Collusion on PPP?

Fatboydim

Now I'm not a bad loser or anything [where's that bloody penguin] But I have asked PPP to look into the below incident which some boarders witnessed.

Now I must state the players are not guilty until proven... But it was very suspicious -

Only the first two places pay. $6000 entry into EPT for first. $3880 for second.

Nothing for third - So I got sandwiched and ended up having to play a small PP as the other two would have waited to blind me out.

Now it seems to me that part of the problem is the pay out structure. So much for second and nothing for third when 102 players played... It's daft.

I know other sites will pro rata the rest of the money if after the rebuy period a second ticket isn't achievable. So 2nd would have paid $1458 / 3rd $936 4th 578 - etc

Surely this would be a better way of doing it and would help to eliminate this perceived problem as the differential between second and third is not so great.

What do you think?

>>>>>

I've asked PPP to look into the possibility of collusion between the two players as both were from the same place in Norway.

Power Max had 180K when it came down to four players... and Orilobones had around 60k ... I was on around 78k and bondyccc 27k I think...

Then every hand it seemed Power Max would raise three times the blind... Orilo would go all in and Power Max would fold. So that they both ended up on around 140k each sandwiching me once bondyccc had gone.

Which is why I felt I had to go all in with the 3s - I'll let you know what PPP say.

But have to say I was very suspicious.

Doc Farrell

myself and ocallagh witnessed it, see my post in the other thread.

Culchie

me too.

Is it Tribeca or PPP who would have to make a call on this?

PPP-Pit Boss

Fatboydim wrote:

Now I'm not a bad loser or anything [where's that bloody penguin] But I have asked PPP to look into the below incident which some boarders witnessed.

Now I must state the players are not guilty until proven... But it was very suspicious -

Only the first two places pay. $6000 entry into EPT for first. $3880 for second.

Nothing for third - So I got sandwiched and ended up having to play a small PP as the other two would have waited to blind me out.

Now it seems to me that part of the problem is the pay out structure. So much for second and nothing for third when 102 players played... It's daft.

I know other sites will pro rata the rest of the money if after the rebuy period a second ticket isn't achievable. So 2nd would have paid $1458 / 3rd $936 4th 578 - etc

Surely this would be a better way of doing it and would help to eliminate this perceived problem as the differential between second and third is not so great.

What do you think?

>>>>>

I've asked PPP to look into the possibility of collusion between the two players as both were from the same place in Norway.

Power Max had 180K when it came down to four players... and Orilobones had around 60k ... I was on around 78k and bondyccc 27k I think...

Then every hand it seemed Power Max would raise three times the blind... Orilo would go all in and Power Max would fold. So that they both ended up on around 140k each sandwiching me once bondyccc had gone.

Which is why I felt I had to go all in with the 3s - I'll let you know what PPP say.

But have to say I was very suspicious.

I am going to send your post directly to TT to do a full analysis and get back to you as soon as I can.
Regards
Nikki

Fatboydim

Thanks

Trampas

I know someone else who came across this on another site but the people in question where bad at it.

They made it so obivous and he busted the two of them as he had the nuts and the other tried that process of betting and raising to out do the other people.

It was a cash game aswell.

Their prize should be taken away from them and passed down the list

PPP-Pit Boss

Trampas wrote:

I know someone else who came across this on another site but the people in question where bad at it.

They made it so obivous and he busted the two of them as he had the nuts and the other tried that process of betting and raising to out do the other people.

It was a cash game aswell.

Their prize should be taken away from them and passed down the list

If the players are found to have been in collusion they will forfeit the prize.

