'tabu' lol

Talk about uncharitable interpretations!

Well, I wasn't saying that was proof you were fine with 8 players having 12.5% of each in a 9-handed game. My point was the following: by saying you're fine with 10%, and unsure about 25% (!?!~), you're really blurring the lines.

--NVGtard.

No one is saying that it is impossible to cheat.

No one is saying that the games are impeccably clean.

What the sane people are saying is that there is no evidence of impropriety; there is no evidence of collusion happening; there is no reason to believe it is happening.

If you have evidence that it is happening, you should report it to the online poker site concerned. If you think it is happening, why haven't you reported it? It's your civic duty to do so, and your failure to report such activity - when you believe such activity is happening - shows that either:

-the complainants are complicit in this alleged cheating to begin with; or
-the complainants know that their offensive allegations have no basis in evidence or reason.

Which is it? This is a perfectly fair binary option - it is either one or the other. Which is it?

In the meantime, people should stop dragging people's names through the mud with this derivation of the old and discredited rigtard argument.

You people who make these slanderous and baseless accusations ruin the credibility of online poker for those of us who actually care about honesty and fairness, and who actually do something about it. These baseless accusations not only hurt the targets of the baseless claims, but they hurt the online poker community more broadly.

We live in a world where every allegation about someone is permanently recorded on the internet forever. Sadly, the anonymity of this same technology makes people feel that it is ok to make slanderous and false accusations with no evidence to support them. The combination of the two is a dangerous and poorly used tool.

(by "you" in this post, I don't mean "kk405" - I mean anyone who thinks collusion is happening in big games online)

Does not follow. Lack of direct evidence ≠ no reason to believe it is happening. If it is true, as many seem to accept, that it would be easy for them to cheat, that it is unlikely they would get caught, that it would be difficult for us to know, that the value to them would be extremely high, and that many (most?) people in such a situation would do it, then this is in fact a reason to believe that it is happening.

This is not deductive proof, no. But inductive logic is still logic, and human nature is still a reason to believe.

It would not stand up in court, but this isn't court. People are taking their best guesses, based on incomplete information. Many people's guess is that they are cheating. This guess is perfectly understandable.

hint for you:
still does not equal collusion.

Either there is reason to believe collusion is occurring, or there is not reason to believe collusion is occurring.

If, as you claim, "many people's guess is that they are cheating" then those "many people" need to report it to the site concerned.

Do you believe cheating is taking place?

If so, you must report it. There's no ethical dilemma here. There's no doubt that this course of action is correct. There's no doubt here. There's no tricky logical reasoning here.

If you think there is cheating taking place, you must report it. It is your duty as a human being with this special knowledge - to ensure that the alleged cheaters are brought to justice.

Of course, I'm pretty confident that the people in this thread who think poker is rigged haven't made a report to the relevant online poker sites. That's because they're either complicit in the cheating by their silence, or they know that there is no evidence of misbehaviour.

Either way, their argument is offensive and continues to undermine the actions of those of us that truly care about preserving integrity in online poker, and those of us who are not hypocrites or complicit in the alleged collusion.

Not sure why you bother with this thread RBK (or Josem, for that matter) - there probably is some irony floating around, but I'll defer to the expert.

any chance u will respond to this kurosh or will u just ignore it like u do any other time it gets brought up?

why should he reply when people are asking similarly valid questions and not getting answers?

I can't believe the amount of 'pro's' in this thread that go around insulting people that basically know less than them about the HS games eg. 'You're ******ed I'm not going into detail....blah blah' I mean they must have been born clever right? Or do they just get off on insulting people asking questions!

for his own sake, i honestly dont think he should reply and would be better off ignoring it and praying it goes away like he usually does. that said he already responded to snagglepuss saying he doesnt multi account...so why not take it 1 step further and just respond to whether he played under those 2 specific accounts or not.

That's silly, and I suspect you know it. If I had to bet on it -- yes, of course I believe cheating is taking place. I believe that many of the people we are implicitly talking about are cheating. But I am well aware that the basis for my belief is not something on which FTP, or any site, would act, so I will not waste anyone's time by reporting it -- in fact, I know nothing they don't already know. I have no independent knowledge of cheating -- but that doesn't mean that I cannot believe that they are, nor does it mean that I cannot say I think so, provided I am also clear about what evidence I do and do not have.

