blonde poker forum
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
March 28, 2024, 04:18:20 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
2272476 Posts in 66752 Topics by 16945 Members
Latest Member: Zula
* 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 ... 11 12 13 14 [15] 16 17 18 Go Down Print
Author Topic: Felt colluded against in UKPC DTD Mega sat just finished now on ipoker..  (Read 57488 times)
SuuPRlim
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 10536



View Profile
« Reply #210 on: February 23, 2014, 08:35:23 PM »

I know guy and dave and I'm happy to say if they were colluding I would be extremely surprised, even with the evidence itt I still would think there is a less than 1% chance they deliberately colluded, I'm sure there is a chance they sub consciously soft played a little bit, for e.g. Guy has a pretty "meh"  marginal shove opportunity but decided "ah it's my pal in the BB so il make a tight(ish) fold, I don't think that is particularly bad at all as long as it is not pre-determined and decided between in advance.


To be honest, I think it would be a terrible move - if that sort of move was under investigation and Millidonk had nothing to do with it then I think it would be pretty unfair on him. It would be down to Guy to stand up and say 'I do apologise for soft playing my mate and I'll take full responsibility for what has happened.' - Meaning Dave would get his ban lifted..... Hopefully it won't have to come to that and they are both cleared tbh, but I shan't be holding my breath as the thread starter has been 'proven' correct in what he has alleged.

I don't think there is anything to ivestigate if that is the case. If you're in the BB and I have a hand I could shove, but wouldn't be ridiculous to fold, like QTo or something and I thought, meh I'll let him keep his BB w/e I like the guy.

Providing we haven't previously discussed colluding in some form then nothing illicit has happened.

Just as in another example like Keith said if I had a hand I really should fold, like 83 or something but I think "f**k this guy I don't like him im gonna try spite bust him/steal his BB" nothing bad has happened there either.
Logged

The Camel
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 17523


Under my tree, being a troll.


View Profile
« Reply #211 on: February 23, 2014, 09:05:40 PM »

I know guy and dave and I'm happy to say if they were colluding I would be extremely surprised, even with the evidence itt I still would think there is a less than 1% chance they deliberately colluded, I'm sure there is a chance they sub consciously soft played a little bit, for e.g. Guy has a pretty "meh"  marginal shove opportunity but decided "ah it's my pal in the BB so il make a tight(ish) fold, I don't think that is particularly bad at all as long as it is not pre-determined and decided between in advance.


To be honest, I think it would be a terrible move - if that sort of move was under investigation and Millidonk had nothing to do with it then I think it would be pretty unfair on him. It would be down to Guy to stand up and say 'I do apologise for soft playing my mate and I'll take full responsibility for what has happened.' - Meaning Dave would get his ban lifted..... Hopefully it won't have to come to that and they are both cleared tbh, but I shan't be holding my breath as the thread starter has been 'proven' correct in what he has alleged.

I don't think there is anything to ivestigate if that is the case. If you're in the BB and I have a hand I could shove, but wouldn't be ridiculous to fold, like QTo or something and I thought, meh I'll let him keep his BB w/e I like the guy.

Providing we haven't previously discussed colluding in some form then nothing illicit has happened.

Just as in another example like Keith said if I had a hand I really should fold, like 83 or something but I think "f**k this guy I don't like him im gonna try spite bust him/steal his BB" nothing bad has happened there either.


If you had raised the last 10 hands including with hands way worse than QT, would you think it was still ok to fold when your mate was in the BB?

It just highlights how terrible satellites are.

Invites collusion/soft play/chip dumping etc etc more than any other type of poker tournament.
Logged

Congratulations to the 2012 League Champion - Stapleton Atheists

"Keith The Camel, a true champion!" - Brent Horner 30th December 2012

"I dont think you're a wanker Keith" David Nicholson 4th March 2013
robyong
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1257



View Profile WWW
« Reply #212 on: February 23, 2014, 10:36:05 PM »

Hi

To be clear, here is my view on this thread, having read it for the first time today;

1. The decision to disqualify the 2 players was entirely Nick (as MD of DTD) and Simon's (as DTD Club Director). The first I knew of this was when I came in at 6pm after a mammoth cash game session the previous night. This decision has 0% to do with the sponsors, Sky, it's a solely DTD decision following conference calls between ipoker and DTD; I understand that ipoker contacted DTD told us that the 2 players would not be paid their prizes based on their review of the actually satellite, the reason given was "Collusion", therefore 11th and 12th were awarded the £1K seat credits.