DocO

I also witnessed some very suspicious play i n both a cash game and tournament play about 6weeks back. in cash game, two friends were talkin in chat box bout not haven seen each other in ages,one asked had the other msn working, and after a delayed response the other said he was not working. it was so obvious was funny, they not made their chat in the box to the minimum as they were obviously busy on the msn. i informed PPP of this, not sure if anything was done, but luckily they wernt much good anyways, apart from never playin hands against each other neither made a profit.

secondly was in a MTT, could have been the 25$ 12min blinds freezeout on PPP. One was called pokerwitch and the other pokerwizard(or somethin very simular) and they openly wished each other good luck in the chat box,saying they were hubby+wife. They did not play one single hand against each other,and if one raised the other would fold even if on bb and had value to call. it was hilarious, and one of the group were actually doin well. after pointing this out to ppp they moved him, and the lady said in the chat box how they were in diff parts of the country, and denied collusion (knowing some1 had complained). she then went on to lose most of her stack on tilt, or maybe just through being a bad player.
Thankfully in these two situations collusion was attenpted by very inexperienced and frankly stupid people, who did not benefit from it. but i think that everyone would agree with me when i say it is something we could certainly do without in poker, as it undermines the game and is unwelcome.
Unlucky Fatboydim, i hope you get some sort of compensation.

Imposter

This will be interesting! I hope Pitboss keeps us informed as to why certain decisions are made on this. Something that was severely lacking the time I reported collusion to a site (not PPP).

strewelpeter

That sounds very dodgy. It will be very interesting to hear what Tribeca say. If you don't get a reasonable response I'd consider going legal on them. Pressure through PPP is probably the way to go initally. In the circumstances it should be up to them to show that there wasn't collusion going on. If it was as you say that they really were consistently raising and then folding to a re raise, then there probably was chip passing going on and someone, not necessarily you , should be allowed to examine the logs to see what the hands were and how it would fit with their normal play.
There is a lot of money involved here and it should be very damaging to PPP if nothing is done.

The only other thing that comes to mind, and its not much use now, but maybe if it is happening to anyone in future, is to have held on and only called with a monster while at the same time phoning PPP and having them observe what was happening. Once you are sure in your own mind that you are being cheated, for that is what it is, there is no point in giving them any possible out.

Hitchhiker's Guide to...

Hi fatboydim, hope this gets sorted out for you, given the effort you put into getting that far in the tournament.

Just feel a slight need to comment on the mild hysteria of strewelpeter's post.

strewelpeter wrote:

If you don't get a reasonable response I'd consider going legal on them. Pressure through PPP is probably the way to go initally. In the circumstances it should be up to them to show that there wasn't collusion going on.

strewelpeter wrote:

It should be very damaging to PPP if nothing is done.

Calm down strewelpeter. Nikki has already come on here and said she is going to do her best to sort out the issue. It's not her fault or paddypower's fault. Just the same as it is not Dunnes Stores fault when a shoplifter comes into their store and robs from them.

What other online pokersite is going to have a personal representative come on boards.ie and promise to get an issue affecting one of their customers sorted out?

PPP-Pit Boss

Thanks Roundtower! Just to let you all know because this issue is REALLY important. We simply wont tolerate any kind of collusion period. The matter is under critical investigation at the moment. I will update you when we have a result and can assure you if collusion took place the matter will be dealt with swiftly and properly.

BigDragon

PPP-Pit Boss wrote:

Thanks Roundtower! Just to let you all know because this issue is REALLY important. We simply wont tolerate any kind of collusion period. The matter is under critical investigation at the moment. I will update you when we have a result and can assure you if collusion took place the matter will be dealt with swiftly and properly.

The 'handcuffs' incident is in the hands of my lawyers. :mad:








Lighten up fella. Nikki nearly ways does as she promises.

wayfarer

How often does this sort of thing occur?

I remember a while back, some friends of mine were getting a ride into town in a taxi and the driver start telling them about how he and his friends scam punters out of their money through collusion on-line. From their laptops, they would all buy-in to the same table with a few other unsuspecting players and wring them clean. I'm not sure if any details were given ("Roight so buoys, yez know to stay away from XXX now, dont ya!!") but even if there were, I didn't care to take note.

I'd imagine that it would be fairly easy to catch early on, the same people sitting at the same table over and over but going by the drivers gloating, you'd wonder.

strewelpeter

No Doubt RoundTower, it is very good that PPP are willing to come on here talk the talk, and knowing them as I do I'll be surprised if they can't walk the walk as well.
In situations like this, and there are more and more of them cropping up online, the punter has only one course of action and that is to kick up a stink with the marketing company they access the server through.
My fear is that decisions are made less on the basis of who is right or wrong but on who pays the biggest rake or which marketing company has the strongest relationship with the server.
I'm increasingly worried about the scale of collusion, particularly in the use of IRC at final tables to carve tables and shut out players who are out of the loop. Punters only have the one avenue to go for help and its not that I don't trust PPP's or any other company's good faith in dealing with it fairly. It is that I don't think the arbitration is transparent enough.
All I am saying, and it is hypothetical and hopefully will stay that way, if Tribeca come back and say no there was no collusion - What can you do?

