I think it would be a much better thread if we put down the slings and arrows now.

no evidence of cheating. haven't you ever wielded your big stack to someone's disadvantage or advantage, just for the hell of it? because you like the power? It makes satellites more fun.

You should probably learn a little more about ICM before you come in here crying.

True. There is nothing that shows that #9 was folding hands to #78 when the OP was the big stack. #9 may very well have been folding hands to the OP when #78 had only 10k chips for all we know. Implicit collusion takes place all the time when tables get shorthanded.

if the shorty really had 10K chips @ 2k / 4k
both big stacks goals should be getting rid of the shorty imo.
I understand ICM a bit, but i don't think it applies here (im not one of these leveling upon leveling upon god players (and then even when these god leveling players give reasons for doing what they do, it sounds like malarcky, just sayin))

Sorry man, cheating happens... that's poker (unfortunately)

But there is absolutely no reason to believe that #9 was folding his hands at that point in time when the shorty had 10k chips. The OP has just assumed that because the short stack rallied, that the short stack had been helped by #9. It's poker; players make comebacks, especially in high variance games. At some point the OP became the short stack and the hands that #9 referred to may very well have occurred then. Without handhistories there is no way of knowing. In 4 separate threads the OP has adamently claimed that he was cheated; but he hasn't supplied the info needed to support his claim.

I never said I hadn't heard of it, I said I couldn't think of any tactical reason for the 2nd place stack to keep a short stack alive 3 handed (standard MTT payouts implied). Again, the only time it would make sense is if you have a big stack vs a medium stack and a short stack, or if the tournament has really strange payouts. There is nothing about this idea you can be an "expert" in, as it is one of the most ABC concepts in tournament poker. I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but you've simply been misapplying the concept this whole time. If you care to, please explain to me a scenario where you think it's "tactically correct" for a 2nd place stack to keep a short stack around 3 handed in the money with standard MTT payouts. I could use a good laugh.

We were 3 handed for a while with the short stack hovering around 10k-15k mark and the 2nd place person was folding to him a lot keeping him alive. Then I lost a series of consecutive coinflips to the short stack knocking myself out. The alleged dumper never had the big stack the entire time I was with him (final two tables and beyond at least) until the very end when there wasn't even any opportunity for him to dump chips. If at any point during this time he softplayed the short stack in question, it certainly wasn't "tactical." At least not by any logical definition.

Common knowledge to whom, the people who spend all day trolling Bovada threads in the Zoo? Sorry, I don't qualify, I have better things to do like play poker. Why would I ever need to download hand histories from Bovada unless I felt cheated? At this point most of my decisions are automatic and I don't second guess myself very often. I'm not blaming anyone but myself for not being able to get the hand histories, though I do think the arbitrary 7 day window is utterly ridiculous. It's just an unfortunate thing that happened, and next time I will know.

As I've explained, I was planning to download them, I just wanted to see Bovada's initial reaction first. They never replied and I missed the 7 day window I didn't know about. I've already taken responsibility for my carelessness in this regard. I don't know what else you want from me?

I think you're a bit mixed up about the way businesses work. We are paying customers and we're supposed to come first. Maybe you've never heard that expression? We are the reason they stay in business, we pay their salaries. They absolutely do owe us simple explanations about their policies regarding serious issues like cheating, and if it's out of regular supports pay grade they can escalate the question to management. It's not like I'm asking anything unreasonable, there is a huge gaping hole in the logic of their policy and I simply want clarification. I wouldn't have to ask over and over if they could just get it right in one try, but sadly that's not the case. Let me ask, if you have an important question for a company you pay to use and they reply back with an irrelevant answer, do you just give up after one try and never write again? You must be a dream customer.

Pretty obvious when before you were discussing the matter cordially and now suddenly you're got your little troll hat on.

How do you know what manner I reported my suspicions in? Do you have access to my email account? I assure you I was nothing but polite in my initial reports in which I was ignored, and then stonewalled. The only "lack of support" I'm getting is from people butthurt from the other thread. Everyone else has either been supportive, or cordial with constructive advice or criticism.

"If you care to, please explain to me a scenario where you think it's "tactically correct" for a 2nd place stack to keep a short stack around 3 handed in the money with standard MTT payouts. I could use a good laugh."

You've just proven you have a good handle on ICM, it's refreshing to see around here. Thanks.

As stated, the time I lost my chip lead and the alleged dumper was chip leader was so brief there wasn't any opportunity for him to dump chips. We literally got it all-in 4 times in a row and I was out. He was never the big stack once from final two tables until I started the downward slide, so if he dumped chips to that player at any other point it would have been soft playing and not at all tactical.

When someone claims in chat to have chip dumped when there was no possible "tactical reason" to do so, I'm forced to assume that I and whoever else was still in at the time of the dumping was cheated. I have since admitted in this thread that it is possible he was only just saying that and it didn't actually happen. I suppose I should never have adamantly claimed I was cheated like it was a fact, you are correct here.

