confidoboyd

DN 107kDC 83kIs that supposed to be 93k? Thanks just the same.There's not quite 200K on the table so I'm not quite sure what that guy's numbers were supposed to be, right now its:DN 124DC 74

Sometimes you just with it wa s NL:Texas Hold'em $500-$1000 (real money), #1,648,012,934 Table Dreamclown's HE, 29 Dec 2005 10:55 PM ET Seat 3: KidPoker ($106,727.75 in chips) Seat 8: Dreamclown ($93,230.25 in chips) ANTES/BLINDSDreamclown posts blind ($250), KidPoker posts blind ($500).PRE-FLOPDreamclown bets $750, KidPoker calls $500.FLOP [board cards 8H,6H,9H ]KidPoker checks, Dreamclown bets $500, KidPoker bets $1,000, Dreamclown calls $500.TURN [board cards 8H,6H,9H,5H ]KidPoker bets $1,000, Dreamclown bets $2,000, KidPoker bets $2,000, Dreamclown bets $2,000, KidPoker calls $1,0

There is no move in poker that "should never" be done, that is just a ridiculous statement.There have been some good points above about the benefit of dry side pot bluffing, and now I will give my own example from a few days ago.On the bubble of a MTT and i'm the chip leader at my table when we're playing 5 handed hand by hand. I've got a significant chip lead and have been stealing blinds and ante's 2/3 hands which is has been ridiculously beneficial to the point that i've got the next guy on my table covered 3 to 1. In one of my steal attempts I raise 4x the BB with Q6, get one caller, the

A2o - 874 times since i started using PT.Biggest win was $23 when flopping trip dueces in the BB.Biggest loss was $9 when my TP got river flushed.

Yea, that was me. Tough break.PokerStars Game #2684296075: Tournament #12874923, Hold'em No Limit - Level VII (100/200) - 2005/09/28 - 22:49:37 (ET)Table '12874923 4' Seat #4 is the buttonSeat 1: vvganeshavv (3780 in chips) Seat 2: krupnugz (650 in chips) Seat 3: RoccoMama (5255 in chips) Seat 4: MoMoney12 (4265 in chips) Seat 5: insano5000 (9339 in chips) Seat 6: BillyBizzle (10221 in chips) Seat 8: Catcja (3160 in chips) Seat 9: confidoboyd (5164 in chips) vvganeshavv: posts the ante 25krupnugz: posts the ante 25RoccoMama: posts the ante 25MoMoney12: posts the ante 25insano5000: posts the a

I had the same problem. You cannot change your CURRENT account over to USD...for some reason that's too complicated for them. What you can do is create a new account and designate it as USD....then give their customer support a call and they'll transfer all your current linkages (bank, etc.) to your new account after they verify your ID. It was a hassle, but the customer support folks help you through it well.CB

99 loses to 77 and i'm done. that was fun.

Was doing well........then i made the mistake of calling an all-in preflop with AA........should have known, AA doesn't beat KQ on partypoker.

ha. good note.

Haven't played in awhile; who's in tonight?

Proof is a decision based upon evidence.There's about 30+ hands of evidence referenced earlier in this thread that suggest collusion. The only reason I started posting in this thread was to counter the fact that you seem to have made up YOUR mind that it wasn't collusion and that everyone should obey your command to "let it go". Frankly, your only argument seems to be focused on the fact that you don't like the "blatent" in the title of the post and decided to lay down your version of the law. I've no reason to continue debating, and look forward to the OP giving us an update from Party Pok

No it wouldn't be, and as I said before, intent cannot be concluded.The evidence presented in this situation doesn't support that this was what they were doing. If this were the case here, and and 1 player was being stalked from table to table by another player, the victim certainly would have defended himself against all of the collusion claims that players were throwing into the chat, if not just logging off. This is clearly 2 players that have made a pre-determined decision to constantly have raising wars despite what the cards may dictate, this is collusion to manipulate the game, no mat

No. You don't explain yourself very well. There are 2 parts to that statement, which part do you proclaim to be the ultimate authority on?

1) Collusion vs Screwing around - this is a matter of intent, nobody but those 2 players can truly determine that. Either way, it is game manipulation which is against terms of service. 2) I've always received a reply from PartyPoker in any customer service inquiries, I find it hard to believe that they'd just choose to not reply to what appears to be many people around here that sent in complaints. Luckily now I DO understand your argument .... PartyPoker hasn't said anything yet so they must be innocent and have done nothing that anybody here should be concerned about.

Your argument seems to be that the burden of proof of collusion should be on the other players at the table, which is ridiculous. People just want a PartyPoker investigation, which the circumstances certainly warrent.[insert condescending question]