Are these 2 chip dumpimg?????

[dan]

or has Bigeck just been caught??


Seat 3: Bigeck (3802 in chips)
Seat 4: wormy (1115 in chips)
Seat 6: danners (1083 in chips)
wormy: posts small blind 75
danners: posts big blind 150
----- HOLE CARDS -----
dealt to wormy [Ah ]
Bigeck: calls 150
wormy: folds
danners: raises to 600
Bigeck: calls 450
----- FLOP ----- [ ]
danners: checks
Bigeck: bets 150
danners: raises to 300
Bigeck: raises to 450
danners: raises to 483 and is all-in
Bigeck: folds
Returned uncalled bets 33 to danners
danners: doesn't show hand
danners collects 2175 from Main pot
----- SUMMARY -----
Total pot 2175 Main pot 2175 Rake 0
Board [ ]
Seat 3: Bigeck (button) folded on the Flop
Seat 4: wormy (small blind) folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 6: danners (big blind) collected 2175

[bhoywonder]

very curious


possibly colluding


if u can follow one or the other when ur online,if the other shows up then probably at it!!!


the swines!!

[thetank]

In my experience, chip dumping is usually a little more subtle than this. No real need to give him 1050 in one hand, and have it look uber-dodgy. When you could give him 750, and no-one would bat an eye-lid.

I doubt they are in cahoots. People usually associate fish with calling too much, but making bad ass folds is rampant too.

You just don't see it manifest itself very often (except in instances like this.)

Big stack is not necessary an out and out fish. He could just have been not concentrating, or mis-clicked.

[redsimon]

Folded for a 33 reraise, chip dumping at its most amateur. Hope you contacted support so they can see what holecards both were holding and whether they play a lot together. If support don't know the answer to those two questions you've got to question carrying on playing on the site.

[stallyon]

definately chip dumping.....or chumping as it should be called...folding to a raise of 33???

[Nem]

It could be a misclick.

[redsimon]

It could be a misclick.

On the turn he bet 150 then 450 then passed for 33 more. Thats giving him a lot of "benefit of the doubt"

[thetank]

Doesn't have to be a mis-click to contain no malice.

There is something to be said for sheer absent-mindedness too. In this is the cause, then in this instance, it has undoubetly cost you equity. For the most part though, seemingly illogical moves like this will make you bucket loads of spundoolicks.

I used to instantly conclude these types of incidents had to be collusion, but have since mellowed.

If on a Crypto or Stars, then dodgy site Sharkscope (which I neither use, nor endorse) will allow you to search for the players results.

They allow subscribed members to search for players results when together.

It lets you see if they play the majority of their sit n gos together, this usually is a bad sign. It also lets you compare their ROI when they play together, along with their ROI when they play alone. A significant increase in the former would strongly suggest collusion.

A mostly pointless affair though, because the sites themselves have software that automatically detects such things. Believe it or not, they actually do care about catching the cheats.

[dan]

Folded for a 33 reraise, chip dumping at its most amateur. Hope you contacted support so they can see what holecards both were holding and whether they play a lot together. If support don't know the answer to those two questions you've got to question carrying on playing on the site.

no i didnt contact support i wanted to know what people think i didnt want to look parinoid.

It could be a misclick.

i also thought that to but after he bet the flop and got reraised when he reraised back and it only cost him 33 chips from his 2750 left behind wouldnt you call anyway, 33 to win 2175 thats about 72/1 odds

Doesn't have to be a mis-click to contain no malice.

There is something to be said for sheer absent-mindedness too. In this is the cause, then in this instance, it has undoubetly cost you equity. For the most part though, seemingly illogical moves like this will make you bucket loads of spundoolicks.

I used to instantly conclude these types of incidents had to be collusion, but have since mellowed.

If on a Crypto or Stars, then dodgy site Sharkscope (which I neither use, nor endorse) will allow you to search for the players results.

They allow subscribed members to search for players results when together.

It lets you see if they play the majority of their sit n gos together, this usually is a bad sign. It also lets you compare their ROI when they play together, along with their ROI when they play alone. A significant increase in the former would strongly suggest collusion.

A mostly pointless affair though, because the sites themselves have software that automatically detects such things. Believe it or not, they actually do care about catching the cheats.

tank, i dont subscribe to sharkscope but if anybody does and would like to put these 2 names in and pm me the result that would be great, thanks

ps it was on crypto

[Nem]

You can use sharkscope for free, for 5 entries anyway.

[dan]

You can use sharkscope for free, for 5 entries anyway.

you cant use the head to head feature for free only look players up