Imposter

strewelpeter wrote:

All I am saying, and it is hypothetical and hopefully will stay that way, if Tribeca come back and say no there was no collusion - What can you do?

This is the thing that's so annoying here. The companies despite what they say can't protect against it and can't actually really prove that collusion has happened. They can be pretty sure it has but what proof do they really have?

The thing that UB kept saying to me was that a player can play any 2 cards any way they choose. This is true and you can always make up a reason for playing cards the way you have. Looking at collusion over multiple hands you can be suspicious but again how do you say it has definitely happened? I don't think it's possible unless you have records and recordings of them communicating during the game (through telephone, IM etc.). The colluders definitely have the advantage on this one.

Also what is highly annoying is that i think the sites realise that there isn't much they can do to prove that collusion happens, but what do they do when asked to investigate? UB at least just tell you that they "of course want the game to be fair and we have investigated blah blah", but do not elaborate on what procedures they have in place or explain how they investigate the complaints. Seems to me like it's a case of some person deciding it happened or not and that is all the hearing anything gets. I understand that the sites have a hard job in this matter but the process of investigation needs to be more open so that people can see that the sites actually do take it seriously.

careca

wayfarer wrote:

I'd imagine that it would be fairly easy to catch early on, the same people sitting at the same table over and over but going by the drivers gloating, you'd wonder.

On the omaha tables on PPP, there is nearly always the same bunch of players playing, especially at the higher tables.

One evening I was playing and I had bet (not the full pot) three times and a v good player (Auremaa) had come over the top each time and I had folded. I had just written an addition to my note on Auremaa that read 'if betting against this player bet the pot as he always reraises otherwise', when another player accused me of collusion. He reckoned I was getting money in the pot for Auremaa. Now it was a good spot by him (most wouldn;t even have noticed it) but totally untrue. It kinda put me off my game as I was worried from then on about min bets or block bets. He kept telling me , he was watching me. I eventually had to tell him to contact the PPP manager or I was going to, that and to **** off.

Fatboydim

Just to let you all know that Nikki has personally phoned me to chat about the incident and that I am so far very pleased with the way PPP are dealing with the situation. I await an outcome... I know what Nikki would like to happen if these people are guilty - but of course it's going to depend on Tribeca as well.

PPP-Pit Boss

Good afternoon all. Both myself and my colleagues have reviewed the case above in depth. For clarity and further analysis I then requested the input of the network to review the game in question. We have spent a considerable amount of time investigating and reviewing the play in the grand final of the EPT. Once again I would like to stress that Paddy Power Poker will not tolerate any kind of collusion suspect play or fraud. Any player caught softplaying, defrauding, colluding or attempting to coerce results or bully players on our site will be dealt in accordance with those guidelines.

After thorough investigation of the above matter I would like to announce the following:

After investigation it was felt that "soft playing" occured between the top two places. They did not deliberately collude against the other players remaining in the tournament, but it was felt the second place finisher was advantaged by the chip leader's unwillingness to confront him on three occasions.
A decision has therefore been reached to disqualify both of the two players and have awarded 1st and 2nd places to the previous 3rd and 4th places respectively.

I would like to thank fatboydim for bringing this to our attention and would urge anyone who ever feels there may be any manner of foul play to bring it immediately to the attention of the paddy power poker staff.

On a happier note.. Congratulations Fatboydim! We will see you in the merrion!

karlh

wp

willis

nice 1 PPP. BTW i was colluded against in a feeder to the WPT Borgata open..any chance of a seat in it for my troubles!!!!
Nice 1 Fatboydim, it would be gas if you went on to win the whole thing now...good luck

blaugranabhoy

PPP-Pit Boss wrote:

After investigation it was felt that "soft playing" occured between the top two places. They did not deliberately collude against the other players remaining in the tournament, but it was felt the second place finisher was advantaged by the chip leader's unwillingness to confront him on three occasions.

