Topic: SwCpoker.eu | No Banking, Only Bitcoin | Bitcoin Poker 2.0 LIVE NOW! - page 6. (Read 291358 times)

Is there any similar site out there that actually has games going? All SWC has is headsup now pretty much, not my specialty. Betcoin.ag has had too many past issues for my liking. I prefer a site like SWC where I don't need to give an address and go through a whole number to register/cashout.

In your scenario, where Person A tells Person B that they are folding, yes, I would agree that's cheating.

However, that's not the case in this situation and that particular scenario was never alluded to. The original statement made by OP was that at the start of the hand, small blind announces to table that someone should raise since he's not. He never said he was folding, he never said he wouldn't call, and in all in reality, there's nothing binding him to his statement. That's why this is more of ill-mannered table talk than flat out collusion, like you're trying to suggest.

And here, since you're having trouble processing what I mean, let me make it clear for you. I do not condone or endorse cheating in any way, and I agree all such instances of suspected cheating/collusion should be reported for further investigation. In my opinion, this isn't necessarily one of those situations though.


Pretty sure that statement makes anything else you have to say about the point moot.    

-BttB

P.S. At least thanks for using (hand) equity rather than EV as mentioned above lol

Yes, if Person A tells Person B that they are folding, that's cheating.  It doesn't matter if it's in private or in public.  And when the intent of the message is to fuck up Person C's equity, that's even worse. 

Saying "Oh well, nothing will be done about the situation" (which you've said twice now) is defeatist and shitty.  It's insinuating that people shouldn't care and shouldn't report it and shouldn't work to eliminate this element from the games.  Even if that's not what you meant, that's how it's coming across.

I never said let cheating happen. I guess we just have different opinions/rationales on what constitutes cheating. I considered the above topic more table banter/angle shooting than actual cheating.  Would you consider it cheating if villain said he wasn't going to raise, got someone to open, and then villain 3-bets? Who's to blame in that situation? Now, if we found out villain was talking to someone off site, on Discord or Skype, and sharing hand histories or player info, then I would consider that to be more along the lines of cheating. And let me assure you that I know for a fact that situation happens in the SWC player base.

That being said, personally, I don't base my play off of what anyone says at a table, other than possibly analyzing it for a tell. There's an old adage that goes something like, believe none of what you hear, and half of what you see. I think that applies more in poker than just about anywhere else, other than maybe politics lol.

Also, the main point I was alluding to, which I think is what you misinterpreted as me being complacent as to what you deem cheating, is that realistically nothing will be done about this situation, particularly on SWC. Villain may get a private warning, AT MOST, which I doubt, since support already takes over a week to respond to actual legitimate emails about cash outs, etc. And by if some chance this escalates, it's not like he couldn't just create a new account.

In summary, there are many risks we accept when playing Internet poker that we wouldn't face in a regular brick and mortar; sites absconding with player funds, bugs and connection problems, and yes, plebs talking about hands when they shouldn't be and not having a floor person to immediately come over and tell them to cut the shit.

-BttB

You are correct that people will try to cheat you in all forms of poker.  You are incorrect that the best way to handle this is to just "let it happen". 

Eh, I mean, it's kind of making a mountain out of a molehill, imho. While it's definitely not proper for players to talk about hands while they are ongoing, or try to instill action one way or the other, particularly in a hand that they're not even involved in, this shit happens. It happens live all the time too.

There's no dealers to police table chat or players' behavior in-game at SWC, so might as well chalk it up as an occupational hazard of playing online poker and move on. You know, like losing a pot because your internet or power went out.

Fact is SWC has been mute (or dead) for months now, particularly here, and other forms of social media. They've already stated they're not doing any more work on the current client and that they're happy to continue the majority of operations as is, regardless of most players' feedback/input. Embrace and accept that fact, or find somewhere better to patronize. I recommend the latter.

Also, as an aside, that's not how EV works.




