Reported 2 players @ Full Tilt for collusion

This is what I mailed to tilt support:

Hello,
I'd like to report 2 users for collusion.

majestic83 and
xxdojaxx

We were ITM (3 players left) in a $1.25 9 handed sng and there was 1 big stack (like 10k),
after the 4th bust I had about 2300 chips left and there was 1 person sitting out with the username xxdojaxx,
s/he had about 500 chips left.

Now I was folding my blinds waiting for the person who was sitting out to bust out so we could start heads up
and so I could move up a spot in payouts. When I was on the button the big stack (username majestic83)
was in the small blind and the sit out (xxdojaxx) was in the big blind. So I raised to get the blinds,
majestic reraised and the sitout folded, so did I btw. Now everytime I raised the sitouts blinds, majestic,
the big stack reraised me.

Now there is nothing wrong with that, that can be a tactic. But when I folded my button and the sit out was
in the big blind and s/he was all in with his/her last 150 chips the big stack didn't even call. My friend
was railing and he said: 'why did you do that? How can you not call that?'
Then he replied: Majestic83: 'Because I like her you $^%^!'

This kept going on and on, and all the while I was folding my blinds trying to move up a spot
and he was just folding everything to him/her.

Eventually I had only 800 chips left and the sitout was back to 500. I pick up KQ and I shove all in,
this time he does call ! And he called with 37os, not even a great hand. Normally I wouldn't mind this.
I am a short stack, he has about 12k and it's a good call. But the thing that disturbs me
is that they were obviously colluding trying to bust me so his buddy could move up a spot in pay outs.

I ended third, a 3 came on the flop, and the sit out ended second.
After I finished third, the bigstack (majestic83) said to the sitout: 'Now you have some money.'

I hope this counts as collusion, especially as he pretty much said it out loud.

And I hope there will be consequences.

Greetings,

Entiteit/Koen.

names are noted, thanks for the heads up

Sounds like collusion since he acknowledged the fact that he knew the other person. However if he didn't say anything I would see it as a very aggressive style of poker. He knows that you are waiting for the other person to get knocked out so you can move up in the payouts so he plays loose aggressive against you since he knows you will only call with top premium hands, and he keeps the sitting out shortstack alive to keep you from making a big move on you as he slowly chips away.

Still waiting to hear back, but I have inscore as my witness so all will be well !

That can be true, and it certainly worked, but it just makes no sense to fold when the sit out has his last 150 chips in the big blind and then raise whenever I get involved. I had about 2k at best, he was at 10k, how could you not like that going into HU.

He probly like 12K vs sitout better. I dont see this as coullusion, i see at as a good tactic to blind you out and gurantee him self first place.
But maby ftp will see it diffrently

^this

I agree with the above two. Collusion involves active participation by two players and one player not acting in his own self-interest.

Every action you describe could be viewed as the big stack preserving his strategic advantage.

It sucks, but I'm not sure it qualifies as collusion.

I'm definitely curious to know what FullTilt's response will be.

Edit: The one caveat being that his laying down to the sitout, could potentially be viewed as chip dumps, but if he maintains that he was seeking to guarantee his win by eliminating the only other active player first, that is a form of self-interest.

What if it was the same player with 2 accounts?

i would like to think there was nothing funny going on but the fact that when the sitout had only 150 left and the big stack folded to her, and when asked why by an observer, he says because i like her you $#$##. and the fact that he was folding to the sitout over and over. also at the end when enty gets knocked out, he says now you have some money to the sitout. it may not be as blatant as some would like, but it doesnt pass the smell test for me.

I get what a lot of you are saying.
It can be viewed as a certain tactic, and it certainly worked.
I was blinded down more than half my stack because I had to wait for the sitout to be bust.
And he refused to do so. But come on, the answers he gave us .. Why would he even say that if it was not someone he knew ?

It's not like admitting to collusion is any better than admitting ur a dumbass by not knocking out some one who has 1 big blind left ?

What difference does it make to him ? Say he knocks out the sitout who had 150 at that point ?
I don't gain an advantage cause I still have around 800 chips at that point, all it does for him is make it end sooner because come on the chance of me winning is slim at best.

And the argument of: 'I would rather blind the other active player down then knock out the sit out.'
If that was true why does he always shove on me whenever I limp ? Why does he call when I shove ? He's clearly not afraid of getting it in with me even when he is a 40% dog: 37 vs KQ.

