you know the 2nd guy has to put in money to call right?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6pXBM7-wXQ0

Oh ****, the vid doesnt embed. Woods playing live. Some in depth analysis of hand at end.

Feruell ... fantastic supply of 500 hands you have given us as well!!!!

/Thread

My PokerStars name is Unassigned; you and I played a little bit in the past and obviously in games with DooshDotCom on Stars as well. I actually played with Darren Woods as well in the event he won this summer.

Do you think DDC cheated in the big LHE games on Stars as well?

Hi Terrence.

As far as i remember he played mostly HU on stars.

And he is a good LHE HU player.

On the other hand, maybe he isn't that good and poor perfomance in fair HU-matches vs regs was exactly the reason he decided to cheat.

So its very likely he cheated in some games I'm unaware of, but i doubt it was in the LHE games on stars.

The amount of cheating going on in highstakes these days is just ridiculous... with the lenient attitude taken by various websites and poker community it's almost like if baseball players were allowed to be on the juice with no penalty and no one to penalize them... if you're NOT cheating it seems you are disadvantaged basically..

Anyone know of evidence of other multiaccounting that could be found in his instructional videos?

I wonder if he's played under even more account names on 888.

I'm with Ike, I don't get it either. You have posted about 5 of the "most blatant" hands where there has been a 3rd player yet to act, but in most of those hands they are *increasing* the 3rd player's equity in the pot compared to standard play.

ProPokerTools Hold'em Simulation

7,725,915,648 trials (Exhaustive)

Hand	Pot equity	Wins	Ties
54o	33.23%	2,527,755,504	78,897,972
30%	66.77%	5,119,262,172	78,897,972

In the 54o button push hand, if the BB has trash 12 BBs deep, the SB should push < 60% of the time when the button folds. So the team's equity is at least 0.4*(1.5) = 0.6 BBs.

If 54o pushes 6.5 BBs, and the SB shoves top 30%, the team's equity is:
0.7*(1.5) + 0.3*[0.33*(14) - 6.5] = 0.49 BBs.

And if you see button shoving 54o and the like routinely, you're probably widening your range a bit.

Maybe they cheated but you haven't yet figured out how. The most obvious adjustment off the top of my head would be for the button to fold a lot when BB has a premium hand. If you have enough data maybe you can filter for this and find out if there are any anomalies.

Let me know if I can help.

While I agree with somewhat of the notion, this analogy facepalms my face into china.

This is the only hand where I can see their equity increase vs. standard play. The BB should play pretty tight here normally and in std play BB gets a walk. Ironically, in this hand villains were sitting next to each other.

Ya, if you hold BB's range to call here constant at something that would be reasonable against two normal opponents, this squeeze looks decent. However, they were apparently playing a lot of volume against a small player pool of expert players. They can hardly expect to get away with this type of stuff without opponents adjusting enough to make it bad, even if their opponents don't have any inkling that they are colluding as opposed to just playing poorly.

As you mentioned earlier, the way to collude in these games is mainly by best-handing not by squeezing. If they are best-handing, we need to analyze frequencies not individual hands.

He only made 3 videos, all of which were 1 session against the same person (feruell)

He does have a few more accounts which are either his or he played on. I played headsup against 3 of his accounts that I'm sure of, but there might be more. I don't think they have anything to do with this though, 1 account played 2 years ago and the other busted pretty quickly right before all this started and haven't seen that account since.

I doubt that someone who makes hundreds of thousands of $$ needs a roommate...

alot of poker players have roomates , even the ones who make the most money . im not sure what your talking about .

Sorry guys but - this is a fairly weak case you have put forward. Ike highlights the flaws in your argument because you picked the "most blatant" hands, yet these do not show the play as massively more +EV whatsoever..

It doesnt make sense for him to risk his rep for these games playing a -EV strategy

Also, what is your definition of collusion?

Because the above certainly fits my definition of collusion... more so at least than the hands you have shown as evidence.

888 will do their investigation and I am sure you guys have more information than what is presented here, but what is presented here is pretty weak IMHO.

The only point of having a roommate of the same sex is to share the living expenses because of the lack of money.

Sharing a room and a toilet with someone is pretty stupid if you are rich, don't you think?

I'm not sure what you are talking about.

Hi

My actual range from SB here is only 23% (22+ A2s+ A5o+ K9s+ KTo+ QTs+ QJo JTs)

So the math is not accurate.