Oh and also you are right Bobo. I did dish it out first so I should be willing to take it now. I just couldn't believe people were defending Bodog about the WU issue and I lashed out. Granted the OP was being a major tool with his blackmail tactics and that's probably what sparked the replies...

You think that you can rudely demand the reason why a business institutes a security policy and you think that I'm the one who is confused about the way business works? Go to the Bellagio and act like that and you'll find yourself out on the street.

I know the manner in which you reported the problem before because you posted your chat with support in this thread. Duh. Of course, I'm sure that all the emails you sent to support that you haven't posted here were extremely level headed (OK, that's a lie).

Relying on your memory for a game that you played over a month ago just isn't enough for me. Truth be known, without the hand histories you don't know what hands #9 was referring to no matter how much you insist that you do.

If #9 was just folding to #78 how could he have possibly known for certain that he had the winning hands? I seriously doubt that #9 had the nuts every hand or probably any hand for that matter.

You don't seem to realize that 3 handed the middle stack has to be extra careful not to be the one to double up the short stack; not to mention that headsup is a very different game from 3 handed. A good player is going to want to maneuver himself into position into being the big stack before going headsup if he possibly can. #9 had gone from second place to having over half the table's chips by the time that you lost your consecutive coinflips, so he was certainly doing something right. And it sounds like #78 was really tight; nice opponent to go headsup with.

Getting the hand histories wasn't exactly rocket science. I've never been to the Bovada Zoo thread and I certainly knew about the histories despite the fact that Bovada is not my primary site. I really don't think that you should try to school or ridicule anyone who brings up a tactical point when you don't even know the basics of the site that you play. You should instead question what else you might not know.

Did it ever occur to you that I only got "rude" (by your interpretation, really it was merely expression of frustration, justifiably so) after they didn't answer my simple questions several times? Why would I be anything but polite in my initial report? Surely you can't be this dense. The chat I provided here was after the first dozen or so incompetent exchanges.

I'm sorry that you can't remember things that happened a month ago but I certainly can. I was chip leader for the entire final 2 tables, so that probably makes it easier to know the alleged dumper wasn't at any time.

#9 doesn't have to know he has the winning hand for his actions to be softplay. It really seems like you haven't got the foggiest clue what you're talking about in all aspects of this case the more you post.

As for your claim that a "good player's" priority is to get the big stack before going to heads up over knocking out the short stack... I... I really just have no words. It's just such a mind boggling suggestion I desperately want to believe you're trolling. Please tell me you're trolling?

The fact is, a good player with a healthy 2nd place stack in a 3 handed match where one player only has 2.5 BBs wants to knock that player out and move up the pay scale at all cost, then to worry about the HU match after. You know the pay jump from 3rd to 2nd is often quite large, right? You keep talking like the HU match is all that matters. Keeping the cripple stack alive and risking finishing 3rd so that you can possibly work your way into having the big stack for the HU portion is an incredibly laughable idea. Go post that in any of the tournament forums on here and watch yourself get mocked to high heaven.

You are posting in the zoo right now, that is the nickname for this forum and is likely where you learned about the specifics of the Bovada hand histories. Again, I don't frequent this forum like you do, so I never knew about the rule until it was too late. Keep nagging on about it though, it totally serves a purpose after I've admitted my fault in this area.

You seem to think that you can become rude to anyone who doesn't answer questions you demand of them. It's the same as when you chatted with support. Of course you only became rude after asking me something several times out of frustration because I didn't answer. Problem is that you never asked me even once until today. So much for your impeccable memory. But frankly, it's not my job to teach you how to play poker anyway. And from reading your posts on the topic, it's a complete waste of time trying. And just so you know, good players play for 1st place, not 2nd.

I learned about the hand histories in these forums, in news stories that have been posted all over the web, by discussing it with other players, and by reading about it on Bodog's web site. You pretty much have to put on blinders not to have heard about them. The bottom line is that you really need to either post the hand histories or stop your whining.

No, good players do whatever they can to maximize their expected value. Sometimes that involves "playing for 1st" and other times it involves very obvious decisions to try to knock a short stack out and move up to the final 2. I'm so sorry that you're STILL unable to grasp this simple concept. The day you "teach me how to play poker" is the day hell freezes over.

Again you're asking for hand histories? Really? Beat dead horses much?

Your's is certainly a simple concept alright.

Without hand histories, you are the one beating a dead horse.

This whole thing is ******ed - he even said "I want you to know I folded some winning hands..." meaning the other player DIDN'T KNOW.


Newsflash: when there's a big jump in money in any tournament, two big stacks aren't always looking to gii and stack each other. Playing to outlast a shortstack and lock up a ton more money is 100% legit and 100% standard.

BlackFriday we're talking about softplay, not collusion. Thanks for agreeing with me in your newsflash.

I don't see how you think that news flash agrees with you considering 2 stacks getting it in and stacking each other is exactly what I've also said shouldn't be done. And your failure to try to outlast the shortstack is exactly what got you knocked out of the tournament. If you hadn't noticed the biggest jump in money was between 1st and 2nd.

