[RobNottsUk]

[ 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.