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....
First post and wouldn't of posted otherwise.
3 handed in the last sat for the Turbo £1500 - £55 - 2 places pay
Chip leader types in the chat box to the other player.... I liked you lXXXXXX. Will make sure you come 2nd. Would rasie him and donked chips off to him. Then hammered me and would only call my raises or shove on me.
Not moaning just becasue I came 3rd. But because that is down right out and out cheating!! Not sure of the etiquette but XXXXXXis cheat and I find it disgusting!
3 handed in the last sat for the Turbo £1500 - £55 - 2 places pay
Chip leader types in the chat box to the other player.... I liked you lXXXXXX. Will make sure you come 2nd. Would rasie him and donked chips off to him. Then hammered me and would only call my raises or shove on me.
Not moaning just becasue I came 3rd. But because that is down right out and out cheating!! Not sure of the etiquette but XXXXXXis cheat and I find it disgusting!
Comments
We are all very sensitive right now about collusion, & rightly so. If you EVER suspect "collusion", just report it to Customer Care, please. It WILL be investigated & where appropriate, action taken IF collusion is proven.
It is, however, VERY hard to prove based on a SINGLE game. Examination of long term patterns between 2 or more players are the way collusion is proven, or otherwise, beccause it is near impossible to prove based on one game.
In this SPECIFIC case, if you have explained it correctly & fully, I have to tell you, & notwithstanding what others have replied in support of you, this was NOT Collusion.
Collusion is explained here.....
Collusion is an agreement between two or more parties, sometimes illegal and therefore secretive, to limit open competition by deceiving, misleading, or defrauding others of their legal rights, or to obtain an objective forbidden by law typically by defrauding or gaining an unfair advantage.
From what you have Posted, the third player did not say anything. So he has NOT colluded. I'm sorry, I know you won't like to hear that, but it would be a fact if you have explained the story correctly in your Post. It needs TWO people to collude.
Wat it nice? No, not at all.
Wat it bad etiquette? Yes, of course.
Was it collusion. No, not at all.
Happy to debate this further with you or others, but we have to understand this problem correctly. What you have reported was NOT collusion.
So, if it was not collusion, was it cheating?
Well I'm not actually sure it was.
Mr Villain can play however he wishes providing he does not collude with others to beat you. HE IS ALLOWED TO TARGET ANY PLAYER HE WISHES. And your Post suggests the 3rd player never said a word.
Lets look at the 3 players.
"Villain". Bad etiquette (though I've seen far worse). Not colluding though. I'm not sure any fair-minded player would openly type what he did in the Chat Box. I bet a lot of players DO do it though, without typing as much in the chat box. He can like or dislike anyone he wishes, & play however he wants, as long as it is within the rules. What rule has he broken here?
The Third Party. As reported, he has not done a thing wrong. What would I do in his spot? I'm not sure I know what I'd do. I hope I'd play my own game. Villain seems determined to bust you, there are 3 of us left, & 2 seats. If I say nothing & do nothing, I'm going to get that seat. What do you think most players would do in that spot? The temptation to say nothing, & hope he busts you must be enormous. I bet most players in his spot would sort of look the other way, & hope you go bust. They would.
You. Well we are THAT close to winning the seat, & Mr Villain is behaving very badly, & displaying dreadful lack of etiquette & fair-mindedness. So yeah, I'd be a bit miffed with him. But I can't accuse him of colluding, because he never colluded. It needs TWO PARTIES to collude. You made no mention of the third player saying anything. Did he cheat? Not as such, on the facts you reported, no, I don't believe he did. I would deffo be a bit miffed & chuntery though, for sure.
I'm really sorry you had a bad experience, & if you still have concerns that he colluded, please report it to Customer Care.
Anyway, have a nice Easter, & try & put this behind you. The vast majority of poker players are decent people, & you won't see much of that sort of thing here, or on any other Poker Site, most people are not like that, you just got unlucky.
The other situation would be whereby villain is always raise/folding to the other guy but always raise/calling frank. This could be classed as 'chip dumping' if he's doing it with big hands.
With what was typed in the chatbox and the strange pattern of play I think it does give cause for it to be investigated.
Should be investigated?
