what did he do? don't ban him or something please. he gives me action at husngs.

ashleythegrinder lol

That's "Ashley"? Feel bad for tarnishing Ibooboo's good name now.

Yes that is the McChicken MadMan and in fact NOT ibooboo

i have it in good faith to share this informantion. booboo says he will be playing the $540 milly in december 100% and most likely will be playing $30-$100 dons from there on out.



dude's a legend

Im sure this has been discussed in other DoN threads, but Im too lazy to search it. Do you think it is collusion when it is down to 4 players and 1 is inactive, to openly discuss folding around to eliminate he inactive player? I know by definition it is collusion, but Im talking about in the context of what we have been discussing in this thread

Yes, although I'm not clear on what you mean about the context in this thread.

What I mean is, we are discussing getting rid of the cheaters in the DoN games. Do you think what i described falls under that, or at very least something that should discouraged at the tables?

Obviously by definition it is collusion, but there are acceptable instances of collusion that happen in poker all the time. I was just wondering where people think this falls

It's not as pernicious as systematic collusion by a fixed team of two or more players, since the scenario is less common and most players have at least an intuition of how to play under those circumstances. I would expect the cases to be handled differently by security, if that's what you're asking (warning and education versus banning and fund confiscation).

But it is still aiming to shift equity from one player to an explicitly colluding group.

This shouldn't be discussed at the table and whenever someone mentions it in chat I just be quiet but it should be common sense to just blind the guy off especially if it's at bigger blind levels.

The way I see it is everyone gets disconnected from time to time and who knows when the person is coming back so you should never feel bad taking the persons blinds when others will do the same to you if you go inactive. This is the same etiquette I have with HU sngs unless I know the person I am playing.

Sometimes you get players who go hard at one another when a person is inactive and I just try to stay out of there way. These are the same kind of guys that would do this deep stacked regardless if the person was active with 2bbs since they don't get that third place earns the same as first in chips when the game is over.

It's a questionable thing but fact is it would be common sense to blind the person off without risk especially if the blinds are big and as long as people don't discuss it I don't find this to be collusion in an unfair way.

Someone can say it's group play but I'd say it's strategic just like the bubble of a DON when everyone is there and the shorty with 2bbs UTG shoves then everyone calls him with the other 3 players just checking down even though one has had the stonecold nuts on the flop, turn, or river.

This. Just in case it's not clear in my previous statement, I was referring specifically to when it is being discussed at the table.

Implicit collusion is allowed on the sites, explicit is not. One of the big differences between the two is that when they implicitly collude, each player is strategically acting in a way that primarily benefits himself and not the other players. Whereas with explicit collusion one player through some prior agreement is trying to help another. If there is no prior agreement, then it isn't really collusion, it's softplay which is still cheating.

But even the implicit collusion that only helps each player can become real collusion if the players, for example, agree, via the chatbox, to go after another player since then it becomes a form of team play which is, in fact, cheating.

Two new possible colluders at mid to higher stakes DONs are Baltimore3 and carddead87. They both are in the same city Bossier City, register together for the same games, and I've seen a few speculative hands.

I'm not going to call them colluders just yet but loaded up one game where they were playing and one guy screamed collusion from a soft play move on the bubble where the bigger stack gave up about 6bbs at bb100 to the shorter one with some silly bets.

Just posting this to say keep an eye out for these guys in the games together.

fifty50s on the development queue, but lower priority than the Mac client (which scheduled for mid-feb release).

Fifty50s are kind of meh. I always thought it would be interesting to create a game based off that format partly except you take a 9 man sng playing it out until 3 are left, and then you pay 1.5x money back to the 3 remaining players which is half the pool plus giving them their portion based on chip stack (ICM).

I don't like 50/50's at all. If a player is going to win money according to stack size, he is much better off playing regular sitngos.

What a joke this security department is.

11-23-2014

Probably didn't even bother freezing/investigating his accounts. Funny how all those accounts tied to Cyal8rloser completely stopped playing at the same time after being called out.

On one of the streams Winning CEO said he could set up 8-man DONs relatively easily.