2. I have read through this thread and I find it bizarre how people are expressing opinions when they are not privy to the actually facts of this case, facts which would be poor etiquette and bad taste to make public. I find it even more bizarre why posters such as Camel want to get so passionately involved when you are more likely to see it start snowing in the DTD card room than for Camel to be seen in DTD, in particular the comments about 'satellites inviting collusion', I find comments like that offensive to the most simple of brains, next thing we will be saying is that walking outside of your house encourages you to be mugged.

3. For the avoidance of doubt, there are only 3 people that can ever speak on behalf of DTD, Simon, me and Nick. Simon has posted on here and made it clear what the position is, anything posted by anyone else, including Tightend, is their opinion as a Blonde member only.

4. I am also gobsmacked that posters on here are demanding hand histories to be posted, we won't get involved in a trial by forum and outing people, this matter is strictly private between DTD and the 2 players, and was dealt with face to face between Simon and the 2 players.

5. Finally, when we make decisions, that's our business, noone has the right to demand we must do this and do that, there is massive choice available to players in both online and live poker, if players don't like what we do, the world is a simple place, speak to us directly rather than flame away publicly, or just don't come into our Club.

Peace.

Rob  
« Last Edit: February 23, 2014, 10:47:42 PM by robyong » Logged
Ironside
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 41780



View Profile
« Reply #213 on: February 23, 2014, 10:42:58 PM »

Hi

To be clear, here are my points on this thread;

1. The decision to disqualify the 2 players was entirely Nick (as MD of DTD) and Simon's (as DTD Club Director). The first I knew of this was when I came in at 6pm after a mammoth cash game session the previous night. This decision has 0% to do with the sponsors, Sky, it's a solely DTD decision following conference calls between ipoker and DTD; I understand that ipoker contacted DTD told us that the 2 players would not be paid their prizes based on their review of the actually satellite, the reason given was "Collusion".

2. I have read through this thread and I find it bizarre how people are expressing opinions when they are not privy to the actually facts, I find it even more bizarre why posters such as Camel want to get so passionately involved when you are more likely to see it start snowing in the DTD card room than for Camel to be seen in DTD, in particular the comments about 'satellites inviting collusion', I find comments like that offensive to the most simple of brains, next thing we will be saying is that walking outside of your house encourages you to be mugged.

3. For the avoidance of doubt, there are only 3 people that can ever speak on behalf of DTD, Simon, me and Nick. Simon has posted on here and made it clear what the position is, anything posted by anyone else, including Tightend, is their opinion.

4. Finally I am gobsmacked that posters on here are demanding hand histories to be posted, we won't get involved in a trial by forum and outing people, this matter is strictly between DTD and the 2 players, and was dealt with face to face between Simon and the 2 players.

5. Finally, when we make decisions, that's our business, noone has the right to demand we must do this and do that, there is massive choice available to players in both online and live poker, if players don't like what we do, the world is a simple place, speak to us directly rather than flame away publicly, or don't come into our Club.

Peace.

Rob 


not often i disagree with rob and i find it impossible to disagree with a word he said here

well said rob
Logged

lend me a beer and I'll lend you my ear
MPOWER
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1699



View Profile
« Reply #214 on: February 23, 2014, 10:51:28 PM »

Hi

To be clear, here are my points on this thread;

1. The decision to disqualify the 2 players was entirely Nick (as MD of DTD) and Simon's (as DTD Club Director). The first I knew of this was when I came in at 6pm after a mammoth cash game session the previous night. This decision has 0% to do with the sponsors, Sky, it's a solely DTD decision following conference calls between ipoker and DTD; I understand that ipoker contacted DTD told us that the 2 players would not be paid their prizes based on their review of the actually satellite, the reason given was "Collusion".

2. I have read through this thread and I find it bizarre how people are expressing opinions when they are not privy to the actually facts, I find it even more bizarre why posters such as Camel want to get so passionately involved when you are more likely to see it start snowing in the DTD card room than for Camel to be seen in DTD, in particular the comments about 'satellites inviting collusion', I find comments like that offensive to the most simple of brains, next thing we will be saying is that walking outside of your house encourages you to be mugged.

3. For the avoidance of doubt, there are only 3 people that can ever speak on behalf of DTD, Simon, me and Nick. Simon has posted on here and made it clear what the position is, anything posted by anyone else, including Tightend, is their opinion.

4. Finally I am gobsmacked that posters on here are demanding hand histories to be posted, we won't get involved in a trial by forum and outing people, this matter is strictly between DTD and the 2 players, and was dealt with face to face between Simon and the 2 players.

5. Finally, when we make decisions, that's our business, noone has the right to demand we must do this and do that, there is massive choice available to players in both online and live poker, if players don't like what we do, the world is a simple place, speak to us directly rather than flame away publicly, or don't come into our Club.

Peace.

