thx much, we need to get a response from the sites ASAP.

Emailing support @ now

Thanks again
Andrew

I gotta figure that somewhere in that 1M+ gross income per day, they can figure out a way to defend against this.

this. Tell us what they say!

Is it possible to do a statistical analysis of the percentage of them calling a raise when one of the other raises with no one else calling before vs one of them over-calling when 1 or 2 players call before it gets to them?

I have to say I was kinda surprised when I got to the part where he cold called the same amount after 3-betting less often. This means not only is he cold calling hands he would normally 3-bet someone else with but he is actually folding more hands against him that he would normally cold call against someone else. Although 30bb deep is it sometimes a slightly more polarized range aka value 3-bet range then cold call a bit then bluff 3-bet hands that play the best when called but not good enough to call? I know 20bb it's generally just shove top x% typically but I'm not a shortstack or mtt expert. Either way though you've explained why he would flat strong hands but have not explained why he would fold more hands to a player he is colluding with than he would against an average player he was not.

It was mentioned that he could flat strong hands because 3-betting them would not show a profit unless they coolered someone behind (who would likely ship over anyway so flat is obviously much better when colluding). I'm actually kind of curious what type of hands they were 3-betting each other with although I guess that'd fall into "teaching people how to collude 101". Would be interested if someone good enough who knew what would be optimal for a colluders' 3-bet range to be against each other and see if that matched the parties involved.

Anyway really good work was a good read and from what I can see everything looks extremely well thought out and explained and almost all variations/possible mistakes seem to have been investigated. Very nice work.

i understand that you investigated these players (of course because everything points to them as they are friends as well), but did you test play of any of the other 49 common opponents against the player involved that showed anything way off from the group as a whole. Just wondering because sometimes when you test for something you get the answers you want. For your test to be scientific, you cant just test the players involved but all the players involved i think.

Great work, Noah.

FTP, Stars: Time for action...

I wonder what GreenPlastic has to say about all this. Prolly nothing right LOL. Keep giving Cardrunners(AKA STOXPOKER/Cardrunners) 30 bux a month folks somebodys gotta get rich....

Yes. Here's what I see for spots with an open raise, at least one caller and in which the suspect is not in the BB:

In the FTP CAP games, there's nothing interesting there. They both play a little lighter with both 3-bets and calls when there's a caller in between.

On Stars, both players flat way wider when there's a caller in between than when there isn't a caller. They also flat vs. each other way more often than they flat vs. the average of other opponents. (i.e., if one of them open raises, there's a caller or two or 3, and then the other of them is next to act, they flat way more often than if someone else were the open raiser. I asked PTR to exclude hands in which one of the suspected players was a cold caller because I thought they would corrupt the data.). I don't have enough data to get a good idea of how they vary their play in these spots vs. other players.

In FTP non-CAP games, my data's sorta messed up at the moment. Looks like it's probably pretty similar to the Stars games, but I'm not totally sure.

I could speculate about what this means, but it'd be pure speculation--especially since I don't have a large enough dataset to see if they tend to vary their play a lot in these spots.

Can we bring FTPDoug or someone into this thread?

I think the use of statistics makes this unnecessary. Maybe you could clarify a bit what you mean, though.

Guys,
Stars support definitely knows about this thread.

FTP support may not know about this thread yet, but they'll know about it when they get around to checking their e-mail.

Both will almost certainly respond to it. They'll almost certainly take a while to do so like they always do. I don't think that's a bad thing... They're companies and they have to form a consensus before they speak publicly about stuff.

impressive job, can't imagine how many hours of your life that you spent on this, didn't have to spend on this, and shouldn't have needed to spend on this.

hopefully there is a stars cookie basket in your future

awesome work dude

McNulty-esque imo

Very Solid Post ! ! !

well done dude!

Amazing work Noah. I hope we'll get site's responses asap.

hope so

Interesting. Now look into 5NL regs see if you can find colluders for me so it will be more fair!

I contributed a bit of data to it. Unfortunately for me, my lifetime play against all suspected accounts has netted me something like $250 profit, over a dinky-assed sample of around 1000 hands. Sooo....no refund for me :-(

Good work Noah, even though I haven't read a bit of it yet. Should provide for some interesting reading.

wow .. NoahSD ... you are a sicko.

thanks

really well done op and thanks for the warning, ive played tons of hand with kinetica and 40putts, cheating ****ers

Thanks a lot for the effort Noah and everyone else involved. Ugly stuff.

not sure what this means, if anything, but here was stars support response to my email (included at the bottom, very very brief)