For me, what this case shows is that the criteria they have to decide if you are colluding is totally subjective. That is, a player complains about it, which is typical of fish when he has been fleeced, then an idiot analyzes the hands above that have nothing unusual and decides by his balls that there is collusion.

I have been in many tables like that, playing as popek1990, for more than a decade playing poker every day and I have never been accused of collusion, but I played in serious houses, like Pokerstars (also Pacific and others for short periods of time).

For me, what this case shows is that the criteria they have to decide if you are colluding is totally subjective. That is, a player complains about it, which is typical of fish when he has been fleeced, an idiot analyzes the hands above that have nothing unusual and decides by his balls that there is collusion.

I have been in many tables like that, playing as popek1990, for more than a decade playing poker every day and I have never been accused of collusion, but I played in serious houses, like Pokerstars (also Pacific and others for short periods of time).