Stevesbets and Tommyboy accuse MadCaddy of cheating (TL;DR)

[bap2086]

wow my god, that hand looks sooooo suspicious. now i can see why u guys called him out that just doesn't even make sense.

[hoppscot22]

a. im confused by what stevesbets had...

b. that hand is somewhat shady and collusion in O8 is much more rampant than in holdem games. him folding on the river is pretty shady IMO, but im not sure id go all out accusing him or anything.

edit to add that ive played caddy heads up before for a significant number of hands and from what he said he seemed like a pretty stand up guy... obviously probably doesnt mean much but still...

[cpitt398]

lol at Stevebets hand

[Pete]

[ QUOTE ]
lol at Stevebets hand

[/ QUOTE ]



but he was double sooooooted

[donger]

the fact that the alleged colluder is urging him to email support makes me think he's legit. If you had colluded a lot, wouldn't you want to discourage an investigation?

[Micturition Man]

I think it's funny how big a point people are making of the river fold facing one bet.

To someone like stevebets it's inconceivable that you can lay down the 3rd flush for one bet in a big pot, even though given that action no sane player would raise river without it given Caddy's preflop and turn action...

Also people are very mentally lazy when it comes to allegations of collusion. Sure this hand looks strange, because it is strange.

But how does this strangeness suggest collusion?

Either you think they were trying to jam steve out or they were trying to extract value from him.

If it's jamming him out, what hand are they trying to get steve off? (Especially since steve doesn't have a fold button.)

If they're jamming him in, why would they think they have > 66% equity between them when one guy has unimproved AA, A3, and nfd and the other would in theory have little or nothing extra.

Or maybe you think the collusion just comes in in saving one bet on the river but otherwise playing your hand straightforwardly...

It's not collusion give me a break.

[Perestroika]

They don't only need X>66% equity because of fold equity. And there perceived fold equity certainly is higher due to the fact that someone holds AAA in their hand.

Undoubtedly this could be coincidence, but surely your claim that it CANNOT be collusion is assailable.

[Micturition Man]

[ QUOTE ]
They don't only need X>66% equity because of fold equity. And there perceived fold equity certainly is higher due to the fact that someone holds AAA in their hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes but like I said, when colluders are jamming they are either trying to get a fold or trying to get more money in. It can't be both simultaneously.

[ QUOTE ]

Undoubtedly this could be coincidence, but surely your claim that it CANNOT be collusion is assailable.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good thing I never made that claim.

[Perestroika]

[ QUOTE ]
But how does this strangeness suggest collusion?
It's not collusion give me a break.

[/ QUOTE ]

[Micturition Man]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But how does this strangeness suggest collusion?
It's not collusion give me a break.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]


Ok that's step 1.

Now quote what you said I said. Then compare.