Is this new software PC only, or will there be a Mac/Mobile client released at the same time?

-BttB

There was a problem with the software when trying to consolidate tables. When players would bust and the software would try to make a new table, it threw a wrench in the system that caused site/and or other tournaments to crash and bug out. They couldn't figure out how to fix it, so they removed the OFC tournaments completely.


Well, thanks for acknowledging me at least. First time in two years. I feel special.

-BttB

Lol pineapple tournaments. I was only offered that three years ago. I'd settle for the 'new' client having working software and tournaments that are worth more than the loose change in my couch, and customer service that isn't complete shit, for starters.

-BttB

Just a heads up, don't know if there's something wrong with site, but I requested and paid the fee for instant withdrawal (which states will be sent out within 15 minutes) and it's been 20 minutes and it's still pending.

I did make an earlier instant withdrawal for a larger amount about 2 hours ago that was sent with no problem though.

Edit* - And just as I was typing this it was sent.

Sorry if I'm a bit skeptical when you say 'very close', given your track history with following through with things that you've stated. I believe your brand has A LOT of work to do, and rightfully so, to earn back the trust of your player base. That being said, I wish you luck and sincerely hope this isn't you guys blowing more smoke!

-BttB

There's already a thread for it.  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4482056.0.

Screenshots are included in initial post, if anyone is interested. Most of the FJ sig campaign defending is going on there.

Not sure what the point of your post is since trying to compare online casinos with brick and mortars is like apples and oranges, but $58k is plenty big enough at 'real casinos', considering the average gamblor that walks in the doors of most brick and mortars probably has a few hundred, or maybe a few thousand, to gamble with.

But since you wanted to go down this rabbit hole, comparatively most casinos have a maximum bet on most games much smaller than $58k, which I might add is not even close to the maximum bet allowed on BD. Also, the speed in which you can bet online, especially in something like dice, is not realistically comparable to the speed in which you can play at a conventional brick and mortar casino.

I get that as far as the spectrum goes of course there are whales who bet more than 58k on average, but that doesn't belittle the fact that most people would still consider $58k a substantial amount of money.

P.S. I don't follow FJ or frequent the site, but I haven't heard of anyone ripping dice there, or any games, with these kinds of bets.

Not really meant to be a complaint, so much as an objective observation. As carlfebz2 mentioned in an above post, most sites, at least that I'm familiar with, do not put a cap on the amount of time you are affiliated with a referral.

And I'm not sure what your definition of active affiliate is, but this shouldn't be an issue, I don't think. For example, let's say Affiliate A refers two users who play low to mid stakes cash three to five times a week, every week for a calendar year. Let's also suppose these are Affiliate A's only two referrals for that entire calendar year. In contrast, Affiliate B refers five players who play micro stakes ring and small buy-in mtt's, mainly on the weekends. In three months time, most of Affiliate B's original referrals have left the site and he refers 5 more players, who play the same stakes as his previous five referrals.

Now, even though Affiliate A only has two referrals, they should still theoretically be generating more rake than all of Affiliate B's referrals combined, despite Affiliate A not having any new referrals in the calendar year, and thus generating your site more revenue.

TL:DR - Referrals should be tied to affiliates for life, unless there is blatant evidence of some kind of abuse/shenanigans between the linked accounts, regardless if the affiliate is actively referring new users.

-BttB

Was just looking over terms and got to this, which is wayyyyyyyyyy down at the bottom, in regards to affiliates.

38. Partner/Affiliate terms

38.4 All Players referred onto the Site and Game will be held under the referring Partner account for 4 [Four] months from and including the day the Player joined. After this period, a Partner will no longer receive revenue share for that Player.

I'm not affiliated with this site in any way, nor do I have any vested interest, but as an interested observer I must say I'm not a fan of this policy.

-BttB

The new chest is designed to reward active players. So yeah, if you're not actively wagering every day, then treasure chest is indeed pretty useless. Which is good, considering people were just using it to claim free money every day before without ever depositing. Sounds like the new rework is working exactly as intended. 

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

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

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

Treasure chest was not sustainable as it was set up. Basically, a lot of guys were just claiming treasure chest and not depositing, which was not the original intention of having the treasure chest. So it's now being reworked, again.

Welcome to SWC!

-BttB

How is it possible for the site to continuously reduce guarantees, promotions, and tournament buy-ins, but yet they can't change one number in the cashier? LOL!

SWC has ALWAYS made it a habit to DECREASE payouts with the INCREASE of the price of bitcoin, in their own words, 'to reflect the current value of bitcoin', yet the minimum withdraw stays the same. Essentially making it harder and harder to withdraw your coins from the site, since the 100 remaining players are too frightened to play pretty much anything above the absolutely lowest stakes games available.

I could be wrong, although I haven't been wrong about anything regarding SWC in the past, but the whole story of it taking time to address the cashout issue seems like a dick move to make it as hard as possible for recreational players to move chips off site for as long as possible.

