How The Great PokerStars Handles Collusion

Hello,

Thank you for bringing your concerns to us regarding the play
of ?KATZKOPF? and ?cab44? you recently faced in Tournament #58372946. The
integrity of our site is of utmost importance to us, and we have many
tools at our disposal to thoroughly investigate all suspected collusion.

The first thing we consider when determining whether or not collusion has
occurred is if there is an existing relationship between the suspected
players. In this case, these players live in completely different
countries, have never shared a computer, and have only ever played in the
one tournament together. These facts, plus other information available to
us from their accounts, tell us that these players almost certainly do not
know one another. While not sufficient for exoneration, this is a good
place to start.

Next, we look at the play of the hands themselves with all hole cards face
up. In tournaments we tend to look for:

(1) Best Hand Play: where only the better of the two hands are played

(2) Soft-Play: where the suspected players "go easy" on one another, even
when holding powerful hands; and,

(3) Stack Balancing (aka Chip Dumping), where one player will
intentionally lose chips to the other in an effort to keep them both in
the game longer.

In this case, apart from the unusual play of the hand you have observed,
there was no other suspicious play at all. Both players seemed to adopt a
tight-aggressive posture, which naturally led them into very few
confrontations with one another.

In the hand that you have submitted it is unfortunate that ?KATZKOPF? did
not maximize his profits in this situation with a re-raise but it is quite
acceptable that ?KATZKOPF? simply did not realize that he had aces full of
sevens (the second nuts to quad 7s). It would appear that ?KATZKOPF? has
realized he has hit an Ace on the river but mistakenly thought that his
best hand was trip aces. If this was the case, it is certainly explainable
for him to flat call the raise by 'cab44' given the flush and straight
possibilities on the board.

Furthermore, there are several hands early on in the tournament that
contradict the actions of would-be colluders. Let?s have a quick look at
two of them.

================================================== =======================
In the follow hand, the play of these two players goes against the
concepts of best hand play, soft-play and stack balancing. After the flop,
both players are heads up. The turn shows a small bet from ?KATZKOPF?
and ?cab44? calls, not much can be gathered here. However, on the
river, ?KATZKOPF? makes his straight and goes all in; ?cab44? calls having
caught second pair. This leaves ?cab44? with 530 in chips, less than a
third of what he held prior to this hand.

PokerStars Game #11504604808: Tournament #58372946, $5.00+$0.50 Hold'em No
Limit - Level II (15/30) - 2007/08/15 - 16:47:26 (ET)
Table '58372946 1' 9-max Seat #2 is the button
Seat 1: quiete shark (1880 in chips)
Seat 2: nikmij (1560 in chips)
Seat 3: b_schiest (660 in chips)
Seat 4: KATZKOPF (1260 in chips)
Seat 5: cab44 (1790 in chips)
Seat 6: DeadMoneyMuz (940 in chips)
Seat 7: Jdawg18 (1370 in chips)
Seat 8: Parasocks (2580 in chips)
Seat 9: Sterrrrrr (1460 in chips)
b_schiest: posts small blind 15
KATZKOPF: posts big blind 30
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to KATZKOPF [Qh Ah]
Dealt to cab44 [Jh Qd]
16:47:33 cab44: calls 30
16:47:37 DeadMoneyMuz: calls 30
16:47:37 Jdawg18: folds
16:47:37 Parasocks: folds
16:47:38 Sterrrrrr: folds
16:47:41 quiete shark: calls 30
16:47:43 nikmij: folds
16:47:43 b_schiest: calls 15
16:47:50 KATZKOPF: raises 120 to 150
16:47:52 cab44: calls 120
16:47:56 DeadMoneyMuz: folds
16:47:58 quiete shark: calls 120
16:47:58 b_schiest: folds
16:47:58 Moving Bets to Pot
16:47:58 *** FLOP *** [Th 2s Kc]
16:48:07 KATZKOPF: bets 600
16:48:09 cab44: calls 600
16:48:15 quiete shark: folds
16:48:15 Moving Bets to Pot
16:48:15 *** TURN *** [Th 2s Kc] [3c]
16:48:28 KATZKOPF: bets 30
16:48:29 cab44: calls 30
16:48:29 Moving Bets to Pot
16:48:29 *** RIVER *** [Th 2s Kc 3c] [Js]
16:48:34 KATZKOPF: bets 480 and is all-in
16:48:36 cab44: calls 480
16:48:36 Moving Bets to Pot
16:48:39 *** SHOW DOWN ***
KATZKOPF: shows [Qh Ah] (a straight, Ten to Ace)
16:48:39 cab44: shows [Jh Qd] (a pair of Jacks)
16:48:42 KATZKOPF collected 2730 from pot
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot 2730 | Rake 0
Board [Th 2s Kc 3c Js]
Seat 1: quiete shark folded on the Flop
Seat 2: nikmij (button) folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 3: b_schiest (small blind) folded before Flop
Seat 4: KATZKOPF (big blind) showed [Qh Ah] and won (2730) with a
straight, Ten to Ace
Seat 5: cab44 showed [Jh Qd] and lost with a pair of Jacks
Seat 6: DeadMoneyMuz folded before Flop
Seat 7: Jdawg18 folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 8: Parasocks folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 9: Sterrrrrr folded before Flop (didn't bet)
================================================== =======================

