you can't catch collusion online

[Trip Draw 0]

No matter what each site says, there is no such software to catch people in collusion. You would figure that they can track and find suspicion when 2 - 3 players seem to always be sitting on the same table, especially in the mini-tounaments.Especially in 1-table tournaments, by using a simple chat program or your standard phone line, it's easy to coach your partner into "dumping" chips to you if they're loaded and your short stacked or vice versa. In addition, knowing your partner(s) hole cards is valuable information to calculate your drawing outs.I realize this is not new to most people and will agree with me that it's immoral/unethical, however when you have a loophole in such a potentially lucrative and risk-free system, many are tempted cheat.I find that if sites don't do a better job protecting the integrity of the game better, then there will always be a "Barry Bonds"-type cloud over online playing.

[cdddc75 0]

No matter what each site says, there is no such software to catch people in collusion.  You would figure that they can track and find suspicion when 2 - 3 players seem to always be sitting on the same table, especially in the mini-tounaments.Especially in 1-table tournaments, by using a simple chat program or your standard phone line, it's easy to coach your partner into "dumping" chips to you if they're loaded and your short stacked or vice versa.  In addition, knowing your partner(s) hole cards is valuable information to calculate your drawing outs.I realize this is not new to most people and will agree with me that it's immoral/unethical, however when you have a loophole in such a potentially lucrative and risk-free system, many are tempted cheat.I find that if sites don't do a better job protecting the integrity of the game better,  then there will always be a "Barry Bonds"-type cloud over online playing.

I suppose this type of collusion is impossible at a B&M game.No one here is smart enough to figure out a way to pull that off.

[eleutheromaniac 0]

There is collusion online, I know this first hand (but don't ask me to name name's). In fact there are people who do this exclusively: you send them the buy-in money and they work with you and you split the winnings 50/50. Collusion is too easy to do online, and too hard to catch (but I do geniunely believe that most sites do their best to try to catch them).Saying there's no collusion online is like saying there's no steriod use in pro sports.If you want to catch these people you're going to have to do your part to point these people out the site.

[Smasharoo 0]

There is no collusion online, I know this first hand (but don't ask me to name name's). In fact there are no people who do this exclusively: you don't send them the buy-in money and they work with you and youdon't split the winnings 50/50. Collusion isn't easy to do online, and is easy to catch.

[eleutheromaniac 0]

There is no collusion online, I know this first hand (but don't ask me to name name's). In fact there are no people who do this exclusively: you don't send them the buy-in money and they work with you and youdon't  split the winnings 50/50. Collusion isn't easy to do online, and is easy to catch.

Believe whatever you want. I guess when I see people at their computer talking to each other over the phone about their hands while their playing at the same table isn't collusion. :roll:

[Smasharoo 0]

There is less collusion online than live.Period, no question, no argument.Sorry.If you're a losing player online, it's YOUR fault, it's not because of colusion.Please drive through.

[Awful 0]

There is no collusion online, I know this first hand (but don't ask me to name name's). In fact there are no people who do this exclusively: you don't send them the buy-in money and they work with you and youdon't  split the winnings 50/50. Collusion isn't easy to do online, and is easy to catch.

Believe whatever you want. I guess when I see people at their computer talking to each other over the phone about their hands while their playing at the same table isn't collusion. :roll:

So, how much edge do they gain?Chip dumps with unreasonable hands can sometimes be attributed to bluffing, but the overall logs and history keeping make it pretty simple to ferret out if consistent, and punish such happenings. Furthermore, chip-dumping to a shortstack reduces the aggregate tournament equity of the cheaters; this is good for you unless you're the guy finishing in the skunk hole... if you're a big or average stack (or just not the shortest) you make money when they do that. If they dump everything to one player, they only gain tournament equity if the better player is chipped up and he's superior to the REMAINING FIELD, meaning it was money not in your EV anyways.Colluding by sharing hands to share outs is a difference of at MOST 22-1 on each individual hand. How often do drawing situations come up where their decision swings on having 2 outs that puts a dent in your EV?Collusion that creates bigger edges is shown in the betting and is easily called by the table and checked by the sites.The level of collusion you'd be facing appears shady but would not significantly hurt any individual tournament player. If you're a winner, you'll still beat their crude cheating as the edge is small. If you're a loser, conspiracy theories can be reassuring.

[Kappa1873 0]

It seems to me that colluding in online poker is like going around your elbow to get to your ass. It'd be MUCH easier to take the time you spend colluding and learn some basic poker theory.The level of play at sites like Party Poker is so abysmal that these cheaters' time would be better spent if they just played straight-up.That said, you're wrong about sites not being able to prevent collusion. In fact, it's t0ns easier to spot collusion online than in a B&M cardroom. Does it not occur to you that EVERY SINGLE INDIVIDUAL move that players make is recorded and under the scrutiny of site personnel? To think that legitimate sites would not have measures to prevent collusion is simply naive.

