|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Collusion at FT of 109r?
PokerStars Game #9739385468: Tournament #48888293, $100+$9 Hold'em No Limit - Level XX (10000/20000) - 2007/05/04 - 01:14:07 (ET)
Table '48888293 10' 9-max Seat #8 is the button Seat 2: aimerif (643961 in chips) Seat 3: frostey (222168 in chips) Seat 5: Rizen (241487 in chips) Seat 8: Reno_Jones (193384 in chips) aimerif: posts the ante 1000 frostey: posts the ante 1000 Rizen: posts the ante 1000 Reno_Jones: posts the ante 1000 aimerif: posts small blind 10000 frostey: posts big blind 20000 *** HOLE CARDS *** Rizen: folds Reno_Jones: folds aimerif: raises 80000 to 100000 frostey: raises 121168 to 221168 and is all-in aimerif: folds frostey collected 204000 from pot frostey: doesn't show hand *** SUMMARY *** Total pot 204000 | Rake 0 Seat 2: aimerif (small blind) folded before Flop Seat 3: frostey (big blind) collected (204000) Seat 5: Rizen folded before Flop (didn't bet) Seat 8: Reno_Jones (button) folded before Flop (didn't bet) o yeah and there from the same city. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Collusion at FT of 109r?
I'm honestly going to say yes on this one.
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Collusion at FT of 109r?
its either a really bad play, a misclick, or collusion. i think its pretty hard to prove it without a pattern of it.
i could understand the 200K stack folding, at lower buy ins it happens. seems weird though from a big stack at a 100 rebuy final table though. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Collusion at FT of 109r?
[ QUOTE ]
its either a really bad play, a misclick, or collusion. i think its pretty hard to prove it without a pattern of it. i could understand the 200K stack folding, at lower buy ins it happens. seems weird though from a big stack at a 100 rebuy final table though. [/ QUOTE ] I agree with this. There's a difference between being terrible at poker and colluding. I seem to see a similar play at least a few times a month. This is a little piece of evidence, however. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Collusion at FT of 109r?
It'll be obvious once stars looks at their hole cards... There are people stupid enough to fold there though.
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Collusion at FT of 109r?
i havnt read post yet, only the title.
Probobly |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Collusion at FT of 109r?
100%
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Collusion at FT of 109r?
and they finished 1/2
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Collusion at FT of 109r?
wouldn't it make sense for the chip dumping to go in the other direction though?
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Collusion at FT of 109r?
[ QUOTE ]
wouldn't it make sense for the chip dumping to go in the other direction though? [/ QUOTE ] No, they want to be 1-2 in chips wayyy ahead of the other dudes rather than just one of them wayyy ahead |
|
|