!

Maybe I'm missing something here as a fully paid up newbie but surely if one player, chip leader or not, doesn't want to confront another, whatever his reasoning, then he is within his rights to fold his hand.

Maybe someone could enlighten me.

Fatboydim

Obviously I'm very happy about the result. Clearly PPP do not soft play.

I'm speechless for once.

Iago

congratulations and great to see justice coming through.

I think it's very good of PPP to look at this in it's entirety and make a big decision when it would have been very easy to simply put it down as unlucky and make no call.

Plaudits are due to Nikki and the team, and if there was no other reason to play PPP I think that this show of justice will be enough to encourage even more people to play there.

WP

Culchie

blaugranabhoy wrote:

Maybe I'm missing something here as a fully paid up newbie but surely if one player, chip leader or not, doesn't want to confront another, whatever his reasoning, then he is within his rights to fold his hand.

Maybe someone could enlighten me.

You are right, but having seen this game, the chip leader was definitely feeding chips to the other bloke.

They were both from Stavanger as well, and there was a bit of gobble-de-gook speak going on as well.

blaugranabhoy

Thanks culchie, I see your point.

Erik and Thor, the viking plunderers. The Stavenger scavengers if you will.

Lafortezza

Anyone (or PPP) know the criteria for saying/deciding a particular run of hands is collusion or softplay?

PPP-Pit Boss

lafortezza wrote:

Anyone (or PPP) know the criteria for saying/deciding a particular run of hands is collusion or softplay?

It is very difficult lafortezza. To try and simplify you must review all play, all hands and watch for a series of strategy changes. I wouldnt want to list out here or anywhere else what reports and methods we use to be honest as our job is hard enough. Suffice to say you learn to spot attempts to collude or softplay and of course we have the added benefit of being able to view all of the cards in question.

Lafortezza

Fair enough.
If you get accused of collusion and action is taken against you (like losing a prize or whatever) do you have any comeback against the accustation or is the decision, once made, final?

PPP-Pit Boss

If it was an unfair accusation yes. But then.. we would never make such an allegation without being certain. For instance in this case several independant experts have reviewed the evidence, no rash decisions were made.
For us we side with fairness plain and simple. I would be equally strong if the evidence suggested otherwise. A poker site will (in the same way as RNG etc is viewed) NEVER benefit from bias.

strewelpeter

Well done PPP, Tribeca, and especially fatboydim for not just putting up and shutting up. Sounds like the right result to me.

PPP-Pit Boss wrote:

...I wouldnt want to list out here or anywhere else what reports and methods we use...

I can understand why you wouldn't want to and yes judgement needs to be applied and yes every situation is different. That is all the more reason there should be some independent arbitration available for situations as serious as this.
I'm sure there are going to be some difficult exchanges between Tribeca and the two disqualified players, I wouldn't like to be taking that call

Ollieboy

Brilliant result and well done Nikki.

I would love to see the 2 guys faces when they heard. They should also be ban from the network and be blacklists in anyway possible from all casinos and websites, but this might be impossible.

Well done fatboydim.

Daithio

ps:This is ocallagh.. Daithio forgot to log off


Congrats Lenco!! - I watchd the last table, and I couldn't agree more with the decision. It was blatantly obvious what the two lads were u to, not to mention they were from the same town in Norway... idiots. I am delighted something has been done..

Gl in the EPT!!

DapperGent

Culchie wrote:

They were both from Stavanger as well, and there was a bit of gobble-de-gook speak going on as well.

It was probably Norwegian.

Dub13

Or it could even have been ChavScum speak...

Culchie

DapperGent wrote:

It was probably Norwegian.

As good a guess as any I s'pose

RoundTower

PPP-Pit Boss wrote:

After thorough investigation of the above matter I would like to announce the following:

After investigation it was felt that "soft playing" occured between the top two places. They did not deliberately collude against the other players remaining in the tournament, but it was felt the second place finisher was advantaged by the chip leader's unwillingness to confront him on three occasions.
A decision has therefore been reached to disqualify both of the two players and have awarded 1st and 2nd places to the previous 3rd and 4th places respectively.