[faketree 0]

Ok, first of all, there is less collusion online then there is live and I'll explain why and give examples.You'd have to be a complete moron to collude in a one-table SNG. You're payoff in those is not worth the price of colluding. Say you enter a $20 SNG and a friend enters a $20 SNG and you plan on doing a chip dump to one or the other. If you win the whole SNG you stand to make $100 for an $80 profit without colluding. If you put $40 in you can now only profit $40. And for anyone who knows anything about SNGs, just because you double up early that doesn't mean you will win the thing, let alone finish in the money. Collusion in cash games. Because of all the money you'd have to invest, colluding at any table below a $20/40 table would be completely worthless and not worth the time, money, or effort. Or even the risk of getting caught. And to collude, you actually still need to be a good poker player so you know when to get the right amount of bets in when you have the best of it. Collusion is hard, which in turn, makes really stupid people colluding quite easy to spot. In 2004 alone, I heard party caught about 150 users trying some sort of collusion. They caught them by IP tracking and seat tracking. To say that the online sites don't have the proper software to track this, you just don't know what you are talking about.Collusion is more remarkable in the somewhat higher limit LIVE games as these are good poker players giving themselves a bigger edge than they would normally have. Unless you're playing a live 30/60 game, I wouldn't worry about it.I won't even go into multi-table tournament collusion because it is almost impossible because of the random seating.When all is said and done, I feel safer playing online than I would in a cardroom. And I don't play 30/60 so I'm not worried about someone colluding at the 10/20 tables.

[eleutheromaniac 0]

So, how much edge do they gain?

The funny thing is I've seen two players colluding in a SNG and neither made the money (again, by 'seen' I mean in person, standing next to one of them as they were talking on the phone to the other). But I've also seen steriod users hit .212. Doesn't make it right. I don't know how much colluding there is online vs. live but I know it exists and I know a few people who get away with it on a regular basis. What I don't know is anyone who's ever been caught colluding. And, btw, I'm not losing online. I'm not winning as much as I do live but I'm definately winning. In fact, in my last 5 SNGs I've finished 3rd, 2nd, 1st, 1st, and a very unlucky 2nd, so there you go Smash.

I won't even go into multi-table tournament collusion because it is almost impossible because of the random seating.

Actually if two players buy-in at the same time both will end up on the same table (at least on Paradise, I don't know how it works with other sites).

[Smasharoo 0]

And, btw, I'm not losing online. I'm not winning as much as I do live but I'm definately winning. In fact, in my last 5 SNGs I've finished 3rd, 2nd, 1st, 1st, and a very unlucky 2nd, so there you go Smash.Well, that's certainly a big enough sample set to decide you're a winning player.Well done!

[eleutheromaniac 0]

And, btw, I'm not losing online. I'm not winning as much as I do live but I'm definately winning. In fact, in my last 5 SNGs I've finished 3rd, 2nd, 1st, 1st, and a very unlucky 2nd, so there you go Smash.Well, that's certainly a big enough sample set to decide you're a winning player.Well done!

Excuse me if I don't feel like sharing every hand I've ever played with people who really don't care to read about it. :roll:

[AndrewBlack 0]

So, how much edge do they gain?

The funny thing is I've seen two players colluding in a SNG and neither made the money (again, by 'seen' I mean in person, standing next to one of them as they were talking on the phone to the other). But I've also seen steriod users hit .212. Doesn't make it right. I don't know how much colluding there is online vs. live but I know it exists and I know a few people who get away with it on a regular basis. What I don't know is anyone who's ever been caught colluding. And, btw, I'm not losing online. I'm not winning as much as I do live but I'm definately winning. In fact, in my last 5 SNGs I've finished 3rd, 2nd, 1st, 1st, and a very unlucky 2nd, so there you go Smash.

I won't even go into multi-table tournament collusion because it is almost impossible because of the random seating.

Actually if two players buy-in at the same time both will end up on the same table (at least on Paradise, I don't know how it works with other sites).

I know 2 friends in a 20$ mtt that made it to the final 2 tables in the tourney, and one of them dumped his chips to the other and they split the profits. So like we were talking about before, you still have to be GOOD to collude. Not that its really all that hard to make it to the final 2 tables in one of those things. Ok BAW.

[Kappa1873 0]

Excuse me if I don't feel like sharing every hand I've ever played with people who really don't care to read about it.  :roll:

Personally, I'd much rather read a realistic sample of hands than a fish tale about your last 5 sit n go's.I once knew a poker player who stumbled across an upswing in variance, and thought he was a good player. So I tried to break it to him subtly that he probably isn't all that good.

[eleutheromaniac 0]

Man, I don't care. You're pros, I'm a fish; you're going to WSOP, I'm going broke in my next home game. And there's no collusion online, I made the whole thing up.Happy now?

