On the subject of colluders in online o8 games

[RobNottsUk]

[ 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?

[Buzz]

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 ]

[wiseheart]

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.

[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.

[wiseheart]

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?

[RobNottsUk]

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.

[bozlax]

[ 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.

[macawboy]

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.

[BradleyT]

What limits did they mostly play?

[macawboy]

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