Except tournaments on SWC, last time I checked, averaged payouts comparable to maybe an hour or two of flipping burgers. And I'm talking net, not gross.


-BttB

Yes tourney. 

For some reason I was assuming this was a cash game hand where we are BB, idiot is SB and says "I'm going to fold someone else raise"  which is essentially just folding out of turn and really not a big deal.

If this is a tournament where stack sizes much shorter, it's a much bigger deal.

This is a very slippery slope. 


This is exactly the problem.  In fact, by announcing that he will not raise,  he is sacrificing his own ev to the benefit of all other players still holding cards. 

Yeah, but ignoring someone whose breaking etiquette but isn't actually hurting anyone's EV is a lot different than someone actively trying to lower your EV by giving information to your opponents that they shouldn't have.  And, obviously, fun players get their own rules.

It's definitely out of line, but not technically collusion since there was nothing secret about it. I guess attempted collusion is accurate.  It reminds me of countless live situations where some drunk idiot is doing things that aren't cool and that I'd never let a solid player get away with but everyone just kind of rolls their eyes because the guys an idiot and is making the game a good one.

Disagree with you on this one.  Attempted collusion is still collusion and the offending player should be disciplined appropriately.  You can't tell people that they should raise because you are folding your blind.  He was trying to work with other people at the table (even though they obviously aren't at fault for receiving information that helped their game) to the detriment of bojax.  That has no place at the poker table.

He sounds like an idiot and it probably didn't have any effect on the hand.  I'd probably just let it go.

There was some drama last night that I wish to address since swcpoker is such a small and tight community:

There's this guy that complains anytime an underdog wins a hand. If the favorite wins the hand, then he expresses his utter surprise. Last night he went off talking **** in the chatbox about what a huge luckbox donk I am after I won a hand with an underdog. I just let him go on and on, but then this happened:

I'm in the big blind with some trash hand and the **** talker was in the small blind. We all get our cards and he says, "someone bet im not betting him." which is just blatant cheating. Sure enough, someone raised and everyone folded. So I went off a bit in the lobby chatbox and sent an email to support.

Will report back with any news.

Don't hold your breath.

Any update on a Linux or HTML client for the site? Just doing my annual check-in.

Well then shouldn't you look at reality?  If SWC does have the lowest rake AND the most game formats AND fast payouts AND that leads to 6 active players on average (pokerscout.com), what does that mean?

That those things aren't working.  That the site is dead. 

So logically we can see that for the site to be alive, which again is something I want, the people in charge need to realize that their site is dead, despite all of the positives that's going for it.  And the biggest problem is the owner's/people running the site's inactivity.  You can easily see this in them taking months to fix an issue that should take days (batching withdraws that they are already only sending out a few times a day).

But what do I know, I just have mental problems, right?

Everybody is acknowledging BTC poker has problems - including the ones I named in my last post: SwC lack of communication and only accepting BTC.  I don't play on the other sites, other than some LHE and sports bets on Nitrogen and they've always paid. 

There are multiple things that SwC can claim to be among the industry's leaders such as: low rake, more cash game formats than anyone, fast payouts. Doesn't mean there isn't room for improvement.  I was the catalyst for their last rake decrease and that seems a lot more helpful to BTC poker than simply screaming "SITE = DEAD". 

Thank you DDays and ActMyName for articulating (better than I could) what I've been thinking for so long.

I want Cyrpto Poker to thrive.

It will thrive.

It really sucks that currently Crypto Poker is exclusively run by either incompetent people, scumbags or incompetent scumbags.

We shouldn't give up though.

I have a dream!  

Yes, you've explained my position very eloquently, thank you.

Bitcoins are good.  Poker is good.  Bitcoin poker, right now, is bad.  I want bitcoin poker to be good.  If bitcoin poker is good, I make lots of money.  Pointing out flaws that sites have and giving potential solutions is good. 

Spreading FUD and trying to pretend that a site with 3 active players is thriving is bad.