


[/ QUOTE ]
Bottom line is, Buzz is playing at a profit, even I thanks to forum has been playing FLO8 at a profit.

I am sure, sometime during my 2 years of online poker, that someone has been colluding.

But I am much more sure, that 95% of time, where it seems like someone has psychic premonition, or makes crazy plays that hurt me and are against their own interest, that actually it's been simple incompetence.

When somebody posts in a forum about online cheating, I tend to ask "How much has this cheating cost you, what have you lost?", usually the complainer is not keen to answer that.

Furthermore bad players, lose partly because they don't fix their failings, and project the blame onto "malevolent forces".


So, would most winning players, risk future earnings and disgrace by colluding?

Re: On the subject of colluders in online o8 games
 

This is slightly off-topic, but I believe might be of interest. It's a post from a current thread on the mods forum, and quoted with the author's permission. The thread is titled "Suspected Cheating on AP."

[ QUOTE ]
<font color="green">diebitter
grotesquely handsome</font>

The most likely way this is being done, if it's being done, is some guy or group is getting access to the database at the back, and just refreshing the same bit of sql to read the hole cards for a given hand. It's just a username and password, once he's breached the firewall. Developers pass the stuff around all the time within a company.

There's not really a need for a 'backdoor' in the software as such, just a clean path into the database. an insider could do this easily if Absolute are in any way slapdash about security.

Anyone know if they have independent verification of their security?

Edit: Hell, I've been thinking about how I might do this if I were dishonest. I'd put a little web page with its own password protection on the server so it has protection from some lucky passerby finding it, out of the way, which pipes straight into the database. I'd make it pass sql straight through unchecked, and pipe the results to the same page. I could write such a thing in like 30-60 minutes if I was on the inside. Then, any database access is internal between web server and database server, and the little web app by definition bypasses firewalls etc.

This would leave lots of evidence if you knew where to look, but companies wouldn't really be looking.

Take all this as speculation, obviously.

Edited by diebitter (09/15/07 05:16 PM)

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: On the subject of colluders in online o8 games
 

Rob,

Your comments indicate you did not bother to read my OP. I was the subject of verified cheating. I have evidence. Unfortunately, Pokerstars will not divulge how much I lost due to the cheating but only gave me a credit.

Next time try reading the post b4 if you are going to be an ass and insinuate that I am just a whining losing player.

Re: On the subject of colluders in online o8 games
 

[ QUOTE ]
Rob,

Your comments indicate you did not bother to read my OP. I was the subject of verified cheating. I have evidence.


[/ QUOTE ]
There you are wrong, I did read it and I believe what you wrote.

The comments about the "Waranoid" were made with the 'Internet Poker is Rigged' crowd, who like to discuss conspiracy theories like "Action Flops" and other cheating by Online Poker sites who's interests are served by "keeping the Fish happy and in the game".

[ QUOTE ]

Unfortunately, Pokerstars will not divulge how much I lost due to the cheating but only gave me a credit.


[/ QUOTE ]

As I do trouble to quote context if I'm asking a question of somebody, and I believe I was discussing a good point Buzz made, not asking you. The implication of that actually is that I do not think you are someone in the "Waranoid" category.

I hope if you re-read the last post, in the "Flat" you shall see I was discussing the impact of collusion and how wide-spread it is. Not attacking any information, or views you expressed.

[ QUOTE ]

Next time try reading the post b4 if you are going to be an ass and insinuate that I am just a whining losing player.

[/ QUOTE ]
wiseheart, I did not insinuate that, and I feel you have taken offence where none was meant.

Actually I think your OP, really suggests that collusion is quite rare, and that good poker sites are trying to take action on it. Though I have suspected it at times, where players multi-table together, and particularly where a player makes many turn raises and finally folds on the river, this may at low stakes, be due to the maniacal semi-bluff addiction of poor players, who semi-bluff raise with insuffiecient outs and no fold equity.

Having taken the trouble to respond to your post, I hope that you are able to review your impression. But I offer an apology for the misunderstanding.

Re: On the subject of colluders in online o8 games
 

Indeed Rob seems I did misunderstand your statement. My apologies on that.

However, those collusion conspiracy folks should not necessarily be written off. I mean, if it weren't for a fellow 2+2er investing and reporting the cheating then nothing would have happened. How many people are playing and failing to realize when they are cheated, but yet feel deep down inside that something is wrong?

Re: On the subject of colluders in online o8 games
 

Thanks for the understanding.

So how do STT's survive? I've often been in the situation with 3 or 4 players on table, chatting in a foreign language. They tend to be loose passive, with some aggression pre-flop.

What happens is the dead money lunatics bust out early, then they pass the blinds back and forth, softplaying each other. Once you've given up the pot, they check it down.

There's usually +ve EV from staying out of hands near the money. But in this set up, they have you playing incorrectly, folding due to overcalls or being caught in the middle and folding when you should raise (concerned about actions of players behind).

