Collusion on Full Tilt

[illNana]

Yesterday my friend came over and I asked him to login to his account and try to sit at the same table as me, from the same home network on Full Tilt and it worked. Does this worry anyone? Party would never let two accounts play on the same table that had any affiliation.

How about a player who creates 5 fake accounts and sits down to play 5 seats on the same 6max table, will he have a huge edge?

I would like to know what you guys think. It kind of worries me.

-IllNana

[Our House]

Shhhh...don't alert the public. I play 5 of 6 seats all the time and I don't need people like you taking my edge away.

[-zero-]

[ QUOTE ]
Shhhh...don't alert the public. I play 5 of 6 seats all the time and I don't need people like you taking my edge away.

[/ QUOTE ]

[Messiahkid]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Shhhh...don't alert the public. I play 5 of 6 seats all the time and I don't need people like you taking my edge away.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

[illNana]

I'm being serious. A bunch of guys could get together and play on the same home network, all sitting beside one another and collude.

[RED_RAIN]

[ QUOTE ]
How about a player who creates 5 fake accounts and sits down to play 5 seats on the same 6max table, will he have a huge edge?

[/ QUOTE ]

No

[ QUOTE ]
I'm being serious. A bunch of guys could get together and play on the same home network, all sitting beside one another and collude.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is very easy to detect for networks.

[Sqwrlking]

Where I live, there are at least 3-4 open wireless networks I can log onto. So theoretically, I could site at a table with 4 friends without having the same IP address anyway. So I'm not really worried about this to be honest.

[Webster]

Six monkeys playing poker at the same table does not mean they can win.

[iH8poker]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm being serious. A bunch of guys could get together and play on the same home network, all sitting beside one another and collude.

[/ QUOTE ]
The reason folks are quoting you so often is because 5 ppl sitting at a 6 max is about the LEAST effective way to collude. 2ppl at a 10 top or perhaps 3 at a 10 top is much more effective.

That being said, in some way colluders are like 'monkeys'. Generally they are not that good (presumably) and it takes WAY too much time to collude, ei you don't have to worry at NL $2/$4 or less.

Ok, I'm playing 4 tables and 2 buddies are playing at the same 4 tables...every 30 seconds or so I send them my 2 hole cards with a reference to which table and I receive 2 sets of hole card information...then collectively we must all deside who has the best chance of winning with the remaining 15 seconds left and proceed accordingly...then split the profits and losses.

Let's assume that these are reasonable good players (evident by deciding in roughly 15 sec. which set of 2 cards is the most likely to make the most money based on 6 known cards & mini bet, raising optimally). If playing on their own then they could play 8 tables. Will colluding provide enough of an edge to justify earn that much less profit? EI, if you make 3BB/100 playing 8 tables of NL$1/$2, then you would need to make 6BB/100 (at least) playing only 4 tables to breakeven, and for all the trouble I would say 10BB/100 would be required...and I don't think colluding provides that much of an edge, but at very high limits, 1 extra BB / 100 might be $200, and thus worth while.

I don't know if even bots know how to collude optimally, but as they can share information and react in probably less than 5 seconds and any extra profits from doing so goes to just 1 individual, I'd be much more concerned about them.

If you ever suspect colluding report it to a site, and if there is a history, they will know near instantly if they are.

Bots are a much bigger concern.

[Ribsauce]

ih8, it doesn't have to be with your buddies. You could put 3 computers right next to each other. this would especially be a big advantage in stud because you would know so many dead cards and could reraise a third party out of the pot.