What???

I really hope this is bullsh1t, and PPP felt that they were deliberately colluding against the other players in the tournament, but don't want to say it out loud.

In a tournament, especially a supersatellite like this, you have to be unwilling to confront the other players at some points. It is often correct to try not to get into pots with the chip leader when you have a weak hand and a moderate stack. It is almost always correct not to get into pots where you are out of position, or against a player who is likely to outplay you on subsequent streets, unless you are all in. Players who understand these basic points are the ones most likely to win the tournament anyway.

DapperGent

I doubt they made this decision without it being totally clearcut. Probably a fold of bullets or kings or something at some point or flopped nuts or something.

If it was marginal I doubt they could/would make the decision.

DeVore

but not if there is an off table agreement between the players to assist each other and split the proceeds. Then such soft play becomes team-play. Say I have a huge chip stack and you are my mate who I want to help. I raise, the other two players are scared to call a raise by the chip leader, because they know that they are likely to be tested on the flop with an all in. So they fold and by previous agreement you reraise and then *I* fold. Effectively we've squeezed out the other two and used the pot as a transport mechanism for me to give you chips.

Such play isnt all THAT hard to see and recognise, not when you can see all the cards to be honest.

Nice work PPPBoss!

DeV.

rag2gar

Yeah a great result. Well done lenco

Personally I feel only Irish ppl should be allowed enter these dublin tourneys

Doc Farrell

This is a ground breaking decision and history in the making for a world wide industry. Well done PPP on honouring your zero tolerance policy.

Now wear that t-shirt proudly. Go Len 'The Hitman' Collins!

And remember who gave you ur cool nickname when ur heavy in pocket money! Free beers for life!

careca

Great result Fayboy. Well done.

Can you imagine the lad who came 4th and never lodged a complaint. He will probably go in to play a $10 stt and just check his cashier account first. 'WTF'.

Ste05

May I first say congratulations to FatBoyDim, you obviously deserve your prize as PPP have made such an incredible decision. However I must say that this decision, as a precedent is absolutely huge. Does anyone know of anything similar being done in the past. So for that, I must commend PPP for their bravery in this decision.

Before I begin I want to just want to say that I realise that I didn't see this table etc. and so I can't comment on the ins and outs of the potential collusion, the fact that they were both from the same town, the relative chip positions at the time of these alleged incidents, etc. However, what I would like to comment on is the content of PPP's decision as it has been presented to us.

PPP-Pit Boss wrote:

After thorough investigation of the above matter I would like to announce the following:

After investigation it was felt that "soft playing" occured between the top two places. They did not deliberately collude against the other players remaining in the tournament, but it was felt the second place finisher was advantaged by the chip leader's unwillingness to confront him on three occasions.
A decision has therefore been reached to disqualify both of the two players and have awarded 1st and 2nd places to the previous 3rd and 4th places respectively.

QUOTE]

To begin with they have decided that the top two players "did not deliberately collude" so therefore, there was in fact no collusion on their part. The next issue, IMO, is the crux of the matter, where although not deliberate, PPP have decided that the two players did in fact collude and the three specific instances where PPP feels that the "second place finisher was advantaged by the chip leader's unwillingness to confront him". It certainly appears PPP have not made this decision lightly, they seem to have consulted independent third parties for review and discussion and finally decided on an outcome they consider reasonable. Obviously these instances are very blatant to warrant such a drastic response.

What worries me is how this decision has been communicated and articulated, "soft-playing" as PPP describes it, is a regular part of a Satellite such as this where the prize pool is so top heavy,

If, for whatever reason, the chip leader decides not to get into a confrontation with another player when they are down to the last 3 or 4 of a tournament such as this, where the difference between 2nd and 3rd place is nearly €4,000, that is his decision ALONE to make, if it subsequently turns out he folded a premium hand, so be it, maybe he didn't want a 50:50, who knows, (remember a situation such as this is widely known as being one of the only time it can have +EV to fold AA pre-flop) as I outlined above I don't know any of the details of this incident, so I can't comment, but a chip leader in a tournament such as this, at this stage, his first and really only concern is to make it into the money.

