blonde poker forum
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
October 26, 2020, 01:24:37 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
2254916 Posts in 66557 Topics by 16625 Members
Latest Member: thrytiarod
* Home Help Arcade Search Calendar Guidelines Login Register
+  blonde poker forum
|-+  Poker Forums
| |-+  The Rail
| | |-+  Felt colluded against in UKPC DTD Mega sat just finished now on ipoker..
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic. « previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 14 15 16 17 [18] Go Down Print
Author Topic: Felt colluded against in UKPC DTD Mega sat just finished now on ipoker..  (Read 38288 times)
GreekStein
Hero Member
Hero Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 20852



View Profile
« Reply #255 on: February 25, 2014, 08:34:21 AM »

Ray touched on a point that I would like to have clarified.  Hypothetically speaking, if I am on the bubble of a satty and one of my horses is in the bb, if we haven't communicated with each other in any way and I give him a walk (it's in my own interests after all), is this collusion?

Assuming I am the big stack and the horse is a short stack, I would be burning my own money by shoving.

The minute you start playing two stacks you are cheating/colluding.  Even if you have a share in two or more stacks at the table, you should play against these people as if you have no financial interest in them. It may not be on the scale of the Chinese Double or Nothing factory, but it doesn't make it much better.

I don't really understand why everybody who has a big stack seems in such a rush to try and help their mates, or knock out strangers.  Just go make yourself a brew, you are safe, let the shorties do their thing. 





Right in theory, in practice this is nonsense.
Logged

@GreekStein on twitter.

Retired Policeman, Part time troll.
Doobs
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 14987


View Profile
« Reply #256 on: February 25, 2014, 09:11:50 AM »

Ray touched on a point that I would like to have clarified.  Hypothetically speaking, if I am on the bubble of a satty and one of my horses is in the bb, if we haven't communicated with each other in any way and I give him a walk (it's in my own interests after all), is this collusion?

Assuming I am the big stack and the horse is a short stack, I would be burning my own money by shoving.

The minute you start playing two stacks you are cheating/colluding.  Even if you have a share in two or more stacks at the table, you should play against these people as if you have no financial interest in them. It may not be on the scale of the Chinese Double or Nothing factory, but it doesn't make it much better.

I don't really understand why everybody who has a big stack seems in such a rush to try and help their mates, or knock out strangers.  Just go make yourself a brew, you are safe, let the shorties do their thing. 





Right in theory, in practice this is nonsense.

 Guess we just do things differently.  I really can't remember the last time I did anything like this, and really don't want anyone doing it for me.  Just can't see how people can complain about others cheating them with a straight face, and then do stuff like this themselves.  When I read this thread yesterday, I was thinking maybe if I knew someone was near broke I might given them a walk, but then I thought if they choose to pay outside their roll I am not really going to help them.  They'll just go broke in another game.  Maybe if someone's house is at stake? 

If somebody has just given me a bunch of abuse, then I would probably play them differently, but that is more a leak than collusion?

Have you played Omaha at the same table as your backer before?  I assume you did that and played fair, so can't see why you think what I say is nonsense.  I don't see why you'd do that and then play a sat differently.

All this feels like a distraction, think the OP accused them of more than just a bit of softplay.
Logged

Most of the bets placed so far seem more like hopeful punts rather than value spots
NEWY
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 369


View Profile
« Reply #257 on: February 25, 2014, 10:00:46 AM »

Ray touched on a point that I would like to have clarified.  Hypothetically speaking, if I am on the bubble of a satty and one of my horses is in the bb, if we haven't communicated with each other in any way and I give him a walk (it's in my own interests after all), is this collusion?

Assuming I am the big stack and the horse is a short stack, I would be burning my own money by shoving.

Not collusion cos u haven't colluded with anyone. Collusion is an agreement between 2 or more parties and has u haven't communicated with them u haven't colluded. Maybe u are guilty of soft playing which of course is not allowed either.
Logged
outragous76
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 13363


Yeah Bitch! ......... MAGNETS! owwwh!