It should be 0.77*(1.5) + 0.23*[0.33*(14) - 6.5] = 0.72 BBs.

And to be fair, my open push range from SB is only 53%,

So the team equity if they fold from the button is 0.47 *1.5 = 0.705 BBs.

As you can see its close but push is still a better option.

And pushing 54o into two normal opponents would be super horrible.

PS Yes, i did filter the premium hands and i think i should publish it somewhere.

You are aware that there's apartments/houses with multiple bedrooms/bathrooms right?

Shouldn't that be called a housemate then?

I guess that makes sense, yeah...

You make it look like they should be thankful for getting cheated because they play so bad, I dont think that is necessarily true.
Especially in these doosh bu, reg sb, teammate bb situations you can play very abusive and gain a very unfair advantage.

1) They can fold hands that they would not usually fold on bu when bb has a strong hand bc sbs allin range vs bu push < sbs allin range vs "random" bb hand.
2) They can push bu looser when bb has nothing and would have a clear fold (or maybe even a marginal call) vs a push from the sb, which the 45o hand kind of shows. It may be close or slightly < fold to push 45o with collusion but dont forget there are tons of other hands in between 45o and say a normal push range (with no collusion) that will gain an advantage by pushing instead of the normal fold play for the team. That will make up for mistakes.
3) Even without cards sharing, just results sharing I believe BU can push much looser and It will result in an advantage for the team. Hard to quantify it though.
4) There is also card removal advantage, that will come into play sometimes.
5) Stats and reads maybe wrong bc of their play vs each other. Not sure if that counts as advantage though bc in most situations looser calls vs looser pushes are actually better but in hu situations you will end up making too loose calls.

All together not very harmless...

My point is certainly not that cheating is harmless or acceptable if done poorly. Even if they make a lot of mistakes they will probably have a big edge.

My point is that when you're making a case that two expert players are colluding it's not very compelling to show a bunch of hands where even if they were sharing holecards their plays were clearly bad.

I'm not saying I don't think they cheated. When everyone who plays with you thinks you're cheating, it's pretty likely you're cheating. All I'm saying is that hands like the T4o and the AA/97/T8 hand are not good evidence.

no. ike makes it look like you have a pretty flimsy case for some extremely serious accusations. based strictly on the evidence in this thread, i would agree (and don't know any of the parties involved).

I filtered all the AA-KK and AK hands played by Benkaremail, Benhamcheese and liverfc123 (The same person). The only additional filter i use is - 3+ players at the table.

Have a look if interested.

I believe the pattern is absolutely clear.

http://forum.gipsyteam.ru/index.php?...=post&id=46583

http://forum.gipsyteam.ru/index.php?...=post&id=46584

benkare came looking for FL action from me for ~3 times. He always seemed to play semi-badly FLHU, so I sat once in that 250/500 FL ring proceeding to bust my account for something 10k'ish IIRC. There were 4 of us playing in that game: doosh, benkare, OrionMaster and me. If they're the same person and doosh is a seasoned FLHU player then the terribad HU play by benkare might've been sort of a cheap advertising hustle trying to get me to 250/500. I think benkare never played more than like 20 hands at a time or something like that.

I railed benkare & DooshCom play few 500/1k push-fold like a week ago, probably trying to start a game. benkare made few plays, that I know are 100% incorrect even though I'm not really qualified shortstack NL player at all. Plausible explanation might be for advertisement value. Also 500/1k push-fold is way too high for me with my skills in push-fold so I decided not to sit.

Gotta read through this thread and look into those ~100 hands I played in that 4-handed 250/500 ring and see if I find anything unordinary, even though the sample is small.

EDIT: Haven't still read the OP through yet, but I had the very same suspicions about salamdolphie being the same person as benkare. Although salam was deeeeeeefinitely the worst of em in FLHU. Actually I suspect that they have an account in Ongame too, because for few nights a peculiar cycle appeared: when benkare stopped playing in 888, salamdolphie appeared in iPoker games (although he had been in lobby the whole time, buddy list ftw) and when salam stopped playing benkare might've appeared back on 888 or then a guy came playing me in Ongame 250/500. Although I haven't seen 250/500 ring ever running in Ongame, so I don't really understand the point of playing if you can't set up a ring-game hustle. (Ongame player wasn't very competent either IMO.)
I suspect the 3 guys in diff. networks being the same but because of small sample HEM stats don't really show any similarities. However, I think I need to go thru all of these 3 guys' HHs and see if they play alike in some spots.