Many loose-passive players, are that style anyway; so who can tell if they're implicitly colluding or being active about it?

The aggresssive players, much more likely to bust out, or run into a big hand.

My thinking is that sites could make you sign up for a certain level SnG, and they'd only allow players to play at same table say twice a day (ration somehow) and those who had played too much together would be entered into a later table.

To me that's the STT's more broken and open to cheating (you don't even need to share cards). Avoiding show downs is easy, as one can fold to smallish value bets.

Re: On the subject of colluders in online o8 games
 

[ QUOTE ]
About a month a go i notified poker stars about 2 players playing in the same Sit&amp; Go tournaments (PLO8)on a regular basis and asked them to investigate.
I found them by accident. Sharkscopeing the game i was in...

[/ QUOTE ]

The irony is overwhelming.

Re: On the subject of colluders in online o8 games
 

Both the players i reported had played 1,084 games between them one had a ROI of 23% and one had a ROI of 25% both were banned and had their money withdrawn and split between players that they may have colluded against.

Re: On the subject of colluders in online o8 games
 

What limits did they mostly play?

Re: On the subject of colluders in online o8 games
 

Small stakes PLO8 Turbos $6.50 and $16 Sit &amp; Go

Re: On the subject of colluders in online o8 games
 

Yeah and I played 254 of those games in the last 6 months (down from abou 1000 I played in the 6 months prior) and my ROI went from 21% down to 8% at those games. Hmm...coincidence? Gee $19 credit though, that makes it all better.

Re: On the subject of colluders in online o8 games
 

Hmm is it just a coincidence that angryfish hasn't played since this thread was made?

Re: On the subject of colluders in online o8 games
 

Angry Fish was not one of the two i reported.

Re: On the subject of colluders in online o8 games
 

[ QUOTE ]
Both the players i reported had played 1,084 games between them one had a ROI of 23% and one had a ROI of 25% both were banned and had their money withdrawn and split between players that they may have colluded against.

[/ QUOTE ]
As a matter of interest, how did you notice this with Sharkscope? Was it following their latest games and noticing that they played together whole time?

Re: On the subject of colluders in online o8 games
 

I subscribe to sharksope so i get 155 searches per day .I scoped all the players in my game and noticed 2 players both with ROI,s over 20%.
Out of curiosity i clicked on their names and then on their recent results,this gives you their last eight games played. They had played in the last eight games together at two different levels and both had entered the games at the same time.
No brainer..

Re: On the subject of colluders in online o8 games
 

[ QUOTE ]
I subscribe to sharksope so i get 155 searches per day .I scoped all the players in my game and noticed 2 players both with ROI,s over 20%.
Out of curiosity i clicked on their names and then on their recent results,this gives you their last eight games played. They had played in the last eight games together at two different levels and both had entered the games at the same time.
No brainer..

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you elaborate on how this amounts to collusion? I am at 19% and 23% in ROI on the two sites I use, and on each site I am usually in with 3 or 4 of the same players. I watch the O8 SNGs and often enter as soon as I see that at least one other player has signed up. Often, this is the same player on both sites. He happens to have an ROI around 27% on each site. Collusion?

Re: On the subject of colluders in online o8 games
 

just a coincidence that angryfish

AngryFish doesn't have an ROI that high, though he is a solid winning player at the limits he plays (11% ROI).

Re: On the subject of colluders in online o8 games
 

Can you elaborate on how this amounts to collusion

It doesn't amount to collusion, it just provides probable cause for further investigation. Obviously there are going to be times when two people play together in the same SNGs one after another - I've played some fairly big sets where some other player (ronpraha, UroBean, AngryFish, not2ez4me, or one of several others) was in all my games, just because we were both multitabling PLO8 SNGs at the same time. In lower limit NLHE this sort of thing would actually be more suspicious because the game volume is such that you could hardly end up playing in the same game as someone else eight times in a row (unless you were trying), but if you're playing the PLO8 turbos on Stars at the mid-limits (like $32+3) you can easily play every one that goes, which means you'll see a lot of the same faces.

Re: On the subject of colluders in online o8 games
 

The last eight games they played together were over two seperate days different times of day mostly at PLO8 ($6.5 and $16} levels with a couple of nl holdem sit &amp; goes thrown in .
Come on you dont have to be a brain surgeon to suspect collusion.

Re: On the subject of colluders in online o8 games
 

mostly at PLO8 ($6.5 and $16)

You have to wonder why they bothered. If I were going to go to the trouble of colluding I'd at least try to make the extra return worth my while. If you assume they gained an extra 10% ROI (each) from their cheating, you're looking at a buck or two an hour. Further I would expect that collusion and multitabling don't go together well (too hard to keep track of what goes with what), so multitabling would actually be a better way to increase profits assuming you had a decent edge to begin with.