Tournament # 11708208 9man $7.70

The players "dog 2012" and "Big Dog 67" were the first 2 players to register for this tournament and are both from Virginia Beach.

Both players limped into several hands together and double teamed their opponents.

dog 2012 ends up shortstacked. Then an attempted chimp dump.

Hand: 3041B2A730000066 blinds 100/200, "Big Dog 67" has around 1850 chips in first position, "dog 2012" around 450 in BB.

"Big Dog 2012" raises to 400 from 1st position w/ K7o, "dog 2012" calls w/95s.


Sharkscope does not work for either of these players. Please look into their relationship, Lock.

Is there not security in place to prevent 2 accounts with the same IP from registering in the same tournament? They don't sound like just friends, but more like the same person.

That also occured to me. Although they/him could easily have seperate IPs.

this is unfortunate and disturbing

I've reported to the head of security.

Thanks

-Rizen

Really seems to be on the players to catch cheaters. And unless they are blatant idiots like these two that isn't always easy. That's what bugs me. Even remote subtlety can succeed I think.

I'm not smart enough to catch the cheaters, which is why I don't play SnG's.

Some people enjoy such tourneys, believe they are profitable in them, and also believe the collusion is potnetially less prevalent or effective.

When I play cash games I absolutely expect to be playing against potential bots and cheaters as well as some players who are simply better than me. You can't guarantee that any game is clean pretty much. You can only weigh the negatives vs. the positives.

1) Collusion in SNGs should not be difficult to police. SNGs are considered a "solved" game and should be the easiest format to police. If, and I do mean if, it is rampant here, why should one assume it is not also rampant in cash ring games?

2) The attraction is both the ability to build a bankroll, and yes, for some the rising blinds brings a level of excitement that is absent in ring games.

3) For me, it is a good way to evaluate a new site. Everything from the skill level of players/softness of games, whether it's being dealt fairly, cashouts, and security can be evaluated with minimal risk.

TWO TIPS FOR LOCK SECURITY REGARDING COLLUSION

#1) SNGs are important. I know that you do not generate much revenue from them, and traffic is scarce. However, when collusion goes unchecked, it allows weaker hands to gain strength. When AQ or AJ beat AK at a higher rate than they should, people will assume, and eventually "prove" that your deck is "rigged". What will your defense be? Also, SNGs tend to attract newer and weaker players, which is good for the overall economy of your site.

#2) Policing SNGs should be easy. Start by sharkscoping your userbase, there are some weak players who are maintaining a 30-40% ROI over several thousand tournaments. This should be a huge red flag.

Thank-you for your attention to this matter.

I much doubt they need Sharkscope they probably have much better ways of checking in their own database.

Mccormick, I have no confidence that is the case at all.

I also do not believe it very effective to check winrate as a sign of collusion. Most cheated are not benefiting THAT much from it. Couldn't really hurt to look at that either I guess. But easily 95%+ of any cheaters will not be identified with a winrate check I would be almost certain.

10 days later.

Bump for update, Lock?

When you catch colluders, do you compensate the other players at the table?

I would venture to say that Lock Poker will do NOTHING to compensate players....probably .001% chance if my math is correct...

Two points: The idea of it potentially being a solved game (and I disagree with that) really doesn't have relevance to the ease of catching cheaters. Not everyone plays optimally. Mistakes happen. Bad players happen.

The reason it should be reasonably easy to police is because so many of the cheaters are o bad it.

I don't know if people assume or not whether it is rampant in ring games. But cheating has generally been more common and I think potentially more effective in SNG's. Many of the cheaters in cash games are absolutely terrible at it. This comes from my conversations with people who have gotten on the phone with their buddy to share hole-cards with each other, etc. They are one-tabling at NL25 or something, and both are playing maybe 42/10 or something terrible. So when they attempt to cheat they are still going to be fish...and very possibly will make their games WORSE by their attempts to gain an advantage.

As far as good cheaters go at cash-games, I'm sure there are still some of those around too. But it seems too difficult to do successfully for somebody who can beat the game decently. It's not like they have time to share their hole-card info with each other if they are both on the same 6 tables at the same time (which alone looks kind of obvious).

In SNG's, they can soft-play each other without needing to share hole-card info etc and can just know that together they are going to help each other out and try to team up on the opponent. In cash-games, that is not as easy to do nor as effective is the general thinking about this stuff.

cheaters ganna cheat and lock will never cath them themselves.