On the subject of colluders in online o8 games

[macawboy]

No but i would soonner not .They have both been banned.

[wiseheart]

I would guess that you found the culprits that were in the same games as I was playing in macawboy. Thanks for taking the action to get them looked at.

Assani, I always thought IMHO was the way I did it, but it could go either way I guess, and so for now on Ill consider it to be humble.

[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 ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]Hi Rob - That's nifty. (I'm not being sarcastic).

[ QUOTE ]
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?

[/ QUOTE ]Having that information would give me an extra edge. Omaha-8 is largely a drawing game.

For example, if I were drawing for the nut flush on the turn, without knowing my partners cards, I'd have maybe 9 outs out of 44 unknown cards if I wasn't worried about the board pairing. Odds against making the flush would be 35 to 9, or 3.9 to 1. However, if I knew my partner had folded four small hearts, the odds against making the flush would be 35 to 5 or 7.0 to 1. That would be a substantial difference. Or if I knew my partner had folded a hand with no hearts, the odds against making the flush would be 31 to 9, or about 3.4 to 1. Thus by knowing my partner's cards, I could pinpoint the particular ratio between the extremes of 3.4 to 1 and 7.0 to 1, rather than using 3.9 to 1. It wouldn't always matter much, but sometimes it would.

For me a winning session can be two or three big scoopers, and I primarily play limit Omaha-8. In a pot limit game one big win would go a long, long way. It would be very handy to have enough of an odds edge to stay out of a few big losers and participate in a few big winners.

Buzz

[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

[2handed]

To set up a successful collusion O8 team would in my opinion require a knowledge of the game that would allow the player to beat the game for a nice winrate playing fairly, and would take more effort within a hand than one might think to really utilize the edge knowledge of extra 4 cards possess. 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. At higher levels, there is more scrutiny and a smaller player pool, so it becomes more obvious who might be working together. I have never been too worried about colluders in the games i have been playing over the past year, which range from 15/30 to 100/200, although I most likely have been the victim of cooperative playing and cardsharing. If certain games or players start being unusually hard to beat I might be more on the lookout for this kind of thing, but so far it seems that the good players are hard to beat and the bad players easy. The edge of the former group comes from skilled play that is very comprehensible to me and the consistent losing of the bad players can be understood as the opposite. I will definitely post on 2p2 if my experience in this area changes.

[RobNottsUk]

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
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?

[/ QUOTE ]Having that information would give me an extra edge. Omaha-8 is largely a drawing game.


[/ QUOTE ]
Undoubtedly, but you're a skilled disciplined player, not someone trying to get rick quick!

To use those adjusted odds, you'ld have to be a skilled player, most likely able to win without cheating. Those few % on calls, is less than the uncertainty provoked by bluffing, isn't it?

Whilst it is an advantage to have more info (especially avoiding good calls which actually have few outs due to opponents holdings); that is not going to be the main factor in cheating someone.

To exercise a small long term edge, they'd have to be on same table for a large amount of hands.

So whilst it is some concern, there's no need for becoming "Waranoid". In a Live card room, with regular players who know each other, or have an arrangement with the dealer, there's an even bigger problem.

You are right, but we should keep a sense of proportion. After all most reading this are probably playing profitably?

[Buzz]

[ QUOTE ]
In a Live card room, with regular players who know each other, or have an arrangement with the dealer, there's an even bigger problem.

[/ QUOTE ]Rob - I'll agree there may be a problem, but I'm not sure it's any bigger of a problem. You can at least see what's going on. And in the games in the big casinos in which I play the dealers regularly get switched after less than an hour, and there's a shuffling machine so that two decks are constantly alternated. And most participants watch as the dealer deals. And sometimes a floor manager also watches. False dealing under these conditions may not be not absolutely impossible but it is pretty far fetched, enough not to be much of a consideration.

Any collusion is between players in the game - and you can at least watch what they are doing. I'm sure collusion occurs (I've seen it occur.) but I think you have a better chance of spotting it when it does occur than when you're playing anonymous on-line opponents, although it is neat that hand betting patterns can be analyzed by algorithms for on-line play. Alas, that kind of checking is impossible in a live card room.

Buzz

[Buzz]

[ QUOTE ]
To set up a successful collusion O8 team would in my opinion require a knowledge of the game that would allow the player to beat the game for a nice winrate playing fairly,...

[/ QUOTE ]Hi 2handed - I agree. However, I don't think some individuals are above cheating, even if they are able to beat the game without cheating.
[ QUOTE ]
...and would take more effort within a hand than one might think to really utilize the edge knowledge of extra 4 cards possess.

[/ QUOTE ]It would take much more effort. I think some individuals would be willing to expend the extra effort to assure a higher profit.
[ 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 ]
At higher levels, there is more scrutiny and a smaller player pool, so it becomes more obvious who might be working together.

[/ QUOTE ]Yes. But I think very clever confederates could make it not very obvious.
[ QUOTE ]
I have never been too worried about colluders in the games i have been playing over the past year, which range from 15/30 to 100/200, although I most likely have been the victim of cooperative playing and cardsharing.

[/ QUOTE ]Hard to say. Perhaps.
[ QUOTE ]
If certain games or players start being unusually hard to beat I might be more on the lookout for this kind of thing,

[/ QUOTE ]Exactly. I think that's about all you can do.
[ QUOTE ]
but so far it seems that the good players are hard to beat and the bad players easy.

[/ QUOTE ]Makes sense to me.
[ QUOTE ]
I will definitely post on 2p2 if my experience in this area changes.

[/ QUOTE ]Thanks.

As dean, I got to sometimes see the seedy side of people. Even some individuals I highly respected before the glimpse turned out to have feet of clay. (Perhaps we all do in one way or another - but some definitely more so than others). At any rate, I have seen cheating in poker games and I'm wary of it.

Buzz