People can collude no matter how many participants there are, but the more participants, the less effective the collusion, the less attractive the collusion.

I'm not the kind of person who sees collusion every time a calling station enters the game, but I definitely have my doubts about the integrity of some of the ACR DONs I have played. I used to try to start DONs, but now I jump in late depending on the player list. I'm not bum-hunting, I'm trying to avoid being cheated.

With the increase in SNG traffic generally, I think moving to 8-man DON's ASAP is a good idea.

The CEO has talked a lot recently about how much pride he takes in having kept player money safe over the years, and kudos for that.

Guarding the integrity of the games should be almost as important. It can all come crashing down quickly if players think they are being cheated.

I think that they did have 8man DONs for a short time. 8man would be a good compromise between 6man (which some of us don't feel comfortable with) and 10man (which some say would fill too slowly).

I also thought something was fishy with Baltimore in a $50 don. I'll see if I can find some hand histories of that game.

At what point is it worth reporting a suspicion to support? There are two players in the $5 DON's that i've never seen in a game without the other. Both of their sharkscope's are blocked, neither has a city listed in their WPN profile, and they always start/stop at the same time even when games are running frequently. Although I can't check their SS to see how many games they've played together, I noticed they are in the top 60 of the leaderboard with a 1.2 point difference in their scores suggesting they have VERY similar loading patterns. Unfortunately I don't have any hands to post right now because i'm at work but plan to go through my database tonight.

Would you guys consider this suspicious at all or am I over-thinking this?

Edit: Also wanted to add that both of their accounts were created in the last 2 months about 2 weeks apart from each other.

You are correct but WPN security will do nothing. They've been reported before and are still playing just like many other accounts have been. That is why I'm no longer playing DON's.

This is the approach to take! Some research, not posting SNs, asking good questions, thank you! I'd say yeah, give support an email with the information that you have. You could always build a bit more of a case before emailing.

Someone was saying WPN support won't do anything, I'm not sure. Sounds like you're much more level headed than most people in this thread and I would imagine WPN listens to people like that a little easier.

Yea I went from comfortable stack to 4th in a $50 non turbo don with these 2 in.

one was the short stack and got a bunch of gifts from the big stacked one.

First was this hand. I brushed it off as 2 bad players going at it.

Seat 1: KeeganDeane (2170).
Seat 2: Baltimore3 (1265).
Seat 4: ElBadBeatero (1190).
Seat 5: carddead87 (4375).
Player ElBadBeatero has small blind (100)
Player carddead87 has big blind (200)
Player KeeganDeane folds
Player Baltimore3 raises (600)
Player ElBadBeatero folds
Player carddead87 calls (400)
*** FLOP ***: [8h 10d 6h]
Player carddead87 checks
Player Baltimore3 bets (200)
Player carddead87 calls (200)
*** TURN ***: [8h 10d 6h] [4c]
Player carddead87 checks
Player Baltimore3 checks
*** RIVER ***: [8h 10d 6h 4c] [3s]
Player carddead87 checks
Player Baltimore3 allin (465)
Player carddead87 folds
Uncalled bet (465) returned to Baltimore3
Player Baltimore3 mucks cards


Then this sketchy hand happens:

Seat 1: KeeganDeane (1945).
Seat 2: Baltimore3 (1740).
Seat 4: ElBadBeatero (2165).
Seat 5: carddead87 (3150).
Player KeeganDeane ante (25)
Player Baltimore3 ante (25)
Player ElBadBeatero ante (25)
Player carddead87 ante (25)
Player KeeganDeane has small blind (100)
Player Baltimore3 has big blind (200)
Player ElBadBeatero folds
Player carddead87 calls (200)
Player KeeganDeane folds
Player Baltimore3 raises (200)
Player carddead87 calls (200)
*** FLOP ***: [10h 9c 7d]
Player Baltimore3 checks
Player carddead87 checks
*** TURN ***: [10h 9c 7d] [Jh]
Player Baltimore3 bets (200)
Player carddead87 calls (200)
*** RIVER ***: [10h 9c 7d Jh] [Kd]
Player Baltimore3 checks
Player carddead87 bets (200)
Player Baltimore3 calls (200)
------ Summary ------
Pot: 1800. Rake 0
Board: [10h 9c 7d Jh Kd]
Player KeeganDeane does not show cards.Bets: 125. Collects: 0. Loses: 125.
*Player Baltimore3 shows: One pair of Js [Ad Jd]. Bets: 825. Collects: 1800. Wins: 975.
Player ElBadBeatero does not show cards.Bets: 25. Collects: 0. Loses: 25.
Player carddead87 shows: One pair of 7s [5h 7h]. Bets: 825. Collects: 0. Loses: 825.


