On the subject of colluders in online o8 games

[wiseheart]

So, Ive played approximately 500,000+ hands on Pokerstars (possibly more, but last time I actually got the official # from them it was a bit below 500k) and I have only now received my first email from Pokerstars which says I was a victim of colluders and received a (measly) credit.

Now, I have never taken the time to scrutinize sufficiently whether or not my opponents were colluding. I have been at tables where it seemed that way and expressed verbally that I would contact Support and once about 1 year ago I actually asked support to look into two people, but they found nothing.

Anyways, is this a sign that colluding on Pokerstars is fairly rare, or is it just fairly rarely reported? What are your opinions?

[Buzz]

Wiseheart - How would you catch two players who played in the same game from their own homes and who simply communicated their cards to each other, say by CB or ham radio, and perhaps in code?

Buzz

[wiseheart]

Buzz,

If we are still talking online poker you would catch them by observing their betting/folding patterns relative to each other.

The main problem is, it is easy to see when high level players are colluding cause there are many eyes always watching (for instance the accusation by grimmstar day before yesterday in BBV that two players were softplaying at the 25/50 nlhe game gathered a lot of attention) Yet at the lower levels, the only people watching are usually the players themselves. In that case, it is up to the player to look for suspicious behavior and report it.

For instance, I thought it suspicious and annoying that a player kept folding their SB in a SnG to a BB that had hardly any chips, yet they would always push when I was BB.
By itself this is not too unusual, but when that player is always folding to the same person's BB in many SnGs then there is reason to believe something funny might be going on. Then you compare all the hands they have played to determine if that is true.

IMHO. (Buzz that means In my honest opinion)

[Assani Fisher]

[ QUOTE ]


IMHO. (Buzz that means In my humble opinion)

[/ QUOTE ]

[Buzz]

Wiseheart - Suppose two partners had an agreement to split fifty-fifty, and also knew their confederate's cards.

Colluding would not so much be a matter of soft playing their confederate as getting out of a split pot hand when they were both going the same one-way, and simply choosing to play the better hand of the two while folding the other hand.

When I have suspected people, it has mainly been when they greedily raised inappropriately on the third betting round and then folded on the fourth so as not to have to show their cards. That particular facet and other telltale signs of collusion (such as soft playing each other in a tournament) could be avoided. Partners could use the extra information cleverly enough so that nobody would know they had an unfair edge.

Omaha-8 is not always highly dependent on a mathematical evaluation (odds or E.V.) - but sometimes it is. Sometimes it would definitely be a big advantage for partners to know the whereabouts of those extra four cards. I think they could use the information subtly enough that you would never even guess there was collusion.

I have seen people cheating at cards by colluding. Thus there is no doubt in my mind that some people will cheat by colluding if they think they can figure out a way to get away with it. If two or three individuals playing in the same on-line game and making their cards known to their confederate(s) were not blatant, then IMHO [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] they'd be virtually impossible to catch, and if they played well, they'd have a huge advantage.

I haven't spent much time thinking about how to cheat on-line and not get caught, but it seems to me that it would not be difficult at all, so long as you were not excessively greedy.

Buzz

[wiseheart]

Good analysis, so for me the key question becomes do I devote mental resources to actively trying to find colluders in my game or do I rely on Pokerstars to catch them (the ones that are obvious enough to catch) and just never worry about the subtle colluders because there is nothing to be done?

[Buzz]

[ QUOTE ]
so for me the key question becomes do I devote mental resources to actively trying to find colluders in my game or do I rely on Pokerstars to catch them

[/ QUOTE ]Wiseheart - I don't know. What's the pay-off for you if you report someone for collusion?

Our circumstances are different since I play in brick and mortar casinos. I watch for collusion and quit the table when I suspect it. If the floor manager is good and we have rapport, then I quietly report it to the floor manager on my way out of the casino. (I'm not saying that's the best way to deal with it).

Buzz

[RobNottsUk]

The anti-collusion algorithms look for suspicious betting patterns. So, if one of those players were involved in pots with trash, when the other had a lock, and was raising, it attracts attention.

If they're just passively sharing info and sutbtely adjusting the odds, then the extra 4 seen cards, will only be a very slight long run benefit for marginal decisions, not really worth the trouble may be?

[bbartlog]

the extra 4 seen cards, will only be a very slight long run benefit

I think four extra cards seen would be a big edge. In many cases it would allow you to bluff or bluffcatch with great confidence. Often you could narrow your estimate of opponent holdings substantially based on the extra four cards as well.

[BradleyT]

[ QUOTE ]
the extra 4 seen cards, will only be a very slight long run benefit

I think four extra cards seen would be a big edge. In many cases it would allow you to bluff or bluffcatch with great confidence. Often you could narrow your estimate of opponent holdings substantially based on the extra four cards as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

When I read the original post last night that was the first thing that came to mind. You would not need to use betting patterns to collude you could simply use extra card information.

I did some twodimes tests on hands and you can certainly swing small dogs like 48% into small favorites like 52% by knowing 4 dead cards. I don't even want to know the effects of knowing 8 dead cards.


Of course this could explain why some players who seemingly get their money in bad all the time are winners - and all anyone can do is blame it on running hot.