[vaglvr 0]

Ok, first of all, there is less collusion online then there is live and I'll explain why and give examples.You'd have to be a complete moron to collude in a one-table SNG.  You're payoff in those is not worth the price of colluding.  Say you enter a $20 SNG and a friend enters a $20 SNG and you plan on doing a chip dump to one or the other.  If you win the whole SNG you stand to make $100 for an $80 profit without colluding.  If you put $40 in you can now only profit $40.  And for anyone who knows anything about SNGs, just because you double up early that doesn't mean you will win the thing, let alone finish in the money.  Collusion in cash games.  Because of all the money you'd have to invest, colluding at any table below a $20/40 table would be completely worthless and not worth the time, money, or effort.  Or even the risk of getting caught.  And to collude, you actually still need to be a good poker player so you know when to get the right amount of bets in when you have the best of it.  Collusion is hard, which in turn, makes really stupid people colluding quite easy to spot.  In 2004 alone, I heard party caught about 150 users trying some sort of collusion.  They caught them by IP tracking and seat tracking.  To say that the online sites don't have the proper software to track this, you just don't know what you are talking about.Collusion is more remarkable in the somewhat higher limit LIVE games as these are good poker players giving themselves a bigger edge than they would normally have.  Unless you're playing a live 30/60 game, I wouldn't worry about it.I won't even go into multi-table tournament collusion because it is almost impossible because of the random seating.When all is said and done, I feel safer playing online than I would in a cardroom.  And I don't play 30/60 so I'm not worried about someone colluding at the 10/20 tables.

You don't think there is an advantage to knowing each other's cards.. Or in the later rounds dumping a big blind or two to another player when the blinds are very large. If the game has 3 players and it is 2 on 1, it would be terribly difficult. Its a huge advantage to have both players working together. Why would players simply chip dump? It would be more effective to have players playing together. Just saying...

[Smasharoo 0]

Man, I don't care. You're pros, I'm a fishDon't be silly.Not all of us are pros.

[Mr Monkey 0]

I dont worry about collusion online. Sure u get some people who tell each other their hands but it gives them so little advantage that it doesnt bother me. A good player will make money off them whether they are colluding or not

[faketree 0]

Ok, first of all, there is less collusion online then there is live and I'll explain why and give examples.You'd have to be a complete moron to collude in a one-table SNG.  You're payoff in those is not worth the price of colluding.  Say you enter a $20 SNG and a friend enters a $20 SNG and you plan on doing a chip dump to one or the other.  If you win the whole SNG you stand to make $100 for an $80 profit without colluding.  If you put $40 in you can now only profit $40.  And for anyone who knows anything about SNGs, just because you double up early that doesn't mean you will win the thing, let alone finish in the money.  Collusion in cash games.  Because of all the money you'd have to invest, colluding at any table below a $20/40 table would be completely worthless and not worth the time, money, or effort.  Or even the risk of getting caught.  And to collude, you actually still need to be a good poker player so you know when to get the right amount of bets in when you have the best of it.  Collusion is hard, which in turn, makes really stupid people colluding quite easy to spot.  In 2004 alone, I heard party caught about 150 users trying some sort of collusion.  They caught them by IP tracking and seat tracking.  To say that the online sites don't have the proper software to track this, you just don't know what you are talking about.Collusion is more remarkable in the somewhat higher limit LIVE games as these are good poker players giving themselves a bigger edge than they would normally have.  Unless you're playing a live 30/60 game, I wouldn't worry about it.I won't even go into multi-table tournament collusion because it is almost impossible because of the random seating.When all is said and done, I feel safer playing online than I would in a cardroom.  And I don't play 30/60 so I'm not worried about someone colluding at the 10/20 tables.

You don't think there is an advantage to knowing each other's cards.. Or in the later rounds dumping a big blind or two to another player when the blinds are very large. If the game has 3 players and it is 2 on 1, it would be terribly difficult. Its a huge advantage to have both players working together. Why would players simply chip dump? It would be more effective to have players playing together. Just saying...

No. The times that you do know the one other persons cards, in a timed event, enough for it to actually help you is insignificant. Maybe once at most 3 times in one hour unless you get lucky and everytime you have AK your friend has an A or a K. Just unlikely it would help very much.And dumping a big blind or two will not change a thing and borders the line of colluding. The typical collusion trick is to build a pot inbetween you and the player you are colluding against. It takes quite a bit of skill to do this effectively and the time and effort is not worth it at lower levels.Its wasteful and bad judgment. You can worry about it all you want to but I'll just stick to playing my game without a worry that I'm being cheating unless its blatently obvious. Thats happened to me once in almost 5 years of playing poker, and it was in a live cardroom in connecticut. Not online.

[jack24bauer24 0]

There is no collusion online, I know this first hand (but don't ask me to name name's). In fact there are no people who do this exclusively: you don't send them the buy-in money and they work with you and youdon't  split the winnings 50/50. Collusion isn't easy to do online, and is easy to catch.

This is false.