I was not commenting on sample size or the merits of your argument....which I might even think is reasonable (most people who post such threads have already had their story fall to pieces by now) - its possible you are a false positive however stars want business so they won't go banning people willy nilly just because they can.

but I digress...you entirely missed my point. I was simply pointing out that they obviously looked at all yourplay with Merv and decided that you had $60.54 worth of collusion that you are responsible for - but it is interesting that you won more than that.They could have easily taken it all but why did they come up with that number? No one really knows how they get that number but but none the less that for the stakes you played implies a SIGNIFICANT amount of what they consider to be collusion.

to be clear, I am not arguing if you are guilty or not, I just identifying that once they found you guilty they came up with a penalty. hmmmmm...

edit: btw you don't need to rebutt with pointing out that you could care less about $60 and that you just want to be able to play there because its implied/assumed/whatever

MerzGotGame here.

I know that particular stat is pretty damning. It sucks for us. But we are both 100% sure that we never cheated, in any possible way. Don't look at one stat and conclude the worst. I can tell you right now, that this particular stat is entirely possible without collusion, because that's what has happened. It's my experience. This thread is about creating awareness to get our case looked at again. I was literally in shock when I got the email that we cheated, my face went white and I got goosebumps, I've never been falsely convicted for anything, and its a terrible feeling.

They only provided us with two hands each, and it actually blows my mind that from these 4 hands (and what ever other evidence) which they asked us to explain, they concluded with out doubt that we cheated. Its ****ing unbelievable. Even now a few days later, it still blows my mind.

I'm busy with work right now, but I will post my version and the hands I was asked to explain very soon. I will not let this thread die, we need all the awareness we can get.

Don't believe everything you see in front of you. I'm ****ing adamant we didn't cheat. And that's why we're here. I play 7 dollar Sngs. This begs the question why would I cheat at 1.50's? Certainly not for monetary gain. Pokerstars has ****ed up. Plain and simple. We plan to turn this around.

-Jamie.

Rake is 6.66% in the $1.50s and 5.14% in the 3.5s which would likely offset any skill difference between the two games (if any even exist). Just based on the rake difference I would assume good players would have a higher ROI in the 3.5s actually.

Guilty. End of story.

Well thought out post is well thought out.

Great 24th post Mato. Came on the site a month ago - sure glad you did - you have so much insight and post your deep-thinking thoughts in such a profound way.

Some people just make me lol.

And if you read my posts in this thread - you will see that I have definitely not given Box or his friend an easy time of it - but at least have something to say when you make a post... OR I guess you are just trying to throw out the one liners to add to your post numbers??

Nice.

Not.

Hey Box - you said you were contacted by Pokerstars security last night. Are they reopening the investigation?

If so then it was good that you made this thread. At the very least it got the attention of those who can actually do something.

Like I said last night - (after giving you a pretty hard time) - if you are guilty of nothing (and only you, Merz and Pokerstars know that) - then I wish you the best with this.

Very reasonable post from someone who has been here for a little while. Not in the format of the OP that we see all the time. Good luck.

Yes I was contacted by them and they are re-opening the investigation. I will post once I get a result. I'm just really hopeful they take a really good look this time and this whole thing can be put behind me and merz. Thanks.

Please keep us updated and share all emails regardless of the result.

Reading through this thread is tough. The stats are damning and Stars is generally good at this. Most times a thread pops up like this, it becomes increasingly obvious as the thread goes on that the op is guilty as charged. This op gets quite defensive, which can be a sign of guilt but is also natural when wrongly accused. His friend's post is well-framed and makes me consider it a possibility both are wrongly accused.

Two scenarios come to mind to explain the strangeness of two guys who are beating a higher buyin game being accused of deciding to risk their for the meager profits afforded in the 1.40s. First is that they are indeed unlucky to have run well over a small sample and to have made some strange looking plays possibly due to knowing each others games thoroughly. The second is that they were simply working on a strategy to collude on smaller games where they were sure they wouldn't get caught and planned to move up if they did well with it.

