Pacific Poker Collusion?

[catfish4u]

The following situation happened on Pacific Poker last night. The two players in question sat down within five minutes of each other. Also Colluder 1 sat down in a seat, left the table and colluder 2 sat in that same seat before a hand was played.

Several times colluder 1 would bet and colluder 2 would raise. They would also have colluder 1 check, colluder 2 bet and when it came around colluder 1 would (check)raise. The hand where I 'caught' them is outlined below. I immediately said 'that was not right. I think you two are colluding'. Colluder 1 immediately left the table even though the blinds were not on him. Colluder 2 sat out. I told the rest of the table 'these two have been colluding'. I left the table to view the history replayer. Sorry this is not easier to view or explain.
----------------------------------------------------------
hand 1916956520
utg calls, colluder 1 calls, between folds, colluder 2 calls, I call with A :club: J :club:, button calls along with both blinds.

Flop A :diamond:K :heart:9 :club:
utg bets, colluder 1 calls, colluder 2 calls, I raise, button calls, blinds fold, both colluders call.

Turn 7 :heart:
Check to me and I bet, button folds, utg calls along with both colluders.

River 2 :spade:
Check to colluder 2 and he bets, I call, utg folds, colluder 1 (check)raises, colluder 2 reraises, I fold. Colluder 1 folds. Colluder 1 checkraises and folds for one more bet with $367 in the pot. He was not bluff check raising with a bettor and me calling. He may have been bluffing if he bet out.

I immediately said 'that was not right. I think you two are colluding'. Colluder 1 immediately left the table even though the blinds were not on him. Colluder 2 sat out.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------


Hand 1916954993
Colluder 2 sits down and posts behind the button. Blinds call and first two players call, colluder 1 calls and player between colluders calls. Colluder 2 checks.

Flop Q :diamond: 4 :heart: 4 :club:

both blinds check and both ep players check. Colluder 1 bets, between calls and colluder 2 raises. Colluder 1 reraises. Between and colluder 2 calls.

Turn Q :heart:
Colluder 1 bets between calls and colluder 2 gives up as it is clear between is committed to this pot.

River 7 :club:
Colluder 1 bets as a last ditch effort to buy this pot. Between calls.

Between J :diamond:4 :spade: Flopped trip 4's made full house
colluder 1 10 :club: 2 :club: Nothing but a failed attempt to collude and steal a pot.
----------------------------------------------------------
hand 1916955879

colluder 1 calls utg, between calls and colluder 2 calls, the button and both blinds call.

Flop 9 :heart: 9 :club: 5 :diamond:
Both blinds check, colluder 1 bets, between folds and colluder 2 raises. All fold to leave the colluders heads up.

Turn 10 :club:
1 checks 2 bets and 1 calls

River A :diamond:
1 bets 2 raises 1 calls
colluder 2 catches an ace on the river to make Aces. He reraised colluder 1 with nothing. Colluder 1 mucks but could not beat aces. He bet acting like he had trip nines on the flop, colluder 2 raised acting like he also had trip nines. They were successful at running all of the other players out of the pot.

I am sending this information to Pacific Poker. I will update this forum on their response. The first hand above probably cost me $367. I think I had the best hand but had to fold to a re-raise and another re-raise. What do people here think especially of hand number one above? Thank you for your response.

Thank you,

Jim Kuhn
Catfish4U

 

[pokeraddict]

The key to this is what did the players you suspect colluding, what did they have? What are their play habits, What are the number of times they have played at same table, transfered money, where do they live, when did they sign up, number of hands played, whether anyone has ever complained before etc. Support knows the answer to all of these. I have on 5 or so times requested alert@party to look into something. 4 times party agreed with me where 3 times they sent a warning email, one time a player was banned. Another time they disagreed showing that player A had 200,000 hands and was a maniac, another player had 50,000 hands and was a maniac and neither had ever played at the same table. Each of these times party supplied me with their version of hand history which shows everyones cards. I have complained about this at ACR before about 2 teams and they didnt even bother to reply when the table 100% agreed one time. I even later saw these players later so nothing was done. There is no telling how Pacific will handle this ive never played there. Looking at the history of raising when the other player raises then folding and arriving at same time smells fishy but you could have just run into a coincidence. These two players could both have high raise % and flop % and thousands of hands and never played before.

 

[TAR]

I can't comment on the card play much because, frankly, I stink.

But the fact that two players have (basically) the same nickname, one that is a bit unusual, especially one that is pretty close to the word "collusion", and are playing in the same game and arrived about the same time..... well, that would certainly arouse some suspicions for me.

Also, I have played at Pacific since January and have had good experiences with their customer service. You will probably get a computer generated e-mail at first, but they should respond more personally soon after that. They have helped me out quite a bit.

Good luck.

Tim aka The Clueless Gambler

 

[jpm]

lol TAR, I think he was using Colluder 1 and 2 as generic names for these two he suspects were colluding, probably to preserve the identity presuming they aren't guilty.