Well let's see Santa, this entire time you've been suggesting the 2nd place stacks "tactic" might be to keep the short stack alive so that he could either play against him heads up, or have the chip lead by the time he gets knocked out.

I and now Blackfriday have been telling you that's silly, and that it's 100% standard to wait to try to get the short stack out and lock up more money before doing anything silly like you're suggesting.

Sorry buddy, it's way too late to try to reverse your story now.

First of all, BlackFriday didn't address what I was talking about whatsoever. That "two big stacks aren't always looking to gii [get it in] and stack each other" is exactly what I have consistantly said. I've also said that it isn't a good idea for the medium stack to double up the short stack; that is common knowledge and relates to the ICM that other posters mentioned and for which you summarily bashed them. You lost that game on your own because you were apparently oblivious to that ICM aspect of the game. There is no one else to blame other than yourself.

When I first mentioned that even if #9 had folded winning hands there could conceivably be a tactical explanation, I thought that I was stating something that was common knowledge. Never for a second did I think that it was controversial considering, as I mentioned early on, it's not something I thought up. Other posters have expressed the same sentiment.

You're clinging to your ignorance on the subject because you want so desperately to blame others for a game that you lost. If you had an enquiring mind, you certainly would have also known about the hand histories; there are clearly things you don't know and couldn't care less about. That's fine; that's your choice. I pointed out to you that there are tactical reasons, but I'm not about to turn this thread into a strategy thread and waste my time trying to teach someone as close minded as you about the specifics.

That was a perfect summation.

Enough said. Lock the thread.

As usual you conveniently ignore the text that completely contradicts your position. He also said "Playing to outlast a shortstack and lock up a ton more money is 100% legit and 100% standard." That is EXACTLY the opposite of what you've been claiming since the beginning of this thread, which is that it's a "tactical" move for him to dump to the short stack and keep him alive in the hopes of having a bigger stack heads up, or a more favorable opponent. Is that not what you've stated numerous times now? Are you really going to deny it now that you apparently realize how silly it is? The posts are all right here man, it's too late to edit them.

It's not a good idea for ANYONE to double up the short stack lol... I can't believe you actually say this like it's some kind of high level knowledge. The discussion isn't about being careful not to double the shortie, your argument from the beginning has been that it's ok for the medium stack to chip dump to the short stack 3 handed for tactical reasons. Do you really think that is a better idea than oh I don't know... trying to knock him out? Especially when it doesn't hurt your stack at all?

I realized you were commenting without the facts right away, so I explained to you he was the 2nd place stack and therefore it would make no tactical sense for him to chip dump to the short stack and thus the concept you mentioned didn't apply, but you kept arguing for it somehow??? LOL. It's clearly all over your head, but I will keep explaining it to you again and again if need be. At least it keeps the thread alive, so thanks for that.

Hah, I would bet significant money that I was bullying medium stacks *WHEN APPROPRIATE* before you even knew the concept existed. You've been trying to turn this into a strategy thread since the very beginning, but it's quite clear you're out of your depths in doing so. Probably for the best you quit while you're behind.

One of these statements is not like the others. DUCY? He is arguing FOR outlasting the short stack, you're arguing for keeping him in. Very simple stuff here,

I realize now that I've been arguing with someone who is in a mental institution.

That's right, I post ironclad proof you're wrong and you ignore it yet again. Trolls gonna troll I guess.

You haven't even posted hand histories - this whole thread is lol

you got beat, suck it up kid

OP, it was for about 100 bucks dude. You've spent so much time writing emails, whining, kvetching .. Get over it and start grinding. How many hours have you spent fretting over this? Jesus.. It's not the Million we're talking about here. Just let it play out...

So what hands were folded to this guy when it's three-handed?

I do have a hard time believing it because either they are true idiots because any true colluders would use an IM program, or it was really a tactical decision. It may be a bad tactical decision, but many people have posted ITT that it's a real tactic out there in tournaments.

I will say, though, that I was pretty weirded out when two people who were really buddy-buddy in the chat window exchanged IM information.

Are you illiterate? I can't get the hand histories.

I get knocked out of tournaments in unfortunate ways constantly, you really think I care that I got beat? I only care about possible softplay and Bovada's apparent lack of desire to stop it.

Been grinding the whole time, probably spent an hour or two on this. The amount of money means nothing to me.

He pretty much walked him and folded to his button raises every round, which is crazy in PLO8 when most hands have near coinflip equity all-in pre. That in itself isn't solid evidence because I've seen horrible players play that tight when I was pretty sure they weren't chip dumping plenty of times. But combined with the chat, it definitely aroused suspicions.

I do concede that he may have been misapplying the concept and making a horrible tactical decision along the lines of Santa's thought process, but given the "deal" he mentioned earlier with the other player and the chat afterwords, I'm inclined to believe it was chip dumping without him realizing it's against the rules. Anything is possible though, of course.