Collusion or Strange Play?

MonteroyMonteroy
in Online Poker
I do a few dozen $20-50 Stars sit and gos a month.  Safe to say I have seen it all, and I am fairly immune to my AA being beaten by J4 off that calls an all in preflop on a hunch.  However, in one of the sit and gos I was in recently the play once it reached 4-5 players struck me as odd.

I did finish 4th in this sit and go so maybe it is partially out of frustration, however consider the following hands and the starting chip stacks/betting patterns with regards to pot size of gcoish and theworm12 .

I did email Pokerstars a few days after to review which was the first time I have done that in any of my sit and gos to date.  I have yet to hear back from them, though I expect if they are reviewing it that it takes a bit of time.

What do people here think, is there a pattern below or am I just an angry bubble person  :fish:



(75/150) - 2005/10/12 - 16:28:22 (ET)
Table '13700990 1' Seat #8 is the button
Seat 2: gcoish (4570 in chips)
Seat 4: theworm12 (2885 in chips)
Seat 5: 1Amsterdam (2855 in chips)
Seat 8: Monteroy (3190 in chips)
gcoish: posts small blind 75
theworm12: posts big blind 150
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to Monteroy [6s 5c]
1Amsterdam: folds
Monteroy: folds
gcoish said, "lol"
gcoish: calls 75
theworm12: checks
*** FLOP *** [Qc 7c Ts]
gcoish: bets 300
theworm12: calls 300
*** TURN *** [Qc 7c Ts] [8s]
gcoish: bets 150
theworm12: raises 150 to 300
gcoish: folds
theworm12 collected 1200 from pot
theworm12: doesn't show hand


PokerStars Game #2787350131: Tournament #13700990, Hold'em No Limit -
Level VI (100/200) - 2005/10/12 - 16:37:23 (ET)
Table '13700990 1' Seat #8 is the button
Seat 2: gcoish (4920 in chips)
Seat 4: theworm12 (3285 in chips)
Seat 5: 1Amsterdam (3105 in chips)
Seat 8: Monteroy (2190 in chips)
gcoish: posts small blind 100
theworm12: posts big blind 200
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to Monteroy [5h Jc]
1Amsterdam: folds
Monteroy: folds
gcoish: raises 200 to 400
theworm12: calls 200
*** FLOP *** [Qh 9h Kc]
gcoish: bets 200
theworm12: calls 200
*** TURN *** [Qh 9h Kc] [Tc]
gcoish: bets 200
theworm12: raises 200 to 400
gcoish: folds
theworm12 collected 1600 from pot
theworm12: doesn't show hand\


PokerStars Game #2787238220: Tournament #13700990, Hold'em No Limit -
Level IV (50/100) - 2005/10/12 - 16:20:41 (ET)
Table '13700990 1' Seat #8 is the button
Seat 2: gcoish (4170 in chips)
Seat 4: theworm12 (2635 in chips)
Seat 5: 1Amsterdam (3980 in chips)
Seat 8: Monteroy (2715 in chips)
gcoish: posts small blind 50
theworm12: posts big blind 100
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to Monteroy [5s 8d]
1Amsterdam: folds
Monteroy: folds
gcoish: calls 50
theworm12: checks
*** FLOP *** [4s Ks 5d]
gcoish: bets 200
theworm12: calls 200
*** TURN *** [4s Ks 5d] [6c]
gcoish: checks
theworm12: checks
*** RIVER *** [4s Ks 5d 6c] [7c]
gcoish: checks
theworm12: bets 100
gcoish: folds
theworm12 collected 600 from pot
theworm12: doesn't show hand



PokerStars Game #2787199831: Tournament #13700990, Hold'em No Limit -
Level IV (50/100) - 2005/10/12 - 16:14:36 (ET)
Table '13700990 1' Seat #8 is the button
Seat 2: gcoish (4820 in chips)
Seat 4: theworm12 (2185 in chips)
Seat 5: 1Amsterdam (4330 in chips)
Seat 6: NJ Paladin (1290 in chips)
Seat 8: Monteroy (875 in chips)
gcoish: posts small blind 50
theworm12: posts big blind 100
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to Monteroy [6h 4h]
1Amsterdam: folds
1Amsterdam said, "lucky"
NJ Paladin: folds
Monteroy: folds
gcoish: calls 50
1Amsterdam said, "but well done"
theworm12: checks
*** FLOP *** [Ad 5h 4c]
gcoish: bets 400
theworm12: calls 400
*** TURN *** [Ad 5h 4c] [6c]
gcoish: bets 300
theworm12: calls 300
*** RIVER *** [Ad 5h 4c 6c] [3h]
gcoish: checks
theworm12: bets 200
gcoish: folds
theworm12 collected 1600 from pot
theworm12: doesn't show hand

Comments

  • ScottyZScottyZ
    It's nearly impossible to say without seeing more.