Rob 


not often i disagree with rob and i find it impossible to disagree with a word he said here

well said rob
Logged
rfgqqabc
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5483


View Profile
« Reply #215 on: February 23, 2014, 11:05:51 PM »

Furthermore, did the guys on the other table in this very sat get investigated? The chat looked suspicious. Bad Beat blames DTD, DTD blames iPoker, and whilst this goes on some players will lose a bunch of equity.  I'm trying really hard to stay polite here, but not a single other sat should run until it is confirmed that hand for hand will be working. Not even arsed about the chat tbh, I'd let the idiots use it to out themselves.
Rob can we get H4H sorted out? Do you know if iPoker investigated the other table too? If not I'll stick the complaint in myself later tonight.

People wanted to look at the hand histories to investigate/decide themselves. I wouldn't particularly trust iPoker here, correctly or not I'm not sure. It is absolutely understandable you want to avoid trial by forum, but I feel like people think they have something to offer regarding collusion detection.

The Camel meant the format itself invites collusion, this is clearly true. Colluding in sats has a much greater and obvious benefit in comparison to most formats of poker. In mtts/cash nothing is of much value (chipdumping has some limited value as does sqzing out players etc) but in sats people often can "help" others for very little cost, by either giving walks or chip dumping. This is just an unfortunate fact due to the format. Personally I like them as an event type but that doesn't mean I'm not aware of the flaws.

I'm also begrudgingly going to comment on your reference to Camel's dtd appearances with a comparison. I've never been to the wsop but I should definitely be allowed to comment on the start of affairs there. This probably shouldn't hold much weight as although I'm not a customer, I'm a potential customer.

Fwiw, the Omaha comp this week was one of the best tournaments I've played in. The structure was almost too good. Incredible week of poker.

P.S I meant to try and have a word with you about Edinburgh but I didn't really get chance. I'd send a pm but its a conversation better had in person.

edit: I didn't moan too much about h4h before because I knew about it and would timebank but it really does screw over recreational players and people at their table too.
« Last Edit: February 23, 2014, 11:27:06 PM by rfgqqabc » Logged

[21:05:17] Andrew W: you wasted a non spelling mistakepost?
[21:11:08] Patrick Leonard: oll
celtic
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 19111



View Profile
« Reply #216 on: February 23, 2014, 11:08:50 PM »

Why are so many people against the ipoker collusion team? Seems that a lot of people think they would be better qualified to assess, than the team would.
Logged

Keefy is back Smiley But for how long?
kano
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 133


View Profile
« Reply #217 on: February 23, 2014, 11:34:03 PM »

Why are so many people against the ipoker collusion team? Seems that a lot of people think they would be better qualified to assess, than the team would.

Spoke to one of collusion guys earlier. He said half of the team have cried themselves to sleep past couple of nights, sad state of affairs.
Logged
celtic
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 19111



View Profile
« Reply #218 on: February 23, 2014, 11:35:31 PM »

Why are so many people against the ipoker collusion team? Seems that a lot of people think they would be better qualified to assess, than the team would.

Spoke to one of collusion guys earlier. He said half of the team have cried themselves to sleep past couple of nights, sad state of affairs.

Smiley
Logged

Keefy is back Smiley But for how long?
byronkincaid
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5027



View Profile
« Reply #219 on: February 24, 2014, 03:18:53 AM »

Why are so many people against the ipoker collusion team? Seems that a lot of people think they would be better qualified to assess, than the team would.

i don't think anybody has ever accused ipoker of being honest, trustworthy or competent.
Logged
The Camel
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 17523


Under my tree, being a troll.


View Profile
« Reply #220 on: February 24, 2014, 03:20:26 AM »

Why are so many people against the ipoker collusion team? Seems that a lot of people think they would be better qualified to assess, than the team would.

Because I was colluded against on IPoker and they said there wasn't enough evidence.

Haven't played another hand on the network since.
Logged

Congratulations to the 2012 League Champion - Stapleton Atheists

"Keith The Camel, a true champion!" - Brent Horner 30th December 2012

"I dont think you're a wanker Keith" David Nicholson 4th March 2013
The Camel
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 17523


Under my tree, being a troll.


View Profile
« Reply #221 on: February 24, 2014, 03:36:07 AM »

Hi

To be clear, here is my view on this thread, having read it for the first time today;

1. The decision to disqualify the 2 players was entirely Nick (as MD of DTD) and Simon's (as DTD Club Director). The first I knew of this was when I came in at 6pm after a mammoth cash game session the previous night. This decision has 0% to do with the sponsors, Sky, it's a solely DTD decision following conference calls between ipoker and DTD; I understand that ipoker contacted DTD told us that the 2 players would not be paid their prizes based on their review of the actually satellite, the reason given was "Collusion", therefore 11th and 12th were awarded the £1K seat credits.

