Collusion

[grndizzle]

What do you guys think of this situation? The blind are 150/300 in both of these hands. The chip leader is in the small blind in both of these hands with the shortstack in the big blind with only 165 chips. Anyone in their right mind would call another 15 chips with 150 in the pot already. Do u think dennix and his fellow countrymen erwinn622 were teaming up or what??

FullTiltPoker Game #7095741369: $1 + $0.25 Sit & Go (Turbo) (53943213), Table 1 - 150/300 - No Limit Hold'em - 12:28:09 ET - 2008/07/05

Seat 1: emeced (470)
Seat 4: grndizzle (1,590)
Seat 6: dennix (11,275)
Seat 9: erwin622 (165)
dennix posts the small blind of 150
erwin622 posts the big blind of 165, and is all in
The button is in seat #4
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to grndizzle [9h 5d]
emeced folds
grndizzle folds
dennix folds
Uncalled bet of 15 returned to erwin622
erwin622 mucks
erwin622 wins the pot (300)
*** SUMMARY ***
Duration 10s
Total pot 300 | Rake 0
Seat 1: emeced didn't bet (folded)
Seat 4: grndizzle (button) didn't bet (folded)
Seat 6: dennix (small blind) folded before the Flop
Seat 9: erwin622 (big blind) collected (300)





FullTiltPoker Game #7095749374: $1 + $0.25 Sit & Go (Turbo) (53943213), Table 1 - 150/300 - No Limit Hold'em - 12:29:03 ET - 2008/07/05

Seat 1: emeced (20)
Seat 4: grndizzle (1,140)
Seat 6: dennix (12,175)
Seat 9: erwin622 (165)
dennix posts the small blind of 150
erwin622 posts the big blind of 165, and is all in
The button is in seat #4
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to grndizzle [4c Jc]
emeced folds
grndizzle folds
dennix folds
Uncalled bet of 15 returned to erwin622
erwin622 mucks
erwin622 wins the pot (300)
*** SUMMARY ***
Duration 9s
Total pot 300 | Rake 0
Seat 1: emeced didn't bet (folded)
Seat 4: grndizzle (button) didn't bet (folded)
Seat 6: dennix (small blind) folded before the Flop
Seat 9: erwin622 (big blind) collected (300)

[frob23]

Depends but I would say probably not collusion. If dennix was playing the big-stack correctly (putting everyone at risk to go broke when the ultra-short stack was not involved), it was to his/her advantage to keep the bubble going as long as possible. I've done this myself before. When I have a really large stack and am slowly draining the middle stacks during the bubble period, I will not risk putting the short-stack out and terminating my advantage.

Edit: And from the looks of the stacks in the second hand, compared to the first, I would say that was probably the case. He was just abusing the bubble to cripple everyone else so badly that he was almost certain for 1st.

[grndizzle]

This is the hand I went out on to finish in 3rd. I know it's not a horrible beat, but I think it's suspicious he wouldn't call 15 chips to push erwin622 all in, but he has no problem calling my all in with Q4.

FullTiltPoker Game #7095767402: $1 + $0.25 Sit & Go (Turbo) (53943213), Table 1 - 200/400 - No Limit Hold'em - 12:31:03 ET - 2008/07/05

Seat 4: grndizzle (1,050)
Seat 6: dennix (11,955)
Seat 9: erwin622 (495)
grndizzle posts the small blind of 200
dennix posts the big blind of 400
The button is in seat #9
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to grndizzle [9h Ks]
erwin622 folds
grndizzle raises to 1,050, and is all in
dennix calls 650
grndizzle shows [9h Ks]
dennix shows [4s Qc]
*** FLOP *** [2s Jh 4c]
*** TURN *** [2s Jh 4c] [7d]
*** RIVER *** [2s Jh 4c 7d] [6c]
grndizzle shows King Jack high
dennix shows a pair of Fours
dennix wins the pot (2,100) with a pair of Fours
*** SUMMARY ***
Duration 24s
Total pot 2,100 | Rake 0
Board: [2s Jh 4c 7d 6c]
Seat 4: grndizzle (small blind) showed [9h Ks] and lost with King Jack high
Seat 6: dennix (big blind) showed [4s Qc] and won (2,100) with a pair of Fours
Seat 9: erwin622 (button) didn't bet (folded)

[gamer4life27]

When he called your bet, he was gambling. He had a mostorous chip lead, and would call if he thought he had live cards. It's nothing bad, he was just playing the big stack to perfection.

[frob23]

The bubble has popped in this hand. So it's no longer really an advantage to fold to the short-stacks. Your bet is only 650 on top of the 400 he has in... so of course he's calling. Being on the bubble and not being on the bubble can make all the difference here.

I don't think this is evidence for collusion.

Note: If you seriously suspect collusion, contact PS and they will investigate it. I do not believe this is sufficient evidence but they have access to much more information and can make a proper investigation.

