That would be pretty ridiculous.

It is, but that's what they have done in all the cases I've seen (mostly in the Chinese DON collusion thread). Two different players reporting one case of two colluders get more than $1K each, while other players that have played with the same colluders get nothing.

wait so your saying a known cheat colluder can play a hyper and if stars doesnt notice any "obvious" signs of cheating then they would not compensate. That just sounds like a loophole to protect them from compensating properly... im sorry but the integrity of that game was compromised and rake and refund should be in order for all the hypers they played... so by this reasoning you are telling me stars finds a colluder and takes only the money from the games they had "obvious" collusion in and leave them with there rightfully earned money so as stars says.. where is the line drawn..

I dont see how that would be ridiculous there is a lot of marginal spots obviously and who is to say that it was or wasnt collusion in this instance because it wasnt so blatantly obvious.

It is ridiculous because it allows players to freeroll on tournaments with cheaters. They should have some method to compensate in EVERY game with colluders, but not necessarily for a full buy in. It is even more ridiculous that they just follow this compensation procedure with the person that reports collusion and some "complex procedure" that they will never explain with those that do not report collusion. Anyway, much more about this in the Chinese DON collusion thread.

i think stars should refund everyone in the tainted tourney and 100 percent refund the rake... how can this not be standard... anyway im gonna post a couple of hh's tell me what you think

people are actually kind of scaring me.. your talking as if its normal or expected to be in tourneys where players cheat why the **** not wouldnt i expect to freeroll when i find out there was cheating in the game. wow i must really be dumb because both you and micro bob are agreeing

i doubt george will chime in on strat cause his stance is to not discuss it but maybe for the good of knowing if i was cheated here he will grace us with just a little strat discussion

Poker Stars $86.00+$1.72 No Limit Hold'em Tournament - t100/t200 Blinds + t40 - 3 players
The Official 2+2 Hand Converter Powered By DeucesCracked.com

BTN: t310 M = 0.74
SB: t2180 M = 5.19
Hero (BB): t510 M = 1.21

Pre Flop: (t420) Hero is BB with T 3
1 fold, SB raises to t2140 all in, 1 fold

Final Pot: t520
SB wins t520


this is standard right sb has no choice but to jam here right but what if i told you the same person who jammed here played this next hand a little differently



Poker Stars $80.00+$1.60 Limit Hold'em Tournament - t200/t400 Limit - 3 players
The Official 2+2 Hand Converter Powered By DeucesCracked.com

SB: t1912 M = 6.37
BB: t425 M = 1.42
Hero (BTN): t663 M = 2.21

Pre Flop: (1.5 SB) Hero is BTN with Q 5
2 folds

Final Pot: 0.75 BB
BB wins 0.5 BB
(Rake: t100)

im just curious im not saying this is george.. i would never out a players screen name... but this might be something i reported and was told no cheating... but the sb in both instances is the same exact player

the hand in question with george.. im still looking for but are these 2 hands above reason to suspect cheating?

No this isn't at all what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that a lot of the guys played the games honestly for a while, then decided to start colluding with someone after already playing a bunch of games.

And once they figure out that 2 people are colluding, it seems that they give you compensation based on all the games that both of the colluders entered together, not just ones where there are obvious colluding hands taking place.

This could possibly be collusion but these 2 hands alone wouldn't make me all that suspicious, unless I found a few other examples where he folded to the same person in a spot similar to the 2nd hand, and always went all in vs other players.

Yarbles- I don't even know the prize structure of these ones. Do the first two players get the same prize? In this case, his fold in the second hand looks OK to me, because in the next hand he'll have to go all in against you, with similar stacks, so the tournament will essentially finish there. So I'd probably fold 23o (and many other hands) in that situation. Instead, in the first hand, the BB should fold almost ATC, so shoving is clearly correct.

In any case, as George said, two hands are not enough to say that they are colluding.

One easy example to see why, in my opinion, a poker site does not necessarily have to give the full buy in of a tournament with cheaters. Assume that you are busted in the first hand going all in in the first hand with KK vs AA (and let's assume that the player with AA is also an honest player). The outcome of this tournament would be the same no matter the cheaters are there or not.

Another example. Let's assume that you play 10K double or nothing tournaments with cheaters and cash in half of them. If they give back your buy in for all the tournaments where you didn't cash, you'd have close to a 50% ROI. The ROI of the best DoN players is not much more than 5%. Playing with cheaters would be a bargain!

u do realize in the 2nd hand the bb only had 425 and the villain had 2k being the sb right?