2. I have read through this thread and I find it bizarre how people are expressing opinions when they are not privy to the actually facts of this case, facts which would be poor etiquette and bad taste to make public. I find it even more bizarre why posters such as Camel want to get so passionately involved when you are more likely to see it start snowing in the DTD card room than for Camel to be seen in DTD, in particular the comments about 'satellites inviting collusion', I find comments like that offensive to the most simple of brains, next thing we will be saying is that walking outside of your house encourages you to be mugged.

3. For the avoidance of doubt, there are only 3 people that can ever speak on behalf of DTD, Simon, me and Nick. Simon has posted on here and made it clear what the position is, anything posted by anyone else, including Tightend, is their opinion as a Blonde member only.

4. I am also gobsmacked that posters on here are demanding hand histories to be posted, we won't get involved in a trial by forum and outing people, this matter is strictly private between DTD and the 2 players, and was dealt with face to face between Simon and the 2 players.

5. Finally, when we make decisions, that's our business, noone has the right to demand we must do this and do that, there is massive choice available to players in both online and live poker, if players don't like what we do, the world is a simple place, speak to us directly rather than flame away publicly, or just don't come into our Club.

Peace.

Rob  


My main point was this thread shouldn't exist.

The guys are being accused of something very serious.

And I don't think it's right to air these accusations in public until it is proved.

As the thread does exist, I think they should be allowed to post HHs (if they want to) to help prove their innocence.

I think a few hours is very quick to come to the conclusion they did cheat - but once IPoker did decide they did, DTD definitely did the right thing taking them out of the tournament.

As for the other point I don't think there is any doubt there is more instances of collusion in MTT satellites then regular tournaments.

It's human nature really. You've guaranteed yourself a seat in a big tournament as massive chip leader but your mate is struggling with 5 big blinds with 2 people to go before he wins a seat.

You want your mate to get in. Going hard on strangers big blinds while only raising your mates bb when you have a premium hand is almost natural. But that is cheating, right?

I've been playing a long time, I've never heard people in regular tournaments openly discuss colluding, but I have more than once in satellites. "If we all fold to the big blind every hand, we'll all get a seat" or some such nonsense.

The very nature of satellites encourage collusion. I haven't seen any argument which sways me from that view.
Logged

Congratulations to the 2012 League Champion - Stapleton Atheists

"Keith The Camel, a true champion!" - Brent Horner 30th December 2012

"I dont think you're a wanker Keith" David Nicholson 4th March 2013
T8MML
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 559


View Profile
« Reply #222 on: February 24, 2014, 03:33:07 PM »

Why are so many people against the ipoker collusion team? Seems that a lot of people think they would be better qualified to assess, than the team would.

i don't think anybody has ever accused ipoker of being honest, trustworthy or competent.

This did make me lol

Logged

if the snow is yellow - don't eat it!
david3103
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6104



View Profile
« Reply #223 on: February 24, 2014, 03:55:55 PM »

Why are so many people against the ipoker collusion team? Seems that a lot of people think they would be better qualified to assess, than the team would.

i don't think anybody has ever accused ipoker of being honest, trustworthy or competent.

This did make me lol



The need for satellites, particularly mega sats with 20+seats on offer, to go H4H in the closing stages and for chat to be off was agreed nearly a year ago, and yet it still doesn't happen.

Given that I think we would all trust DTD to be honest trustworthy and competent and that we pretty much have to assume that they are satisfied that iPoker is, at a minimum, honest and trustworthy it seems that the major issue is the competence of iPoker.

We have to trust Rob, Simon and especially Nick to push for this to happen soon. Meantime, maybe there could be moderators watching the latter stages of megaSats and acting appropriately when they see transgression.
Logged

It's more about the winning than the winnings

5 November 2012 - Kinboshi says "Best post ever on blonde thumbs up"
mondatoo
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 22638



View Profile
« Reply #224 on: February 24, 2014, 04:08:59 PM »

You want your mate to get in. Going hard on strangers big blinds while only raising your mates bb when you have a premium hand is almost natural. But that is cheating, right?

Is this cheating ?

For instance, I jam much wider vs randoms than I do versus regs as std; I know a random isn't aware of my ranges as my mate would be so I'm happy punishing them whilst not pushing it as much against him as he might spite call me, so do I now have to play a sub optimal strategy imo and I'm not allowed to have any sort of prerogative to make what I see as the best decisions for me in and around a sat otherwise it might look like collusion.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 11 12 13 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 0.3 seconds with 21 queries.