As I was reading that post, I was genuinely concerned for how this decision was made, I would ask people to try to imagine had this situation been reversed, and that two people from Dublin had nearly €10,000 worth of prizes taken to away from them because of 3 decisions to fold by the chip leader.

Collusion is a terrible thing and certainly has no place in poker, but unless it is deliberate, as is not the case here, certain people could argue that it is just Late Satellite Tournament Strategy. i.e. get rid of bondyccc first, then take out one of the other two medium stacks next. If there was obvious chip dumping or other such methods of cheating, I would ask PPP to come out and say it in a more concise manner. This is a very serious decision and one that I think needs alot more weight behind it then what seems to be contained here.

I hope this isn't read as wanting them to reverse their decision, that's absolutely the last thing I want, I’m delighted for FatBoyDim, I just want a bit more clarity on this decision. You have to remember that this is a public forum and I’m just afraid that this could be read as being a bit "clanish". This is a very serious decision that has been made by PPP and one that possibly shouldn't have been commented on publicly by PPP. Other than to say FatBoy had been awarded the win, but since they have commented I would ask them to be more clear and stronger in their reasoning.

califano

PPP-Pit Boss wrote:

it was felt the second place finisher was advantaged by the chip leader's unwillingness to confront him on three occasions.

im glad about the reversal of 1st place but its not clear how the player that finished 2nd is at fault if it was only the chip leader's unwillingness to confront him on three occasions?.

Ste05

good point rounders, didn't think about that, with the absence of deliberate collusion

PPP-Pit Boss

I will try to put an end to this as swiftly as I can. "Soft-playing" is a term generally associated with friendly home games. It is to check a pot down or generally purposely make no attempt to take chips off a friend at the table. In this case it is clear that the "Soft playing" at the table was done so in a direct attempt to improve the position of the player in 2nd place WITH their knowledge. This is a FORM of collusion known as "Soft Playing" it is NOT permitted to aid and abet another player in a tournament or game. In this case it compromised the play when it became four handed. We do no want this confused with Collusion in which two players conspire to knock another off the table as this is NOT the stand point we are taking. Conspiring in any manner to improve another players position IS NOT PERMITTED ON OUR POKER SITE.
I hope this answers your question and I hope you realise that this decision was most certainly not reached lightly. Two players were involved Two players have been disqualified for this suspect play.

Hectorjelly

Something is very wrong here. There are a lot of times in tournament poker where optium strategy involves softplaying towarsd other players. Thats why two players will often check down strongish hands when another player is all in.
AFAIK this is completely acceptable as long as nothing is stated explicitly. In the case of a sattelite the chip leader should avoid big confrontations with the only stack who can hurt him/her.

So in this case the two players seem to have been punished for playing sensibly. If there was no overt collusion taking place then there is no grounds for reawarding the prizes.

PPP-Pit Boss

Hectorjelly wrote:

Something is very wrong here. There are a lot of times in tournament poker where optium strategy involves softplaying towarsd other players. Thats why two players will often check down strongish hands when another player is all in.
AFAIK this is completely acceptable as long as nothing is stated explicitly. In the case of a sattelite the chip leader should avoid big confrontations with the only stack who can hurt him/her.

So in this case the two players seem to have been punished for playing sensibly. If there was no overt collusion taking place then there is no grounds for reawarding the prizes.

I dont want to enter a debate about this. there is no consiracy. No aliens at work, no politics to sway. There is simply evidence that was scrutinized and strong decisions made based upon it. If we "punished people for playing sensibly..." this would not be an unprecedented event.

Hectorjelly

So they were directly colluding?

DapperGent

I can only surmise that it was fairly castiron for them to come to this conclusion as it's very very unusual. I would imagine the norwegians were on another tribeca skin whose front end would have fought against this strongly if it wasn't obvious as feck.

We're not going to see the hand histories but I reckon the norwegians were just dumb as muck soft playing rather than kinda soft playing.

Ste05

PPP-Pit Boss wrote:

If we "punished people for playing sensibly..." this would not be an unprecedented event.

I would certainly hope it would be unprecedented. Does PPP not allow well recognised Late tournament Satellite strategy??