In the following hand, the play of these two players also clearly goes
against the concepts of best hand play, soft-play and stack balancing.
Notice that ?KATZKOPF? starts the hand as the shorter stack. However, on
the turn he bets his draw and then bets again with a pair of 5?s on the
river. ?cab44? simply flat calls these bets to the showdown with a pair of
9?s to take down the pot.

PokerStars Game #11505070757: Tournament #58372946, $5.00+$0.50 Hold'em No
Limit - Level IV (50/100) - 2007/08/15 - 17:16:01 (ET)
Table '58372946 1' 9-max Seat #9 is the button
Seat 3: b_schiest (1250 in chips)
Seat 4: KATZKOPF (1780 in chips)
Seat 5: cab44 (2630 in chips)
Seat 7: Jdawg18 (1560 in chips)
Seat 8: Parasocks (4285 in chips)
Seat 9: Sterrrrrr (1995 in chips)
b_schiest: posts small blind 50
KATZKOPF: posts big blind 100
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to KATZKOPF [5h Jc]
Dealt to cab44 [9d Ad]
17:16:05 cab44: calls 100
17:16:07 Jdawg18: folds
17:16:10 Parasocks: folds
17:16:11 Sterrrrrr: folds
17:16:13 b_schiest: folds
17:16:17 KATZKOPF: checks
17:16:17 Moving Bets to Pot
17:16:17 *** FLOP *** [Qs 4d 9h]
17:16:22 KATZKOPF: checks
17:16:25 cab44: checks
17:16:25 *** TURN *** [Qs 4d 9h] [Tc]
17:16:31 KATZKOPF: bets 100
17:16:33 cab44: calls 100
17:16:33 Moving Bets to Pot
17:16:33 *** RIVER *** [Qs 4d 9h Tc] [5d]
17:16:37 KATZKOPF: bets 100
17:16:38 cab44: calls 100
17:16:38 Moving Bets to Pot
17:16:39 *** SHOW DOWN ***
KATZKOPF: shows [5h Jc] (a pair of Fives)
17:16:39 cab44: shows [9d Ad] (a pair of Nines)
17:16:42 cab44 collected 650 from pot
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot 650 | Rake 0
Board [Qs 4d 9h Tc 5d]
Seat 3: b_schiest (small blind) folded before Flop
Seat 4: KATZKOPF (big blind) showed [5h Jc] and lost with a pair of Fives
Seat 5: cab44 showed [9d Ad] and won (650) with a pair of Nines
Seat 7: Jdawg18 folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 8: Parasocks folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 9: Sterrrrrr (button) folded before Flop (didn't bet)
================================================== =======================

There was no collusion here.