Again I brushed it off as carddead just being really bad as the lines could maybe make sense.


Game started at: 2014/11/25 22:22:46
Game ID: 337383359 100/200 $50 Double or Nothing - 6 Players, Table 1 (Hold'em)
Seat 1 is the button
Seat 1: KeeganDeane (1220).
Seat 2: Baltimore3 (2615).
Seat 4: ElBadBeatero (1840).
Seat 5: carddead87 (3325).
Player Baltimore3 ante (25)
Player ElBadBeatero ante (25)
Player carddead87 ante (25)
Player KeeganDeane ante (25)
Player Baltimore3 has small blind (100)
Player ElBadBeatero has big blind (200)
Player carddead87 calls (200)
Player KeeganDeane folds
Player Baltimore3 raises (300)
Player ElBadBeatero folds
Player carddead87 calls (200)
*** FLOP ***: [Ah 7d Kc]
Player Baltimore3 allin (2190)
Player carddead87 folds
Uncalled bet (2190) returned to Baltimore3
Player Baltimore3 mucks cards

And the bust hand. He decides to limp/call my allin with 75s.

Seat 1: KeeganDeane (770).
Seat 2: Baltimore3 (3865).
Seat 4: ElBadBeatero (1490).
Seat 5: carddead87 (2875).
Player carddead87 ante (25)
Player KeeganDeane ante (25)
Player Baltimore3 ante (25)
Player ElBadBeatero ante (25)
Player carddead87 has small blind (100)
Player KeeganDeane has big blind (200)
Player carddead87 received a card.
Player carddead87 received a card.
Player KeeganDeane received card: [2d]
Player KeeganDeane received card: [Ac]
Player Baltimore3 received a card.
Player Baltimore3 received a card.
Player ElBadBeatero received a card.
Player ElBadBeatero received a card.
Player Baltimore3 folds
Player ElBadBeatero folds
Player carddead87 calls (100)
Player KeeganDeane allin (545)
Player carddead87 calls (545)
*** FLOP ***: [9s 7s 9d]
*** TURN ***: [9s 7s 9d] [3s]
*** RIVER ***: [9s 7s 9d 3s] [4h]
------ Summary ------
Pot: 1590. Rake 0
Board: [9s 7s 9d 3s 4h]
Player KeeganDeane shows: One pair of 9s [2d Ac]. Bets: 770. Collects: 0. Loses: 770.
Player Baltimore3 does not show cards.Bets: 25. Collects: 0. Loses: 25.
Player ElBadBeatero does not show cards.Bets: 25. Collects: 0. Loses: 25.
*Player carddead87 shows: Two pairs. 9s and 7s [7h 5h]. Bets: 770. Collects: 1590. Wins: 820.
Game ended at: 2014/11/25 22:26:28

From that bust hand I concluded that he was really trying to bust me moreso than carddead who he had many chances to take shots at if he was really just a loose fish trying to 'win' the DoN.

No super obvious smoking gun hand but they just played a bunch of hands like the ones above to even out their stacks. One of them would usually minraise out of the blinds to either iso the pot to themselves or to build it to take post.

I was going to just chalk it up as just 2 bad players going at it but since you mention seeing them in games as well playing sketchy I thought I should share my experience with them also.

I now believe these 2 are very casual players who sometimes go into DoNs and work together to win. They don't have a very well thought out strategy but they are doing enough to give themselves an edge in that game format.

Hate to get into this again but those are pretty bad examples of collusion.