Not to mention, now that SWC has inevitably had a significant amount of passive net worth increase from the INSANE growth bitcoin has experienced in the last month or so, it would be nice if they actually took A MOTHERFUCKING IOTA of that money and used it to 1)address glaring problems that have been going on with their current site for almost 3 years now, instead of basically telling the remaining loyal players to deal with it or fuck off, 2)invest in actual developers, not your friend's roommate's cousin, to develop the alleged new client that is supposed to be coming out, 3)buy a fucking ounce of integrity, particularly when it comes to being forthright and honest about issues that have nothing to do with the security of the site, which is a veil they like to hide behind in order to avoid answering the hard questions.

SWC has been handling it's player base with retard gloves for easily the past 1.5 years+. And I've been calling them out on it since even before that. While I'm glad more of you are finally seeing the reality of the situation, I wonder if more people had been vocal at the onset of these issues if we would still find ourselves in this position.

But I digress, SWC, you can file this under W, with the rest of my posts in this thread, for Wasted Time.

Regards,
BttB

Lol who cares? I remember when the site was super infatuated with this guy. Never understood it, then again SWC and their remaining player base have done a lot of things I never understood.

-BttB

This is just a disgruntled player. From what I've gathered, he did some things that put his account under review, therefore disabling his withdraws. While waiting for them to be reenabled, he degenned the balance he was waiting to cash out, which is obviously Alex's fault.

Sad thing is this guy is a regular user of BD and he knows Alex is not 'fucking the site'. Kinda sad to see him spreading FUD just cuz he's on life tilt.

Most sites won't tell you their methods of checking for collusion, because as more methods become public knowledge, they become more easily compromised.

You can write into support@swcpoker.eu, but I wouldn't expect a timely response or much action. In the rare event that they do agree collusion has taken place, affected players will be refunded, although that too may take an exceedingly long time.

I can think back about a year or so ago when there was a particular Big O player that was found guilty of collusion and/or other unsavory activities and was banned from the site. Played a few thousand hands with him, and possibly other of his accounts, but I was never issued a refund, although I think some other players might have been.

-BttB

I'll clear this up a bit for you, since the alcohol seems to be doing most of the talking

SNE (Supernova Elite) required 1 million VPP, not to be confused with FPP's. At the time when I was grinding stars, it was actually about 1.2 million hands of 200NL to reach this, and playing 24 tables you could average around 1600 hands/hr mixing in some fast ones also.

The reason they had the best VIP system is because SNE was actually worth over $100k USD in rakeback and bonuses (like milestones) , but that was assuming you only ever bought the $4000 bonus (best value not counting concierge) using FPP's.

Also Stars used dealt rake. This means that you would accrue FPP's for any hand that you were dealt into and saw a flop, regardless of whether or not you paid rake. Compared to other sites like FTP at the time, and what SWC uses now, which is a form of contributed rake. I.e., you only get back a portion of rake you actually generate yourself. That was probably the main thing that made their system better, you could literally fold and still make thousands of dollars.

While I understand why most recreational players, or players who never made it to SN or SNE, wouldn't agree with my above statement, I assure you that it was 100% completely accurate circa 2011 and pre-Black Friday, albeit a moot point since Amaya doesn't even offer the SN or SNE program anymore.

My overarching point was that comparing shitty Bitcoin poker sites, that seem to be apparently run by a handful of guys at the best of times, to a multi billion (with a b) dollar generating, well-established site is is unrealistic and unfair. (Stars got the majority of their market share when PartyPoker went public and willingly left the US.) That being said, it doesn't mean that SwC couldn't be run much better. Hell, it wouldn't even take them that much time, energy, or resources to make some very simple improvements to their site, and I agree they should perhaps start with transparency.

Now, for an update on my BCC saga, we're moving into day 5 of waiting for my BCC. I got this email from SwC support this morning.

11:42 AM (12 hours ago)

to me

Hi XXXXXXXXXX,

We are processing bch withdrawals later today.

Thank you for playing SwC Poker

Needless to say, I never received my BCC, so I was compelled to contact support yet once again.

Hi, we must have varying definitions of today, because where I reside (planet Earth) today means, and I quote Merriam-Webster, on or for this day; at the present time.Seeing as it is now:

Time (UTC)   Mon Sep 25 00:42:24 2017 UTC

I can only assume that this was an oversight on your part, and that the 'today' you referenced in your above email wasn't actually based on the time which your website employs. I hope this was the case, and that you are in fact not still failing to payout my 88.11 BCC, which you are unlawfully withholding, by the way. All this compounded on top of the fact that your website falsely states BCC claims will be paid out in 48 hours. No, I truly hope indeed that this is not the case.

To which I received this amazing response:

We understand you are upset.

BCH payments will be made shortly.

We have added 1 chip to your account in recognition of your long time play at SwC Poker.


And no, that 1 is not a typo. I'l be sending the 1 chip back, as it's more of an insult than a bribe. I just want the BCC that is rightfully mine they are withholding, for apparently no good reason, and for far longer than the original timetable that their site advertises.

-BttB

Edit - Ended up donating the chip to one of the few decent regs left on the site.

Edit 2 - Took 5 and a half days but finally received my BCC. At least seals is consistent, although unfortunately consistently behind, when it comes to timetables.