also this is confirmed, bustoville population ledfoot and me

Noah on poker static talking about this and related stuff
http://www.pokerstatic.com/poker-dir...tz-aka-noahsd/

NoahSD,
if I remember correctly, you have shown that they almost never 3bet eachother.

Maybe a study should be made on the initial raiser, not only the 3bettor.

Can you prove that when one of them is the initial raiser in the Hijack (and his good friend is left to act in the CO or Btn), he open-r as if he were in the cutoff, playing looser?
Would it make a difference for Stars opinion?

Another point:
for Stars this is not collusion (beyond a reasonable doubt, this is not proven collusion).

Is there ANY case where Stars can say: yes, this is collusion, money confiscated.
In any examples Stars may give, I will answer:
No, it's a few misclicks.

And it would be statistically more likely to happen than what we can see in NoahSD work.

I'm not 100% sure about this, but I'm pretty sure that Stars's argument here is that they can't prove intention. Like it's possible that LittleZen said "I don't 3-bet Stox because I think he runs really good against me when I 3-bet him!" or something ******ed like that. So Stars thinks they couldn't prove that's not true in court, so they let him keep his money and didn't refund people who were cheated.

There are cases where players shared hole cards and Stars confiscated. That's because there's no intention problem when you're sharing hole cards. All Stars needs to do is prove that they varied their play in a statistically relevant way based on their opponent's hole cards, and that's gg.

There might also be times when people were dumb enough to confess to collusion. Altho there was a thread in MTTC where Stars basically ignored a confession.

It's not like this is the only incident, either. I've asked people for ideas about how to better protect ourselves. The thread is here. If anyone has any input, feel free to drop by.

Ok, but what if you can prove that the initial raiser adapt his play by playing looser when his friend is on his left, knowing that he will not 3bet him.

The point is to investigate the initial raiser actions, not the insta-folder behind him.

In your example, LittleZen can say: "I don't 3-bet Stox because he runs good when I 3-bet him."; but what would be Stox reasons to adapt and play looser when LittleZen is on his left if not collusion?

He could just say "I noticed he doesn't 3-bet me much so I opened less". Plus, I think they actually didn't do that.

You can't apply the same level of punishment to gamblers as you do to the mainstream population.

California now distinguishes between entry into a residence and into a commercial building, with the burglary into a residence with heavier punishment. - Wikipedia

fwiw, it's not like stars has a position where they are saying it's impossible to prove collusion. i don't know what the standards are, or anything, but they recently busted a group of ~50 chinese double or nothing sit and go colluders (profits for the group somewhere around $500k) by, in part, doing their "we watched games with the hole cards face up" stuff.

edit: removed a bunch of stuff i have been told was incorrect.

What gets me is that they don't seem to have a problem with seizing someones account when their "brother" has been banned. How do they "prove" that??? The standard seems to be a lot lower.

Its seems the collusion has a much, much higher standard of proof than an associate account.

------------Kitty

link to thread on this?

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/28...player-791760/

citanul,
Yeah. There are lots of reasons why they may have treated that situation differently than this one.

Stars' response does seem to imply that people could still do exactly what stox/LittleZen did on Stars and get away with it, though. I guess that's not a huge deal since it's not extremely profitable, but it'd be nice if Stars corrected that. All they need to do to fix it is change their ToS slightly to clarify that playing exactly like a colluder counts as collusion regardless of your intentions (and then of course use their best judgement in applying the rule). There's actually a decent chance that happens.

Still no word from FTP?

Don't think there's gonna be unless more people bitch to them about their current policy of not revealing the results of their cheating investigations.

Apologies for posting incorrect information and editing it out of Jackal's post.

can you be banned from pokerstars when you have multiaccounting but you dont know that this is not allowed. And you play every time only one acc.

What do you think?

i think that is not fair and im sad not playing longer on stars.

is the account Stox was playing under on FT still active?