blonde poker forum

I'd just bubbled in 4th.

I was very suspicious of "uropponent" and "eye_suk". uropponent had doubled eye_suk up with calls like Q5 off and 103 clubs and didnt touch his blind at all.

Others on the table had noticed it too and stayed to observe, then this happens:





Hand #11371205-155 at SnG-0054a (No Limit Hold'em Sit and Go)
Powered by UltimateBet
Started at 26/Jan/06 11:38:05
 
     uropponent is at seat 0 with 5070.
     eye_suk is at seat 3 with 1460.
     _Mr Smooth_ is at seat 6 with 8470.
     The button is at seat 6.
     
     uropponent posts the small blind of 150.
     eye_suk posts the big blind of 300.

     uropponent:  -- --
     eye_suk:  -- --
     _Mr Smooth_:  -- --

Pre-flop:
 
          _Mr Smooth_ folds.   uropponent raises to 900. 
          eye_suk goes all-in for 1460.   uropponent folds,
          showing 5s Qc.   eye_suk is returned 560 (uncalled). 
         

         

Hand #11371205-155 Summary:
 
     No rake is taken for this hand.
     eye_suk wins 1800.

Two things make me believe this was not collusion.

#1 I would expect chip passers to not show their cards.

#2 As the only other combatant had folded, if they were up to something I'd expect a flat call pre-flop and then the larger stack to fold to a flop bet.

His other play could just be loose passive or coincidental. Not a clear case of collusion IMHO.

That's what I thought... why show the Q5?

Then again why call an all in a few minutes earlier against this guy with Q5 for like 1000-1300 chips but now pass when it's only 400??

There was a big upraoar after he called the first Q5, maybe he was just winding people up? Or maybe, and correctly, he knew the site cant really do anything about it even if he does show? I dunno maybe he was just scared of p***ing people off again.

I guess it's hard for you guys to judge after only one hand. They were very passive to each other previously.

Thankfully the numbers don't matter to many players. It's all whimsical whether they pass or fold and pot odds are irrelevant to them.

Taking two shots at knocking your colluding buddy out, even if it was with Q5o and T3s, doesn't sound like they were too passive with one another to me. I'd make a note if I were you, especially as to uropponent's play. However, I remain skeptical as to it being collusion.

Thing is Tank if they were colluding, calling with Q5o and 103s would be smart if he knew the cards of his mate had him dominated.

More importantly, during the hands in between (the blind nicking going on - left, right and centre, the big stack "fed" the small stack, eg, he always gave up his blind to him (but mostly defended to us) and never attacked his blind (but attacked ours).

So when I say passive I mean generally. I know calls with Q5 and 103 dont seem passive but why be sooo passive then defend with junk like that?

I'm having trouble making my mind up though, as can they reallybe so thick as to pass and show?!

By the way this was a $100 SnG and "uropponent" had showed his knowledge of the odds by knocking someone out earlier with 32o when he was in the BB for 200 and the all in was 450. He said "I have to call this" and called.

Do you have the hand historys? What were eye_suk's cards against the Q5 and the T3?

The table shut down 30 secs after heads up ended. I was retrieving the hand histories then but I missed them. I've emailed UB for them though.

Out of interest the guy who I didn't suspect busted them both in a 3 way all in coup!  :D

Baron you seem to know the turn out with regards to my earlier posts so if we're on the same page I'll tell you what I think.
Although any type of collusion is prohibited the severity of this collusion if indeed any is seemingly minimal.
If i were to ascribe blame or guilt of a significant nature to any persons that were suspected of colluding I would think that the most important factor in doing so would be to identify a prior intent to do so.
Not only was this not a cash game, but, it was a multitable of modest stakes which in itself dissallows any form of antecedence with regards to an agreemennt on colluding as there are no guarantees untill the final table, if indeed both parties make it.
The word"collusion" has such a severe connatation for most in this day and age and I think it a tad harsh to use in regards of this situation. If the "suspects" were indeed guilty it is of nothing more than an exagerated form of staying out of eachothers way as they have inadvertantly found themselfs in a situation whereby a simple reciprical arrangement can see them finish than perhaps they're legitimatly supposed to.
I of course understand that this is fundamentaly cheating and technically collusion but in light of professional collusion it seems derisory.

As fantastic as you may think that sounds, it is in fact totally incorrect as I was playing a SnG. (One table tournament!)

Good work there Shakespeare. :D

lol, ok but still a little harsh to tag that sort of "skullduggery" as being collusion. Ive been in a bent game, chips on the cards and all that turn out, Even though i had a clue they were at it i was intent on beating them as i was slaughtered,that was serious collusion that left me a lot worse than just skint after the game . so when you complain about collusion in an on line st it makes me laugh!!!

I hear ya. To me though cheating is cheating. There's no "mild" cheating or "severe" cheating, just cheating. Internet or live, cash or cuts, cheating is cheating to me.