    In particular, showing us four exact hands where players appear to be playing strangely will naturally lead to biassed reactions. IMO, each hand looked at individually looks somewhat reasonable, though with some clear examples of poor play. It's difficult to determine whether grouping them together and presenting them as a package like this is exhibiting a pattern of play, or creating one.

    It looks like you have a player (and, it seems, not a very good one) who likes to play an aggressive, bluffing style. He seems to have grossly overbet a couple of pots and folded some rivers for small bets. The play, for the most part, is consistent with someone who has attempted a bluff early in the hand, and has now given up on it.

    While it's certainly valid to report anything you find suspicious (I have reported plenty of suspicious time-out all-ins, and occasionally been right), my guess (based on the limited information here) is that nothing unethical is going on. But, honestly, it's just a guess. Without more information (that PokerStars can get, but you and I probably can't), it's pretty much impossible to make any solid judgements.

    ScottyZ
  • SirWattsSirWatts
    I agree with Scooty it looks like the first guy could be trying to pick up some small pots uncontested and failing miserably and the other guy knows this and is just betting small for value or to induce a bluff raise or just to plain laugh at the guy when he folds for nothing. Hard to say but maybe supoort has some more information that we don't. I don't know why they would make it so strange looking if they were trying to collude either, I guess they could just be stupid though.
  • WolffhoundWolffhound
    In the past I've added the players I think are colluding (usually also the ones with my chips) and add them to my buddy list.

    Then to ease my mind I'd hit the player search at times when I'm playing...if you do, and see that they routinely end up at the same SNG's, maybe you are on to something.

    Still doesn't prove anything, but, may ease your mind if they don't ever pop up together again.
  • TigerscottTigerscott
    I don't see collusion in those hands..

    Looks to me like continuation bets and folding to a raise. But who knows.. PStars has great support and software.. I know a few people who work at stars support they will go through a bunch of sng's and look for similar play and if these two are at the same sng's..
  • MonteroyMonteroy
    I agree that it was limited information I provided. There were many smaller pots that were won by the small chipper between those two, none of which ever went to a showdown, so it just felt wrong after a while. Posting all of those hands would have been a bit spammy.

    Nonetheless, I was happily surprised to find more money in my Pokerstars account this morning , along with the following email from pokerstars support.



    Once again please let me take this opportunity to thank you for reporting
    this. I have now completed my review into these players. Having looked into
    their possible relationship and replayed a few tournaments that they had
    played in together I believed there was grounds for a more intense review.

    This was one of the reasons that there has been a delay in getting back to
    you concerning this as both players were requested to explain some hands
    which had some questionable plays. On the back of their responses I
    completed my report and some other Poker Specialists looked it over.

    We have come to the conclusion that there were some transgressions of our
    tournament rules - specifically rule 9 covering softplay and chip passing.
    As a result of this you have been advanced into second place in Tournament
    #13700990 and your account credited with $54.

    Concerning the players involved. It is our opinion that their actions were
    not necessarily malicious and there were not high play rates indicative of
    malicious colluders. We have therefore decided to give them an additional
    chance on the site but have stressed that any future infraction will result
    in account closure and possible confiscation of funds. They have also been
    placed in what we call a Related User Group which means that they will be
    unable to sit at the same Ring Game or Sit and Go in future.

    I trust that you find this course of action acceptable and please let me
    know if you wish to discuss further.

    My Best Regards,

    Ed
    PokerStars Support Team



    Pokerstars really does stand apart in terms of customer service, and I expect that is one of the reasons why they may surpass Party Poker one day as the leading online poker room.

    I found it interesting that they did not find this behaviour malicious, as they were cheating. I am not sure whatthey would have to do to become malicious. I also am not entirely sure what softplaying means.


    Anyways, this goes to show you if your gut feeling tells you something is wrong to follow up on it.
  • ScottyZScottyZ
    I also am not entirely sure what softplaying means.

    I think it means playing a hand against a specific player (i.e. a friend) in a different manner, specifically less aggressively, than you'd play the same hand against a typical opponent.