Edit: Maybe I need to correct something.
When the situation occurred of the sitout with 1 big blind being all in and him folding his small blind I was at 800 (maybe 1000).
So I still feel that it didn't make much difference to him whether he was up against 800 or against 150.
Unless he is colluding with the other player, like I think he was..

-The Grand(not exact quote)

"the bad thing about online poker is that you can't go in the parking lot after the poker game and break their knee caps"

this isn't collusion in the slightest, this is the big stack playing wise poker to increase his odds of winning the entire tourny. You were just outplayed tbh

Probably, but what do you make of the things he said then ?

The big stack dosen't sound that smart to me to be using such a tactic.

Indeed. I saw him play all sng. And probably the only reason he won was because he completely dominated every one. Got a lot of good hands, they held up in all ins. People were loose all game and chips were flying all over the place. He just caught them all.

I'm not that sad about going out in third. It's just this behavior near the end that pissed me off.. If it really was a tactical decision I can accept that, but he didn't make it look that way in the slightest.

Uh, I'd like to hear an answer to this one too. This seems to make the most sense. Generally, people don't sit out real money tourneys, especially since they are usually SNG's (??). But only a dollar, and it happens. The odds of someone picking a table with a friend who is sitting out, and cares about their financial interests that much? Come on!!!!

BTW, I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for FT to get to you. I've reported suspicious stuff on at least 5 occasions, and they only send you the initial auto-reply. You'll never know, and then only maybe, unless you track the culprit's activity.

Roger on the auto-reply message but nothing else as of yet.
I will certainly post the answer here if I ever get one..

I saw it, if the guy hadnt made the comment I wouldnt cosider it collusion, but the comments he made point me into believing he was.

He was just getting into your skin.

I had thought about it, and it does seem like the most logical explanation.

Ya except for him saying to the guy "now you have some money"

You will never get one, the don't really care unless you have cast iron proof, PS are the same, they never reveal results of an "investigation".

rail him for a few days when ever you are online. see if he is playing with the same person. if, indeed, he is colluding, they will be at the same table again.

good movie lol

One thing that SHOULD happen is that this story goes into a suspicious persons file and should someone else report it, then at least there is this initial report, I'd rather you hear nothing, and he hears nothing, and then a week later after 3 or 4 people report him, you somehow find out this guy has his acct. frozen.

I have played and lost to majestic...makes me wonder ty for the heads up

Don't know about FT but Stars has refunded me money two different times when I reported suspected collusion. Once in a ring game and once in a SNG.

Um... it's a buck. How much would it cost them to take the time to do an 'investigation'?? Keeping the shortstack alive did obviously have it's advantages. too bad you didn't set a trap for the dick, and double up thru him.

I don't know if it's collusion but it definitely is not good etiquette. Maybe if you sat out to, the shortstack woulda busted before you? Hope you get a response to your email, would like to see what FT says.

It's not even in question that this is collusion. When he said "now you have some money" he admitted he was aiding another player to advance in the standings.

That said, you could have easily defeated this by limping on the sitout's blinds. If he raises then the short stack will fold and they can't gain any chips. It costs you chips but guarantees the person sitting out is gone. You could complain that being forced to defend like this is screwing you (because it sort of is) but you were already trying to limp up to second instead of picking a good spot to try and double up and play for first. One double from 2300 and you're more than half his stack and he has to get a lot more cautious lest you trap him.

If you're willing to limp just to move up in the money in any tourney then you're really not playing to win. I certainly understand the financial benefit of doing this but you're no longer playing the game at this point and you're no longer a wolf just a sheep.

I wasn't really limping a lot, maybe once or twice, but that was just to show how he reacted to it. And of course I was playing to win but with the cards I was getting and the fact that normally when a sit out has ~400 left with blinds 240/120 or something it shouldn't take long for him to bust. I didn't figure out till after the fold to his all in blind that something fishy was going on..

did you get the reply from FT yet??? im interested as to what they say, collusion or not, im glad you reported it, maybe FT will watch them guys in the future,, ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, buck

One major problem is proving collusion. Some of that could have been just circumstance or tactical in re-raising you. You really shouldn't have allowed yourself to be blinded away like that without making a stand before you got down to 500 chips.

Nope, and I have a feeling it's gonna take a long time before I get one.
If I ever get one at all.