Yes yes, and I did say to Frank he SHOULD report it to Customer Care. Posting it here won't help, not one bit. If he Reports it, it will be investigated. It won't be investigated based on his Forum Post though.
Suspicious? Yes, deffo. But this is the UK, & we can't go round calling peple cheats (in the real world) unless we can prove it. No proof has been offered here. Suspicion, yes yes yes. Suspicion & proof are different things though.
Chip-dumping? Well I tend to agree, it LOOKS like chip dumping. But do we know if Villain & Third Party even know each other? If you play the way Villain did & TARGET one player & play soft against another, is that chip-dumping? I've seen players play a hand SO BADLY that it looks like chip-dumping, but they are just really really bad players. (Orford, for example).
It could be chip-dumping though, yes, I agree. We can't prove that based on Frank's Post, though, nor can anyone on the Forum prove it.
What we do know though, (based on Frank's Post), is that the thread title, & accusation of collusion is 100% wrong. It was not colluding.
If this happened in real life, & he called the third party a colluder, he'd very likely get sued for libel.
It's an interesting one, for sure, & I feel bad for Frank. But that does not mean we can cast logic aside.
But maybe he just sees Frank as the weaker player. If so, he is perfectly entitled to target Frank, & steer clear of the supposedly stronger third party.
We don't know the stack sizes, either. If I were the Third Party, & I thought had my seat "locked up", I'd not get involved.
If Villain or Third Party both had big stacks, & Frank had a bowl, would it be improper to target Frank, & not go to war with the other big stack? NOT AT ALL!
Assume it were, say, a DYM, with 4 players left, & we have a big stack. I'm NEVER going to war with another big stack, but I WILL target the small stack. Is that cheating, or suspicious? Seems like sensible poker, to me.
Truth is, Frank has only given us part of the story, so we don't know. But as reported, it was not collusion. And chip-dumping cannot be proven from the facts stated, we don't even know the stack sizes.
Guilt has to be proven. Innocence is assumed until otherwise proven. That's the basis of Law in this country.
Interesting one, I agree.
Agree.
I said two specific things though.,
1) ON THE FACTS AS PRESENTED there was no collusion. Collusion involves TWO parties, not one. He presented NO EVIDENCE that the 3rd Party colluded. So it's wrong to call it "collusion", or call the guy a "cheat".
2) No, we don't know the facts, which was why I stated, repeatedly, he MUST Report this to Customer Care.
What would happen in a "Live" scenario? Nothing, there is nothing against the rules that says a player may not target a specific opponent. EVERY winning player tries to target the weakest players. Is that against any rules? He might get a slap round the chops though. In reality, it would not happen "live", folks are much braver when hiding behind a keyboard, of course.
We have to turn this collusion thing upside down. Supposing I accuse YOU of colluding? On this Forum. Would you be happy? Would you expect the Business to tread warily before snap-banning you, & investigate it properly? Remember, hearsay is inadmissable evidence.
I'm not defending the accused guy here, but crikey, we need to be careful before we set the lynch mob loose. Every player deserves that protection. And if it is proven they cheated, a ban is 100% in order.
Once, one of the little stacks even replied, 'I'm not colluding mac!'
Of course how the clown played, you will all guess and he tried his utmost to make it more than difficult for me.
My point being, it isn't collusion, that it does happen, that it's simply odious and against the spirit of the game, that's all.
It probably isn't even that rare an event, it's just unfortunate that poker does seem to attract these types who seem to hold a grudge, who take things personal, who in my case think I am bothered about losing a 3 pound DYM!
Thankfully these type of players, in my experience, are a tiny minority.
Best of luck Frank.
Twiglet Girls nails it.
For those who have never met Macacgirl, here's a looky-likey.
rather than helping those that are liked it might be a case of not helping those who are disliked.
for me, as chip leader in a satellite, i might be motivated to target one player who has been repeatedly abusive or insulting in the chatbox in either this or a previous game. on the few occasions the opportunity presents itself it's good fun, and quite cathartic. normally, though, i just try to qualify irrespective of who is on the table.
And is that "cheating" or "colluding"?
Absolutely NOT.
A Gentleman - not involved in this thread at all - has sent me the Chat Box Convo from a game last night, where he is convinced there was chip-dumping going off, supported by comments in the Chat Box.
Easy game - I've sent it to Security @ Head Office.