    For example, if you had the nuts on the river in last position heads-up against your friend and you checked the river, this would be softplaying.

    The idea is similar to chip passing/dumping, but softplay uses a different method of implementation. When chip passing, you are giving chips to your friend on purpose. With softplaying, you are going out of your way to not take chips from your friend. (Both chip passing and softplay are forms of collusion.)
    I found it interesting that they did not find this behaviour malicious, as they were cheating.

    Agreed. While it's nice to know they are doing something about it, I'd feel even better if they adopted a zero tolerance stance in cases like this.

    Nice catch.

    ScottyZ
  • beanie42beanie42
    ScottyZ wrote:
    I found it interesting that they did not find this behavior malicious, as they were cheating.

    Agreed. While it's nice to know they are doing something about it, I'd feel even better if they adopted a zero tolerance stance in cases like this.
    I don't have a problem with there response to this, I think it's great that they took the time and actually acted. As far as "zero-tolerance", I think that's too harsh, without more info in this case. Collusion (from dictionary.com) is defined as: A secret agreement between two or more parties for a fraudulent, illegal, or deceitful purpose. There is no indication that there was any secret agreement or deceitful purpose. If I were playing against my kids, I might play like this. It looks like they were simply "playing for fun" rather than value, which I think could easily be accepted as an innocent mistake. Now that they've been warned, another incident is obviously intentional, but I think this incident could occur "naturally".

    Just a thought before we give 'em the chair...
  • ScottyZScottyZ
    beanie42 wrote:
    ScottyZ wrote:
    I found it interesting that they did not find this behavior malicious, as they were cheating.

    Agreed. While it's nice to know they are doing something about it, I'd feel even better if they adopted a zero tolerance stance in cases like this.
    I don't have a problem with there response to this, I think it's great that they took the time and actually acted. As far as "zero-tolerance", I think that's too harsh, without more info in this case. Collusion (from dictionary.com) is defined as: A secret agreement between two or more parties for a fraudulent, illegal, or deceitful purpose. There is no indication that there was any secret agreement or deceitful purpose. If I were playing against my kids, I might play like this. It looks like they were simply "playing for fun" rather than value, which I think could easily be accepted as an innocent mistake. Now that they've been warned, another incident is obviously intentional, but I think this incident could occur "naturally".

    Just a thought before we give 'em the chair...

    I know what you are saying here. Collusion in poker is very hard to detect, and harder still to prove. You are obviously never going to be able get into the minds of players and know what their intentions were.

    It's a really big "it depends", and PokerStars has a access to a lot better information than we will ever have on this matter.

    It's ceratinly possible that this was something like an "innocent mistake". I guess that in my attempt to read between the lines of the customer suppot email, I found this

    "a few tournaments that they had played in together"

    to be more alarming than I found this

    "there were not high play rates indicative of malicious colluders"

    to be (perhaps) reassuring.

    To me, repeatedly playing in SNG's with a "buddy" strongly suggests (although, again, it's very hard to prove such things) some degree of intent behind the actions.

    ScottyZ
  • SirWattsSirWatts
    It seems to me that support feels that while these players were colluding it was not on a large scale and they would rather keep their money around then ban them, and this warning is proably enough to set them straight. Soft playing is somewhat understandable among inexperienced players who don't realize it's as wrong as it is but passing chips is pretty blatant cheating. I understand their response in this case and I suspect it will be sufficient, but you could hardly argue against it if they had decided to ban them.
  • WolffhoundWolffhound
    beanie42 wrote:
    There is no indication that there was any secret agreement or deceitful purpose.  If I were playing against my kids, I might play like this.  It looks like they were simply "playing for fun" rather than value, which I think could easily be accepted as an innocent mistake.  Now that they've been warned, another incident is obviously intentional, but I think this incident could occur "naturally". 

    Just a thought before we give 'em the chair...

    I could see that if this was a 1.20 SNG...but, its 20+2, ok, not All Aces 400+30's or anything, but, 20+2 is real money, considering their play-
    a) they didn't accidentally end up at the same sng
    b) they were trying to help get each other into the money

    It would seem to fit the definition.

    I do however agree 100% that the sites would rather have these players future rake than ban them completely. Similar to getting caught with the illegal programs...they warn them...but don't ban them as their own greed blinds them from banning the players.

    In the end, congrats to Poker Stars for looking into it, replying and paying you not only your buy-in, but, profit as well.

    Just my 2 cents.
Sign In or Register to comment.
HomeDiscussionsToggle Dark Mode