You need to be logged in to your Sky Poker account above to post discussions and comments.
You might need to refresh your page afterwards.
Sky Poker forums will be temporarily unavailable from 11pm Wednesday July 25th.
Sky Poker Forums is upgrading its look! Stay tuned for the big reveal!
collusion
this site could be rife with collusion twice today in £11 dym's someone checked (2 different players) last to act with nut full house surely they should bet something cant be frightened of the other players having checked quads
Comments
Checking down when a player is all-in in a DYM is pretty standard. I don't know where it came from, but there seems to be an unwritten rule that once the short stack is all-in, then we check it down, firstly to give us more chance to knock out the shorty & secondly so we don't risk any more of our own stack whilst trying to do so.
You are not obliged to follow any unwritten rules though, but don't expect the opposition to do you any favours in future hands if you bet into a pot when a player is all in.
It's not collusion - it's common sense imo.
Tournaments & Bounty Hunters are a different matter though.
Tom said......
".....if are 4 handed then there is no value in betting because there is no value in picking up extra chips..."
Which is correct. The all-in shortie is about to bust, (the two big stacks both have a house), leaving three players, at which stage the game is over. I'd never bet in that spot in a million years.
FIVE handed, yes, as Tom also noted, that would be different.
Sorry you've had a bad experience, but if you suspect collusion, please report it to Customer Care.
Please be aware that it is almost impossible (in fact, personally, I'd suggest it IS impossible) to prove collusion based on such a small sample size of 2 hands, or games. There can be any number of wholly legit reasons why they checked it down, including those suggested in the thread, but also many other reasons. You don't really give enough information in the OP to prove or disprove anything. (How many players left, stack sizes, including how many the all-in man has, da de da).
Great care is needed in these situations - imagine if the boot were on the other foot, & someone accused YOU of colluding. You'd expect the site to ensure you were fairly treated, & quite rightly so.
It remains the case, however, as I stated, that there COULD be legit reasons for their play. Or they could be colluding.
It is absolutely impossible to prove, based on 2 hands.
Send the Hand IDs to Customer Care, & they'll investigate it properly, & look at longer-term betting patterns of the players concerned over a proper sample size.
Customer Care is the way to sort it. I'll send the Thread up to the Suits, too, for you.
If I had the big stack here, & the Blinds were (say) 150-300, I'd not be getting aggro, as I don't need to.
I WOULD get aggro head up with the shortie, though. Or any other stack EXCEPT the big stack.
However, Tom QUALIFIED his reply by saying IF.........there were 5 players (OK to bet) or 4 players (not OK to bet).
He had to qualify it (& did) as the OP did not give sufficient information. He can't expect a clear reply if he does not give the pertinent facts.
We just CANNOT judge these things from where we sit, & 2 hands is not adequate evidence. It IS enough to justify the Suits investigating the 2 players betting patterns over a larger sample size though.
OP just needs to send the info - ALL the info, including Hand Numbers - to Customer Care.
I was giving an example of why a player would or might check down, not a the exact reason for it happening in OPs 2 instance, cause like you said we don't have enough information, but by giving an example to the OP of where or when this sort of thing may happen, then he may better understand if that is what has happened in his own case.
Rather than critiquing forum members that have responded to OP's issue and are clearly only trying to help with the limited information we have been given, Why not respond to OP and enlighten him to your vast knowledge & wisdom?
Everyone can bat this back & forth forever, but it will not resolve a thing. Nobody on the Forum has sufficient evidence to prove or disprove anything. Even the 2 HH's won't be enough, as we simply don't know why they checked. There are any number of legit reasons, as well as, possibly, genuine collusion.
It can ONLY be resolved by sending the necessary information - ALL of it, not selective bits - to Customer Care, & they'll pass it to Security/Fraud guys.
I'll send it to them, too, as I've already stated.
I can understand OP's angst, but nobody on the Forum is in a position to fairly judge the matter.
Critique is commonly understood as fault finding and negative judgement
Regarding your age......
With the limited information I have, which is "Your Name" = TheRock573 - I could assume you are 41 years of age "THE ROCK" aka wayne Johnson - age 41 Born May 2nd 1972 - an actor and semi-retirerd wrestle
ps. I am in a mood btw
Hope you enjoyed your Mince & Tatties Mmmmmmm - I love mince & tatties