Poker Stars $215.70+$4.30 No Limit Hold'em Tournament - t100/t200 Blinds + t40 - 3 players
The Official 2+2 Hand Converter Powered By DeucesCracked.com

BTN: t2190 M = 5.21
Hero (SB): t500 M = 1.19
BB: t310 M = 0.74

Pre Flop: (t420) Hero is SB with 5 8
1 fold, Hero raises to t400, BB calls t70 all in

Flop: (t660) J 3 2 (2 players - 1 is all in)

Turn: (t660) J (2 players - 1 is all in)

River: (t660) 6 (2 players - 1 is all in)

Final Pot: t660
Hero shows 5 8 (a pair of Jacks)
BB shows 8 Q (a pair of Jacks - Queen kicker)
BB wins t660

how about this one.. should the button have folded? shouldnt a flat on the button to get it all in 3 way further improving odds to knock someone out?

Yes, but by folding the two short stacks will have 625 and 663 in the next hand, and are forced to go all in. Which means that the game will finish there or there will be one player with 38 chips (unless they tie in that hand). Se he is essentially winning by folding both hands.

Instead, if he shoves and loses, then the two short stack will have 850 and 663. They again have to go all in in the next hand. But if the short stack wins this hand, the new short stack with have 187 chips. He will be in terrible shape, but not as bad as when the short stack has 38. In addition, you'll have lost 225 extra chips.

And I would also fold the third hand that you show (unless I had a very good hand, perhaps). If you win the game is over. If you lose you will be very short stacked. Why risk 400 chips?

i was thinking that if i gave the bb a walk then it was game over for me anyway... was this thinking flawed?

Why would he get involved in the last HH on the button when you two have pretty even stacks and will get it in. The only way that other hand is suspicious is if he folded a top 50% hand to give the BB a walk. Just email Stars and they can see what he folded.

edit: Ok now its obvious you are looking for strategy input, lol

No, but this is why it is more than OK for BT to fold. He has no reason to get involved in a hand that will essentially finish the tournament. Instead, is he gets involved he is risking transferring chips to the short stacks, and therefore decrease his equity.

i think your reading it wrong.. he has over 4 times the chips as me and more then that of the bb. and trust me im not looking for strat i am done with these...

what about the damages that are done that you cant see.. like the emotional damages of being cheated... its pretty downing to be colluded against. I dont I guess thats the risk we pay for playing online.


george im not mad at you anymore and sorry if i came across as such. Thank you for taking the time to respond. I will quietly go back into my hole and resume the fetal position while i cry myself to sleep at all of my lifes misfortunes and failures.

FYP Yarbles

also, Yarbles

+1 and no doubt its happening everywhere? Exposed or not.

yarbles - Those probably aren't collusion. I don't think you are considering other aspects of the hands you are posting.

Also, in some of the lower hypers there are some really crazy shoves and folds by players who just don't know any better. Including some weird shoves by people who don't know to check it down, etc.

On the final one you posted: not really suspicious. He simply didn't flat when you (and many probably) would have. That doesn't mean it's really that suspicious of a play. Just an incorrect one. There is a pretty significant difference between "plays that I think are wrong" vs. "plays that seem potentially collusive."

Anyway, jorj is pretty successful at those games...probably moreso than you. So if those hands were his I would look into the strategy. Be less suspicious and be more open-minded to the idea that he's a really freaking good player and therefore is probably onto something that you aren't able to figure out strategically.

The big key here is on the emphasis on survival as opposed to chip equity. I'm not great at those hypers but I can very easily see folding 32o or something on some of those hands....and that's for my own play. So I can definitely see it being reasonable for somebody else to think that. They all didn't learn the hypers from the same handbook. A lot of the players you take on have different preflop stats, right? So it's clear that not everyone plays them the same way of course.

As George stated, there's just no way those hands should be that eye-catching to you for "OMG COLLUSION REPORT!!!" purposes (at least I don't think they should be). I think you're letting the frustration of perhaps bubbling out of a couple of those tourneys when you felt like you "should" have won kind of effect your judgment. And I think you're kind of making the rather common mistake of thinking that if you think a play is "wrong" then it might be cheating if you get what I mean.

I understand what your saying.. but the first 2 hands look at and the 1st one i was the bb and i was shoved on in the same almost same exact situation on the 2nd one where the same villain gave the bb a walk

and i appreciate everything else you brought to my attention .. i am def seeing it more clearly now..

Yarbles - You seem to be ignoring the rather obvious aspect that the villain gets dealt different hole cards for each hand.

yes your right... ok i will dig up some hands and see if i can find some similar spots where the villain shoved with a very below average hand... maybe something like 23os.. i know i have em

you dont realize it but i think you have taught me to find out if and when i was cheated but boy its gonna be a lot of work

so if i find situations where the same villain will give a walk but jam on someone else with absolute trash with same chip situations.. it should be pretty clear cut.

No.