View Profile
« Reply #258 on: February 25, 2014, 10:20:18 AM »

I am astounded that a company (Dusk Till Dawn) claim that they have no desire to air their issues on a public forum, and yet their owner feels it is appropriate to post the "outcome" of an investigation on a forum prior to advising the parties involved of the alleged findings.

Given the serious nature of the allegations against me (and David), and the manner in which Dusk Till Dawn have conducted themselves I think it is important to put some facts out there, so that people can understand the situation, and how Dusk Till Dawn have conducted themselves in this matter.

1.   We have not seen a single piece of evidence to suggest any form of collusion between us. This has been requested but denied. 

2.   We have been provided with 5 hands (in a vacuum) and asked to comment upon them which we have done.  None of these hands show collusion.

3.   We have not seen a single piece of correspondence from Ipoker in respect of this matter. This has been requested but denied.

4.   Dusk Till Dawn have not responded to a single query we have raised. We have requested copies of all correspondence between DTD & Ipoker, which has been refused. We specifically requested the copies of correspondence which DTD have issued in our defence, this was also refused.

5.   We have been refused sight of the report which allegedly confirms our collusion.

6.   We have been refused access to a copy of the full Hand History, or access to the client in order that we could retrieve the hand history for ourselves.

7.   We proposed a Satellite/ICM expert to be appointed as mediator/adjudicator and this request was ignored.

The list could go on but they are the salient points.


In short, we have been accused of something which could significantly harm our reputations in poker. We have not been given any opportunity to provide an explanation (with the exception of commenting on 5 hands).

We have subsequently been advised of our alleged guilt on a public forum, without a single jot of evidence being presented to us. We have not been offered any recourse. We have been refused contact with Ipoker. Dusk Till Dawn have refused to correspond to our queries.

I am not sure what kind of justice this is supposed to represent but it isn’t one that I recognise.

I would like to make it clear that I have no desire for Dusk Till Dawn to represent my interests in this matter. They have made it quite clear that my best interests are not what they have in mind given their actions. I would like to be able to represent myself directly with Ipoker with experts in satellite strategy to comment upon the hands. I also expect the hands to be given consideration along with the game flow and not in a vacuum.

As I have done I will continue to clear my name in a private manner.
Logged

".....and then I spent 2 hours talking with Stu which blew my mind.........."
easypickings
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2189



View Profile
« Reply #259 on: February 25, 2014, 01:39:38 PM »

Massively agree with what Guy says.

This is not a case of two guys losing a £1,000 seat. This is case of two guys losing a £1,000 seat, and their reputation being threatened. I would imagine both would happily lose any number of £1,000 seats in exchange for a fair hearing now. It is very important they are given a detailed and through analysis of everything that went into making the decision.

At the same time, I feel it's very unfair on Dom to be left with any feeling that "he shouldn't have posted this in the first place" The decision to post it will have been a very difficult one, and he will have been aware that it was a gamble. Be found out to be wrong, and look silly and bitter.

He will also have assumed that if it was wrong to make the original post, it would simply be deleted. It doesn't seem fair on him to let it run for days, and then criticise his decision to make it.

He will have taken no pleasure at all in the last few days, and despite being £1,000 the richer, I'm sure will wish that he hadn't played the sat in the first place.
Logged
treefella
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 554


View Profile
« Reply #260 on: February 25, 2014, 07:04:59 PM »

 Clearly all the facts are not being divulged here.Im sure DTD have valid reason to come to their conclusion and its not a decision that has been taken lightly.

 Pretty certain most mates are not going to take each other on playing in the same house in the same sat on the same table for a 1k seat when there are several seats as prizes.I think we can all agree on that.

What if this is NOT just one satellite  where the said two players have played under the very same circumstances ?
There are probably a lot more hand histories from previous sats that show a pattern that would quite easily be picked up as soft play , collusion, whatever you want to call it . This decision would then make a lot more sense.

It does appear that these two guys are going to struggle to prove their innocence if they are getting no response from DTD or Ipoker other than your banned gtfo.

Makes the sats not really worth playing if your mates playing it too, just incase he folds the AA on you when a seat is locked up Smiley
« Last Edit: February 25, 2014, 07:06:33 PM by treefella » Logged
Pages: 1 ... 14 15 16 17 [18] Go Up Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.194 seconds with 20 queries.