how can this NOT be collusion?

[Nate tha\\\' Great]

Personally, I'm surprised that this isn't *more* of an issue in games where the stakes are so high and the player pools are so small.

[diddle]

post the names. the information is already public. It's not like you collected this off of a wiretap.

[Turning Stone Pro]

[ QUOTE ]
Personally, I'm surprised that this isn't *more* of an issue in games where the stakes are so high and the player pools are so small.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree, Nate. I was thinking about this the other day. I'll leave the real high limit stuff to the 2+2 elite, cause even if I had the game to play at that level I just dont think I could play with confidence that everything is on the up and up.

Therefore, I just keep sloshin' through the muddy low limit waters with the rest of the mudcats.

TSP

[Sponger.]

I'm not really going to bother looking that hard at the hand, and just say that its boreline silly to see one hand stick out and think that collusion was going on. Maybe if you watched 50 hands you could build a good case for it.

[James282]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not really going to bother looking that hard at the hand, and just say that its boreline silly to see one hand stick out and think that collusion was going on. Maybe if you watched 50 hands you could build a good case for it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nah, this one hand is pretty good evidence that collusion is going on. It's pretty silly to disregard one case of blatant collusion just because you don't have other examples on hand.
-James

[daryn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm not really going to bother looking that hard at the hand, and just say that its boreline silly to see one hand stick out and think that collusion was going on. Maybe if you watched 50 hands you could build a good case for it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nah, this one hand is pretty good evidence that collusion is going on. It's pretty silly to disregard one case of blatant collusion just because you don't have other examples on hand.
-James

[/ QUOTE ]

i agree.. and i think it's kind of important to get the names out.

[RiverTheNuts]

out some ho's plz

[sweetjazz]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not really going to bother looking that hard at the hand, and just say that its boreline silly to see one hand stick out and think that collusion was going on. Maybe if you watched 50 hands you could build a good case for it.

[/ QUOTE ]

The point is if you see what you suspect is collusion in just one hand, you report it to the site and then they watch enough hands to see their is a good case for it or not.

It is possible that player B is just a stupid bluff monkey who was on tilt or just sucks at life. But let UB decide whether that's the case or not.

[Tommy Angelo]

I don't see collusion in this hand. The reasoning to support the case for collusion is circular. It goes like this:

Fact: Players A and B were in a hand in which the betting pattern was one of the patterns that colluders might employ.

Bad reasoning by the court: If players A and B made their betting decisions based upon what the court assumes they made their betting decisions on, namely, that they are colluding, then their betting indicates collusion.

Well duh.

Toss in some tilt here and a misclick there and some booze here and a misread there and a billion-dollar bankroll here and maybe even some good old fashioned "bad playing" there, and the case never even makes it to court.


Tommy

[etizzle]

it is circular until you see their holecards, yes.