Having said all of that, however, I would be remiss if I didn't discuss
your actions. You accused these players of being cheaters in open chat.
There are several reasons why we would ask that you not do this again.
First and foremost, you run the risk of accusing innocent players, as was
the case here. Second, it can create a "feeding frenzy" of suspicion,
which can then encourage otherwise honest players into colluding against
those they suspect are colluding. Finally, if the players being accused of
colluding *ARE* colluding, they will likely stop, thereby hampering our
ability to properly research their activities.

In the future, please just bring your concerns to us, and rest assured
that we will thoroughly research all claims.

Thank you for choosing PokerStars.

----- Original Message -----
Sent: 2007/08/15 17:32:49
To: [email protected]
Subject: Collusion inquiry

> >This would be retarded if it's true but... this guy just hit aces full
> >on the river, bet, got raised, and just called..... doesn't make any
> >sense. Anyways check it out! Maybe they play together.
> >
> >I am "parasocks"
> >
> >PokerStars Game #11505277473: Tournament #58372946, $5.00+$0.50 Hold'em
> >No Limit - Level VI (100/200) - 2007/08/15 - 17:28:40 (ET)
> >Table '58372946 1' 9-max Seat #3 is the button
> >Seat 3: b_schiest (3107 in chips)
> >Seat 4: KATZKOPF (1905 in chips)
> >Seat 5: cab44 (3509 in chips)
> >Seat 7: Jdawg18 (1635 in chips)
> >Seat 8: Parasocks (3344 in chips)
> >KATZKOPF: posts small blind 100
> >cab44: posts big blind 200
> >*** HOLE CARDS ***
> >Dealt to Parasocks [7s 6h]
> >Jdawg18: folds
> >Parasocks: folds
> >b_schiest: folds
> >KATZKOPF: calls 100
> >cab44: checks
> >*** FLOP *** [7h 7c Kh]
> >KATZKOPF: checks
> >cab44: checks
> >*** TURN *** [7h 7c Kh] [Jc]
> >KATZKOPF: checks
> >cab44: checks
> >*** RIVER *** [7h 7c Kh Jc] [Ac]
> >KATZKOPF: bets 200
> >cab44: raises 200 to 400
> >KATZKOPF: calls 200
> >*** SHOW DOWN ***
> >cab44: shows [3c Qc] (a flush, Ace high)
> >KATZKOPF: shows [Ad As] (a full house, Aces full of Sevens)
> >KATZKOPF collected 1200 from pot
> >*** SUMMARY ***
> >Total pot 1200 | Rake 0
> >Board [7h 7c Kh Jc Ac]
> >Seat 3: b_schiest (button) folded before Flop (didn't bet)
> >Seat 4: KATZKOPF (small blind) showed [Ad As] and won (1200) with a full
> >house, Aces full of Sevens
> >Seat 5: cab44 (big blind) showed [3c Qc] and lost with a flush, Ace high
> >Seat 7: Jdawg18 folded before Flop (didn't bet)
> >Seat 8: Parasocks folded before Flop (didn't bet)

That's incredible for them to bother to explain their decision that throughly.

atleast they take each claim seriously!

For a $5 tournament nonetheless.. They didn't only look at the hand I brought up, but several other hands they were involved in earlier.. Pretty fantastic job

wow, i'll honestly say i'm impressed.

You cant even get answers from companies the size of Google! Wow, I almost feel like playing there now...

macromind

Wow, I honestly didn't expect that.

Poker is some real geek shit, how the fuck does anyone get their head around all those bizarre rules?

You shouldn't try checkers then

bump for a great example of how to run a casino company

It would be great if every casino took that kind of claims that serious. Good for them.

Poker being called a geek thing?

That's like calling beer a geek thing.