[grndizzle]

I hear what your saying about the bubble, but when your in the small blind for 150 chips and you fold instead of calling another 15 doesn't make sense. There is no difference of risk involved with calling and losing 165 chips rather than folding and giving away 150 chips. It just seemed when we got down to 4 handed the big stack would call any raise from me and emeced , but would fold his small blind around to erwinn.
But your right i'm sure it isn't collusion. I don't think anyone would waste there time cheatin the 1$ tables.

[frob23]

I hear what your saying about the bubble, but when your in the small blind for 150 chips and you fold instead of calling another 15 doesn't make sense. There is no difference of risk involved with calling and losing 165 chips rather than folding and giving away 150 chips. It just seemed when we got down to 4 handed the big stack would call any raise from me and emeced , but would fold his small blind around to erwinn.
But your right i'm sure it isn't collusion. I don't think anyone would waste there time cheatin the 1$ tables.

There is no difference between calling and losing 150+15 chips and folding and losing 150 chips. The differences is calling the 15 and winning... and thus ending the bubble period or folding and ensuring the bubble continues for at least one more hand.

The big stack here has absolutely no risk or worry about being the bubble boy. What he does have is the power to force that worry and risk upon the middle stacks. You, for example, would be wrong to risk your tournament life against the big stack without AA or KK here (and maybe not even KK). Because of that, you pretty much have to fold any time he puts pressure on you. Once the bubble pops, your risk/reward for getting all-in decreases. You are no longer risking losing $1.80 (and mentally your entire buy-in)... you are now risking $0.90 -- and have already made some profit on your buy-in. It's much better for him to abuse the middle-stacks on the bubble than it is once the bubble pops.

The bubble is a very profitable time when you're the largest stack and there is a micro stack that is likely to end up out at any time. Since that player is so short, the middle stacks would be wrong to risk their own tournament lives until after the bubble pops... and the big stack can mercilessly steal from the middle stacks. It's in his best interest to pay 150 chips to keep it going.

At the same time, players at the $1 tournaments usually aren't sophisticated enough to be aware of this play -- but it's not impossible. And, to be honest, in cases like this the play almost becomes self-apparent if you're playing an aggressive enough big stack.

[frob23]

Also, at the 2nd hand, you have about a 30% equity in this tournament... even if you double through the big stack you only increase to 32% equity. You do NOT want to play anything in this spot unless you're sure to win because you're not increasing your equity enough.

Note: In the hand you went broke with.

Folding leaves you with: 27.6% equity
Doubling up leaves you with: 31.3% equity

You are only increasing your equity by 3.7% and you're risking your tournament life on a hand that is less than a 58% favorite against a purely random hand. You're going to lose 42% of the time if he'll call you with ATC... and more often if he's calling with reasonable hands. Since you're not increasing your equity much and the other player is going to be all-in on the next hand, this was a questionable shove.

If you had folded here, and the big stack had folded to the short-stack on the next hand, that would have been suspicious. This is a spot when folding would have been slightly better. This short, you're subject to luck no matter what but it would increase your chances of winning more money.

[grndizzle]

I was looking back at the hand history, I think I should posted these 2 hands as well.

FullTiltPoker Game #7095761217: $1 + $0.25 Sit & Go (Turbo) (53943213), Table 1 - 150/300 - No Limit Hold'em - 12:30:21 ET - 2008/07/05

Seat 4: grndizzle (1,350)
Seat 6: dennix (11,655)
Seat 9: erwin622 (495)
dennix posts the small blind of 150
erwin622 posts the big blind of 300
The button is in seat #4
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to grndizzle [5c Kd]
grndizzle has 15 seconds left to act
grndizzle folds
dennix folds
Uncalled bet of 150 returned to erwin622
erwin622 mucks
erwin622 wins the pot (300)
*** SUMMARY ***
Duration 18s
Total pot 300 | Rake 0
Seat 4: grndizzle (button) didn't bet (folded)
Seat 6: dennix (small blind) folded before the Flop
Seat 9: erwin622 (big blind) collected (300)


******************** # 4 *************************

FullTiltPoker Game #7095756214: $1 + $0.25 Sit & Go (Turbo) (53943213), Table 1 - 150/300 - No Limit Hold'em - 12:29:48 ET - 2008/07/05

Seat 4: grndizzle (840)
Seat 6: dennix (12,495)
Seat 9: erwin622 (165)
grndizzle posts the small blind of 150
dennix posts the big blind of 300
The button is in seat #1
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to grndizzle [As Qh]
erwin622 has 15 seconds left to act
erwin622 calls 165, and is all in
grndizzle raises to 840, and is all in
dennix calls 540
grndizzle shows [As Qh]
dennix shows [Jc 5s]
erwin622 shows [Td Ah]
*** FLOP *** [9h 4s Th]
*** TURN *** [9h 4s Th] [8s]
*** RIVER *** [9h 4s Th 8s] [8c]
grndizzle shows a pair of Eights
dennix shows a pair of Eights
grndizzle wins the side pot (1,350) with a pair of Eights
erwin622 shows two pair, Tens and Eights
erwin622 wins the main pot (495) with two pair, Tens and Eights
*** SUMMARY ***
Duration 32s
Total pot 1,845 Main pot 495. Side pot 1,350. | Rake 0
Board: [9h 4s Th 8s 8c]
Seat 4: grndizzle (small blind) showed [As Qh] and won (1,350) with a pair of Eights
Seat 6: dennix (big blind) showed [Jc 5s] and lost with a pair of Eights
Seat 9: erwin622 showed [Td Ah] and won (495) with two pair, Tens and Eights

[frob23]

First hand is a little odd.