Go ahead and find the accusations offensive. I'm sure those more directly implicated do, too -- or at least those of them who are not cheating, of whom I imagine there are some, do. Tough.

They are unsupported allegations in that there is no direct evidence behind them, but they are reasonable to allege in this context -- which, is in fact, an Internet thread devoted to discussion of whether people believe -- not whether they can prove, but whether they believe -- that the HS regs are cheating.

Kurosh brings up valid points about the general likelihood of cheating and collusion in high-stakes games, although the same is true of all games.

However, I have known Phil in real life for about 4 years and for what my perspective is worth, he is without question an extremely honest and fair person when it comes to poker and money (I have had most of my experience with him in these areas). I knew him before he was rich, and he was the same way then.

chuddo, I think if your question had used "or" in place of "and", you would've gotten the answer you expected.

Go Team Galfond!!!

There is a difference between assuming there is a pretty big chance of collusion happening (due to the ease of cheating, low risk or discovery and great potential monetary gain) and being able to produce 100% proof of a specific case of collusion.

The site you work for assume the same thing. They not only investigate specific tips. They actively look for connections between players, weird bets, chipdumping and so on. So having the belief that cheating is happening doesn't make people "rigtards". Unless you believe your security department to be rigtards also.

In this specific case (lets call it Uringate), there is very little evidence of any wrongdoing. Just a hand that Gus felt was so odd that he decided to stop playing. Possibly similar situations have happened in the past and he wanted to make sure it became known he didn't accept it. Perhaps he was just being a tiltmonkey. Anyways, anyone believing there is solid evidence of Galfond and Dang colluding is a ******. That doesn't mean collusion at high stakes doesn't exist.

No one should accuse anyone specifically, unless the have proof...and this is a very serious matter...it is perfectly legit to debate about the group as a whole and have/express opinions in general, but everyone should refrain from defending or accusing individuals...

Maybe the reason members of the 'high stakes group' are so keen to say it isn't happening is because they have one of the best information sets with which to make a decision?

i've met phil once and talked with him on aim a few times, very little interaction with Zed, but I'd be very surprised and bet a lot of money that they don't actively collude.

I also think it would be harder than you think to collude in these games without getting caught. You'd need two people who were good enough to win the $ to play 500/1000, which would presumably make them good enough to win a couple of mill a year without cheating, and who would presumably have a couple of mill or so in their accounts which they'd be risking by colluding, yet they'd gamble it all up as well as selling their souls in order to get an edge ...... I'm not really sure it's happening.

Wow, that's a lot of ifs.

yup, I think we should have asked and accepted OJ Simpson's argument/explanation/defense too, because he was/wasn't there some people's logic is just unbelievably ******ed...

Sick irony ITT

Has anyone reading this thread right now ever had a coach sweat them while they play? Has that coach ever helped you think through a hand???? I believe one player to hand is the proper ethics right?

How about you HSNL players? Ever sweat a student and helped them out?

My point is that there is a line, and that line is not clear as day at all times.

How is it impossible/incredibly tough to collude in these games? You play your normal everyday game against everyone equally. and whatever pot you win off Friend1,2,3 you refund them afterwards through moneybookers, neteller, etc...

Anyone who thinks collusion is difficult is a MORON. It could be as simple as sharing profits and losses in a game against the so called fish. These people do transfers with each other all the time so who is to know. Of course there are even potentially worse ways of collusion which have been mentioned

I honestly would be really really suprised if the nosebleeds are being cheated. Too many railbirds, tracking sites, and very small player pool. I would be more concerned with the smaller, like 1/2-10/20 games. Don't have to worry either about losing your 6 figure+ bankroll if you get caught.

collusion is the rule online ....2pl2 don't like this kind of talk though since they are clipping online poker sites for huge$ in advertising revenue....

RBK -- why do you waste your time and energy trying to explain sh** to everyone?