Catfish, it doesn't look to me like they were colluding, particularly on the hand where they are the only 2 left in the pot and one is checking and the other betting him, etc. Why wouldn't they just check their way to the showdown and have one bet, one fold? Colluder 1 looks like a guy who chases hands (e.g. the 10 2 suited hand) and plays bully poker to try to scare people out of the pot. I think I would have wanted to call that reraise to see what they were betting with since there was no chance of a straight, flush, or full house in that hand. It would have come down to someone with a pocket pair or maybe pocket AK reraising at the end. Though it is suspicious that he left after your comment. He may have just left because he was caught bluffing yet again. Hard to say. In the 2nd hand, they should have been able to bully the other guy out of that hand but they didn't. I would definately report my suspicions and see what they tell you, because it surely could be something funny going on.

I kinda like playing against idiots like Colluder 1 sometimes though, usually you can bust them out pretty easily with a little luck and good betting strategy. Good luck with this, and please let us know what happens!

 

[TAR]

Oh man..... I feel like a big &#^@!! IDIOT!!!

Geez..... no wonder I stink in poker.

Tim AKA Nitwit Boy

 

[catfish4u]

Thanks for the replies. I think they would continue to bet each other heads up to minimize suspicions. Also, their nicknames were similar. Both had initials plus repeating numbers (i.e. 11 and 44) as their nicknames. It could have even been the same person from two computers.

 

[jpm]

There's an interesting idea, same guy with 2 computers. That could explain some of the behavior. Now I'm even more curious to hear what they say about this!

Thanks for the replies. I think they would continue to bet each other heads up to minimize suspicions. Also, their nicknames were similar. Both had initials plus repeating numbers (i.e. 11 and 44) as their nicknames. It could have even been the same person from two computers.

 

[jpm]

LMAO Tim!

Just shake it off!

Oh man..... I feel like a big &#^@!! IDIOT!!!

Geez..... no wonder I stink in poker.

Tim AKA Nitwit Boy

 

[pokeraddict]

No reply yet? Not to make anyone paranoid or give anyone ideas but I think it is possible for 2 people on computers at the same house to play together. Some softwares dont appear to be able to ban people on same address, at least until after the fact.

About 1 1/2 years ago there was a big scandal at Americascardroom where people were allegedly going to a net cafe in Bergen and tag teaming people and chip dumping promo money. The players of course denied this. The software did not catch it right then, it took until people complained and the GM looked into it to see this he found many players on same IP's and several nicks that appeared to be the same person on these IP's. They confiscated (according to a 2+2 thread involving the players and the GM) about $5000. I dont think any of this was given back to players that were tag teamed though. I feel sure alot of the money was promo money that was worked off "not in the spirit of the promo" Their old promo system was begging to be scammed.


There are a couple of poker rooms where my wife plays micro limit omaha8 while I play holdem on same IP and ive never heard a word about it. Maybe if she tried to sit at same table it would have caught it. I also know of many poker rooms though that auto kick you if two people on same IP try and sit at same table, but couldnt one of you just dial up while other is on high speed or be on the phone with each other?

I think that collusion is an issue but not as big as people think. You see for example there is a hand where they tried to pump it (if thats what they were doing) and the colluders ran into a boat. They created a huge pot for someone else. I dont see much to gain from this, especially in lower limits where it appears people call almost anything.

Like I said though I have reported colluders to party and they had swift response dont bother with support email directly to alerts@partypoker.com I have also contacted them with no limit and pot limit disconnection cheats, I URGE ANY POKER ROOM MANAGER TO ELIMINATE POT LIMIT AND NO LIMIT DISCONNECTION PROTECTION..... then again I have sent emails about what seemed to me team play at Americascardroom recently and didnt even get a response. This is a different GM then before who as you see I have had several issues with.

I play roughly 10,000 hands a week and only once every 3-6 months is there something so obvious to me I report it. As a matter of fact only at Party and ACR have I even thought this. That leaves 8-10 other rooms I've never seen any obvious collusion at all. Thats not to say it didnt happen but they could just not have done a good job.

Although I agree these hands look odd keep in mind these two could honestly be bad players, or just maniacs who didnt know each other. Only support knows for sure.

 

[Pacific]

This is John McNally from the Operations Department at Cassava
(Gibraltar) Ltd. who operates Pacific Poker.

Jim, thank you for taking the time to bring this to our attention and I will be contacting you directly when I have completed my investigation into this matter.

I have reviewed your correspondence and I would like to assure you that we take these matters very seriously.

Any player who colludes with or attempts to collude with any other player while using our Service may be permanently banned from using the Service and their account may be terminated immediately.

We have developed and employ sophisticated proprietary technology designed to seek out and identify players acting in collusion, as well as any other fraudulent or unlawful use of our Service.

The Company will always do its best to investigate complaints registered against players suspected of collusion, and I am currently in the process of examining the detailed game history you have provided. Rest assured, I will take all action necessary should any discrepancies be discovered.

Kind regards,

John McNally

Operations Department
Cassava (Gibraltar) Ltd.
operations@cassava.net

 

[pokeraddict]

What was the result of this? Still curious. Anyone?

 

[pokeraddict]

This player also posted this situation at the zoo. It appears Pacific agreed these were colluders, kept the money and banned the colluders instead of returning the money to the players who were screwed. They also reprimanded the player for posting this info in public. This is scum bag behavior on the part of Pacific.

It also has come to the attention of the zoo that the software CANNOT recognize 2 players who sit at a table from same IP address or names that have been played on same computers. This is standard in the industry and Pacific did not respond to zooer questions regarding these issues.

In my opinion I would be extra careful if I played here, if I continued to play there at all.

Link to zoo discussion

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.