Second hand is absolutely standard.

[phaul]

Sorry, in the second hand of grndizzle's first post, did no-one see emeced's stack? Big stack can't prolong the bubble, so he should ALWAYS call here. Overall I would probably say this is collusion, but it's a $1 tournament, so...

[BUILDMO]

it may just be stupid play (non-rational) calls or in this case the no call.
don't let it get to you since you did cash.
play the next game and chalk it up to gaining experience.

[iceveins0901]

I think the idea of prolonging the bubble is a great idea, from the first two hands it sounds like the big stack was playing great.

But really, would you actually collude with your friend at $1 SNGs? I would not. I go to a casino and sit at the same table as a friend of mine $1/2 $300 max, and we will get into it in the same hand if we need to, even though I know he wont bluff me and I wouldnt do so against him, we still will play against each other.

Online, I would be more likely to collude at $50 SNGs and it probably wouldnt work for too long before being caught.

[EliminateU]

I really don't think they can catch you. WhAT CAN ACTUALLY PROVE COLLUSION?

look at absolute and ultimatebet...it took a long while for them to figure out someone could see all hole cards. this is what discourages me about online.

I actually will pull up top players and watch them in cash games and tourneys to figure out their secret. guess what, they get "luckier". now, there are horrible players who lose quick...but i've seen so-called top players consistently suck-out...while I am afraid to milk with a flopped nut-straight anymore.

I watched JohnnyBax, USCphildo, and jeppg1111 on FTP in a tourney last night just get luckier over and over. JB called an all-in (with decent but not overwhelming pot odds) with 4-6s vs A-Jo and of course win. 58-42 you say.....but...how does he know.

USCphildo called all-in with questionable pot-odds (very borderline) with A-9s vs QQ...river ace.

26.5-73.5...coincidence...maybe. but these guys win over $500k per year in just tourneys.

I had a another top pro at my table in a $2/$4. after 90 mins of very tight play ( 9 flops seen and 5 pre-flop wins in 128hands) I went for a mid pos steal after an early re-raise. the re-raiser folded as did the blinds...but this guy on button calls with Q-Js. flop is A-2-7 rainbow, and i bet 2/3 pot. he goes all-in. i had 2-7 and call. he runner-runners J-J. any questions?

[iceveins0901]

Yes, how many hands were played to get those 3 suckouts? How much variance has been taken into account? Also...

58-42 you say.....but...how does he know.

I would think he was able to put his opponent on a range and then decide that the 46s was a good spot to try to catch lucky and knock out an opponent with decent odds, increasing his chances of winning by increasing his stack and thinning the field.

In a cash game, it really isnt ever a good spot to call an all in pre with 4-6s, unless it was a short stack all in with 3-4 callers on top.

[Vito_Nuccio]

This sounds as if you do not have faith in these poker rooms. My advice is to play only where you feel comfortable. There are plenty of online poker rooms available. As for the hole card problems of Absolute and Ultimate, they are now heavily watched by an outside agency and are probably some of the more tightly regulated sites going at the moment.

There are donks at all levels and suckouts do occur at the top of the food chain. More moves are made at the higher levels based on poker instincts and player reads than hand strength. The top pros are just humans and are prone to make mistakes, which all poker players do. Limiting your mistakes is one key to successful profitable play.

There is also the fact that poker players have a vivid memory when it comes to recalling bad beats and losses, but a hard time pulling together memories of all the wins (including their own suckouts) that got them to where they are now.

You may be seeing a combination of factors at work here. Look into your own game to see what can be adjusted. Make what ever changes are needed, if any. Beats are going to happen, sometimes frequently. If you are utilizing good bankroll management, these beats should not be but a small dent to your wad which can be easily overcome. If not, then you definitely need to get up to speed on handling your roll.

Thanks

[rakmupagain]

[ i had 2-7 and call. any questions?[/QUOTE]

Yes just one question............

[iceveins0901]

i had 2-7 and call. any questions?

Yes just one question............

lol how did I miss that in that post? that's a gem right there.

[powrdragn]

I'm glad I'm not the only one that read that and found it to be strange. I figured I'd just be a jerk by pointing it out.

[Brooklynbum]

lol @ Rakmupagain.

That's classic bud.