Catch coordinated play before it moves value between accounts
Collusion doesn't need many players — just two accounts working together. Kixo9 flags coordinated betting and chip-dumping patterns as they happen.
Why collusion is harder to spot than bonus abuse
Bonus abuse leaves a paper trail in claims and payouts. Collusion mostly leaves a trail in outcomes — which requires looking at results over time, not any single hand or match.
A single suspicious loss means nothing; players lose hands and matches constantly, that's the nature of variance. What's different about collusion is the shape of the pattern across many sessions: two specific accounts that keep ending up at the same table, where the value consistently flows in one direction in a way that doesn't match the normal spread of outcomes you'd expect between two unrelated players of similar skill. Spotting that requires comparing session history across the whole player base, not reviewing individual hands after a complaint comes in — which is exactly the kind of pattern analysis a manual review process struggles to do at any scale.
What collusion looks like in play data
Chip-dumping
One account consistently loses to another in patterns inconsistent with normal play variance, often to move value from a disposable account to a primary one.
Coordinated betting
Linked accounts placing correlated bets across matches or hands, hedging outcomes between themselves so at least one side always comes out ahead.
Seat/table sharing
The same physical player operating multiple seats at once through linked or borrowed accounts, effectively multiplying their position at the table.
Each of these shows up differently depending on the format. In poker-style skill games, it's usually chip-dumping between two accounts at the same table. In daily fantasy formats, it's more often coordinated lineups designed to lock in a payout regardless of which entry wins. In head-to-head skill games, it can be as simple as one account intentionally underperforming against another it's linked to. The detection approach is the same across all three: look at outcomes between specific account pairs over time, not any single session.
How Kixo9 flags it
Session & table graph
Tracks which accounts repeatedly share tables, lineups or matches together beyond what chance seating or matchmaking would predict.
Outcome pattern modeling
Flags win/loss distributions between specific account pairs that deviate from expected variance, weighted against the stakes and format involved.
Identity overlap check
Cross-references collusion flags against device and network signals to confirm a likely shared owner, rather than flagging outcome patterns alone.
Timing correlation
Looks at whether two accounts consistently join and leave sessions together in ways that suggest coordination rather than coincidence.
What a flagged pair looks like
Two accounts on a skill-gaming platform end up seated together far more often than random matchmaking would produce. Across dozens of sessions, one account consistently finishes just behind the other in ways that look less like normal competitive variance and more like a deliberate hand-off of value — small, repeated losses that add up over time rather than a single dramatic one. Neither account has done anything that looks unusual in isolation. It's the repetition, and the fact that the outcome consistently favors the same side of the pairing, that Kixo9's models are built to notice.
Frequently asked
Will this flag friends who happen to play together?
Casual overlap alone isn't enough to trigger a high-risk score — Kixo9 looks for outcome patterns and identity signals together, not just shared tables.
Does this work for both card games and DFS?
Yes — the underlying pattern (linked accounts coordinating outcomes) applies across skill games, poker-style formats, and daily fantasy sports.
How much play history does this need before it's useful?
Outcome-pattern analysis gets more reliable with more sessions, but Kixo9 combines it with identity and device signals from day one, so a suspicious pairing can surface even early, pending confirmation as more data comes in.
Can this help enforce a one-account-per-person policy?
Yes — collusion detection and multi-accounting detection share the same underlying account graph, so a confirmed collusion pair often also confirms a policy violation your team can act on directly.
Check your play data for collusion patterns
We'll review a sample of match or hand history and show you what stands out.