Collusion Online
 

Next time when you sit down online, open up your AIM and try sending a message to the handles at the table. You'll be suprised at how many players use the same AIM handle as they do their poker handle. This is just something I do to pass the time, see who is using AIM and tell support about it.

Good idea, but I assume this is only for higher limits players. At low limits, I am not really worried about online colluders, since they are probably not very good at it to be doing it at low limits to begin with.

Wouldn't that mean that support would have to put you in the same category
as them? Afteral, you had AIM going too. :rolleyes:

it pays to stay anonymous

What is a violation?
 

Is it against the sites' terms of service merely to have AIM or another IM client running? Even if there is no evidence of collusion?

LMFAO.

I think watching the hand history and such for any odd-ball behaviour is the best way to go.

Bingo!

Do those algorithms that Party and other sites claim to use really detect collusion??

probably not, unless you have a bunch of computers set up in one room using the same internet line at the same table.

I see how AOL (or other IM programs) CAN be used to collude. But, if a poker site actually is saying you can't use the two at the same time, that is just wrong. You could just as well call someone up on a phone and have the same conversation as on IM.

Thats kind of ridiculous really. So if I play poker and simultaneously chat with a buddy (who of course isnt in the game) over AIM, Im colluding?

Id even say theres nothing wrong with chatting with people AT your table, of course not giving away any unfair information, like, hmm, your hole cards.

Defendant

im not sure that i would be that worried about this. it was mentioned earlier, but i doubt that anyone playing low limits would be good enough at colluding to actually get maximum value out of you.

there is a lot of fishy play online, but i would attribute most of it to incompetence, not collusion.

Exactly.

Unless you are very confident in your ability to detect collusion, it pays to stay at the lower limits.

Because I can guarantee you that there are many people who are colluding at some level in the higher limits. It's a simple fact of life - where there is money to be had, some people are willing to do anything to get their hands on that money.

CF

pokerstars has proven to be very good at not only stopping colluders, but also returning money to players who were cheated.

granted they cant stop all of it, but they do make an effort, which is more than i can say for other sites.

on a side note, hopefully russ g...aka newgca....wont find this site and start his rantings yet again

I kind of liked Russ....
He was good for alot of information....
His articles were actually really good.

for those of you who want to read his articles....
They are actually a must read.

Sometimes it could even benefit to play colluders, especially when you do catch the nuts and slowplay them. These maniacs would be raising all around you and you can simply continue to call, call, call and not even have to raise the pot to get maximum value from it.

You don't think there are people exchanging hole card info in the low limits like $25NL, 1/2 and 2/4 limits? Better think again.

Collusion doesn't just mean getting you in the middle. Good colluders are not maniacs. For ex. I have JJ in the cutoff, my partner has 72o UTG. He open raises to cut down the field, one guy in between calls, it gets to me, I three bet, blinds and my partner fold and I am now HU with the caller. Or I have 10 10 and I am facing a raise and a call, but I fold because I know my partner mucked 10 6. I am just sayng you really need to be on the lookout for anything. It is not just happening at the lower limits, some say if you are playing alone you are already beat, which has not been the case for me. In fact, with all the money at the lower limits at the big sites and all the new players playing those lower limits where do you think cheaters would like to harvest?

If you are worried about 2 players at a table trading info about hole cards, that is nothing at all. It gives them very little of an edge other than the odd time knowing when to fold (if the have say 8 outs to a flush or straight and their partner has 2 of them). Or they could also run into the situation where the partner has none of the outs, in which case their chances increased by what, 2-4%. Hardly an edge worth worrying too much about.

are you serious? you are baked aren't you?

i agree with geoff here

i think that if two people at the table are sharing hole card info it isnt that significantly different to your expectations. the situations just arent going to arise particularly often where their cards will tell you enough about how they should optimally play the hand.

given the earlier examples, how many times can you really expect to hold TT, and fold it down because your partner has T6? i am skeptical that this type of situation happens at any more than neglible rate.

i really like a lot of the strategy posts by russ. i thought the o8b post was great. it really helped my game.

the rantings get a little bit old, but i think that they actually have a lot more substance than most people would like to recognize. hopefully, his info is outdated though.

I read an article somewhere talking about this. When there are only 2 players colluding, they don't get that big of an advantage. When there are 4 or 5 or more, that is when it starts to get to be a big edge. The cards start to become "super-hot", as knowing the other cards takes about 10 rags that you do not need. But when there is only 2 players, it is very hard to beat the rake and the game.

Edited to add: That was my 100th post.

logically this makes sense in the same way that counting cards in blackjack makes sense. the more into you get about the rest of the deck, the better, but when you only have a couple of extra cards known, the advantage is extremely minimal. but when you have a huge amount of info about the deck, it swings greatly in your favor.

Maybe so ...
 

But if they are ...

Either it is not very widespread

- OR -

They aren't dominating the tables

Because I remain confident that these games are very beatable.