I've been wrongly accused in my life, as most have, and it sucks. Evidence is not as conclusive as people often think and interpretations are of course subjective. OP, if you and your friend are indeed innocent, I wish you two luck with your case. If you are not, damn you for wasting the time of everyone else here!

Wow, PS is really going downhill lately. I guess now that they have 90% of the market, they are going to stop caring about trying to have a reputation as having the fairest play and the best support.

The stats posted by Rainbow Warrior are meaningless, a similar comparison was done on the O8 cheating thread and it turned out one of the guys was completely innocent. Where are the "control" stats? Compare yourself with a few of the other winning players that regularly register for the same tourney as you do - I bet you will see something similar.

A sample size of 239 is insignificant, and also there is heavy selection bias. If OP is better at this sort of tournament than general tournaments then you would EXPECT his success rate to be better than his average success rate.

I agree and I think pokerstars should provide more hands showing possible collusion.

Ok guys, I said I'd come back to show the hands I was asked to explain, so here I am. Remember I'm here for no other reason other than to create awareness and get this mistake fixed. I would not be wasting any ones time if I knew I was guilty.


PokerStars Game #80255500771: Tournament #559076520, $1.40+$0.10
Hold'em No Limit - Level II (15/30) -

2012/05/11 0:49:46 ET
Table '559076520 1' 6-max Seat #6 is the button
Seat 1: B0xleyNZ (470 in chips)
Seat 2: burraca1 (522 in chips)
Seat 3: Catalea (502 in chips)
Seat 4: MerzGotGame (502 in chips)
Seat 5: Coeurl (544 in chips)
Seat 6: Djonik7 (460 in chips)
B0xleyNZ: posts the ante 3
burraca1: posts the ante 3
Catalea: posts the ante 3
MerzGotGame: posts the ante 3
Coeurl: posts the ante 3
Djonik7: posts the ante 3
Moving Bets to Pot
B0xleyNZ: posts small blind 15
burraca1: posts big blind 30
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to MerzGotGame [As Kh]
00:50:03 Catalea has timed out
00:50:03 Catalea: folds
00:50:03 Catalea is sitting out
00:50:05 MerzGotGame: raises 30 to 60
00:50:05 Coeurl: folds
00:50:06 Catalea has returned
00:50:10 Djonik7: folds
00:50:12 B0xleyNZ: calls 45
00:50:14 burraca1: calls 30
00:50:14 Moving Bets to Pot
00:50:14 *** FLOP *** [Qd 2s 2c]
00:50:18 B0xleyNZ: checks
00:50:19 burraca1: checks
00:50:22 MerzGotGame: checks
00:50:22 *** TURN *** [Qd 2s 2c] [Ah]
00:50:24 B0xleyNZ: checks
00:50:26 burraca1: bets 60
00:50:28 MerzGotGame: calls 60
00:50:31 B0xleyNZ: calls 60
00:50:31 Moving Bets to Pot
00:50:31 *** RIVER *** [Qd 2s 2c Ah] [Qh]
00:50:39 B0xleyNZ: bets 155
00:50:46 burraca1: calls 155
00:50:48 MerzGotGame: folds
00:50:48 Moving Bets to Pot
00:50:49 *** SHOW DOWN ***
B0xleyNZ: shows [Kc Qs] (a full house, Queens full of Deuces)
00:50:50 burraca1: mucks hand
00:50:50 B0xleyNZ collected 688 from pot
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot 688 | Rake 0
Board [Qd 2s 2c Ah Qh]
Seat 1: B0xleyNZ (small blind) showed [Kc Qs] and won (688) with
a full house, Queens full of Deuces
Seat 2: burraca1 (big blind) mucked [Ad 5c]
Seat 3: Catalea folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 4: MerzGotGame folded on the River
Seat 5: Coeurl folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 6: Djonik7 (button) folded before Flop (didn't bet)

PokerStars Game #79840400590: Tournament #555411072, $1.40+$0.10
Hold'em No Limit - Level IV (30/60) -

2012/05/03 11:05:16 ET
Table '555411072 1' 6-max Seat #5 is the button
Seat 1: MerzGotGame (1545 in chips)
Seat 3: B0xleyNZ (153 in chips)
Seat 4: sima_rostov (772 in chips)
Seat 5: der_jungnrw (530 in chips)
MerzGotGame: posts the ante 6
B0xleyNZ: posts the ante 6
sima_rostov: posts the ante 6
der_jungnrw: posts the ante 6
Moving Bets to Pot
MerzGotGame: posts small blind 30
B0xleyNZ: posts big blind 60
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to MerzGotGame [4c 3h]
11:05:19 sima_rostov: folds
11:05:23 der_jungnrw: folds
11:05:25 MerzGotGame: raises 60 to 120
11:05:26 B0xleyNZ: raises 27 to 147 and is all-in
11:05:28 MerzGotGame: calls 27
11:05:28 Moving Bets to Pot
11:05:30 *** FLOP *** [6s Jd 3s]
11:05:32 *** TURN *** [6s Jd 3s] [Td]
11:05:33 *** RIVER *** [6s Jd 3s Td] [Kd]
11:05:35 *** SHOW DOWN ***
MerzGotGame: shows [4c 3h] (a pair of Threes)
11:05:35 B0xleyNZ: shows [7d 4h] (high card King)
11:05:35 MerzGotGame collected 318 from pot
11:05:35 B0xleyNZ finished the tournament in 4th place
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot 318 | Rake 0
Board [6s Jd 3s Td Kd]
Seat 1: MerzGotGame (small blind) showed [4c 3h] and won (318)
with a pair of Threes
Seat 3: B0xleyNZ (big blind) showed [7d 4h] and lost with high
card King
Seat 4: sima_rostov folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 5: der_jungnrw (button) folded before Flop (didn't bet)


If any one wants my detailed explanations for these hands, I'll copy the email I sent to Stars when my response was requested.

Otherwise, they feel very standard to me. Simply put, Box doesnt value bet anything worse than my A-K in the first hand, ESPECIALLY with another player involved. And then the second hand; it makes sense for me to just blind shove any two cards here...all day,every day. If the same spot popped up again today, I'd do exactly the same thing with my monster stack and with Box only having 2.6ish BB's. So while trying to knock him out with a weak hand, that I know I'm almost always a 2 to 1 dog with, I actually set off alarms at Stars.

I want to emphasise that I know Box's game extremely well. We've been playing Poker together for over 2 years now.

We both know that we have been wrongly pronounced guilty. It's just a matter of Stars getting their **** together.

Happy for people to post their opinions and ask me any questions, just don't jump to conclusions. I'm telling you right now, Stars security is not perfect.

I think the bump in ROI can be partially explained by the simple fact that it is a 6-man hyper. So playing together they both have a very good grasp on what one of the other players is doing most of the time. That's 1 in 5 of your competition. Seeing as these are winning players I assume that on a normal game 2 other players fall out before either of them, making this a much bigger difference of 1 in 3 of your competition. This is all speculation but I think this hasn't really been brought up yet.

I think the argument of 240 sample size as not being big enough is not entirely valid. When your looking at sample size, it does affect the accuracy of your conclusion within a number of standard deviations - but when your looking at such a Large difference in performance - and you only need to conclude whether you DID or DIDN'T collude - then the sample size is large enough. But as I stated above this large bump is deceptive because of the situation.

Then we get to the point of what is colluding actually, you are obviously playing differently when your in a game together. And you are using this to your advantage. Maybe not in an obvious way. But you are gaining an advantage simply because of the fact that you know each others styles so well. What Pokerstars thinks about this I don't know.

how can this be viewed as NOT a collusion?

especially after this

coincidence?

I dont think so.

not a ban but def take profits away imo