SealsWithClubs.eu | Largest Bitcoin Poker Site | No Banking | Fast Cashouts

[donk4u]

Click on 'profile', then click on 'forum profile information' from the list on the left side of the screen.

Good looking out jim. Played in the 40btc first time.  Dead last in 14th with 14 to go get 10 10 shove 2500 2 callers 10 on flop 2 spades. Running spade and river players show six six  and six six on 2 all in calls the end. Ty for those that staked me wish could have cashed for you all.

[1713573835]

1713573835

[1713573835]

1713573835

[1713573835]

1713573835

[1713573835]

1713573835

[FreeMoney]

is the 100 chip giveaways still going on? If it is then could I request 100 chips to my new account Wickwicky

Thanks in advance!

That's long expired, sorry. Do try the hourly freeroll if you need help getting started.

[Micon]

WSOP update:  bricked so far.  Lots of action left though.  Team SwC all over Pokernews with hats and patches (brett jungblut, scott fischman, jon eaton, justin schwartz, bryan micon)

The current distribution method for hats & patches:  holler at me at the Rio.  If you are at WSOP and want SwC swag, get at me on twitter @bryanmicon

TYVM for playing SwC |  doing work at this year's WSOP should spread bitcoin awareness this summer.

[donk4u]

Can I get a collusion ruling from admin please?

I was playing a plo8guar. There where six players left. 2 players where in a pot hu with same stacks. Player asked other player to check it down. Can I have a ruling from admin on whether this is deemed collusion please?

[darkmule]

Can I get a collusion ruling please?

I was playing a plo8guar. There where six players left. 2 players where in a pot hu with same stacks. Player asked other player to check it down. Can I have a ruling from admin on whether this is deemed collusion please?

There's really only one ruling here consistent with how poker is played live and elsewhere, and that is that it is perfectly acceptable to check it down like that, but not to say to do it.  "Implicit collusion" is okay, but once it becomes explicit collusion, that's cheating.

[donk4u]

I did ask admin either free money or micon as it is their vote that counts . Lets wait for their reply and whatever it is will be good enough for me even though previous poster is agreeing with me. I agree with checking down without verbalizing and asking for check down in chat is fine but requesting a check down verbally or in chatbox is not.

[Smoovious]

If you have 2 people left, and one asks to check it down, openly, I don't see any problem with that. The other person has no obligation to honor that. They could keep checking it down, until the last possible moment for action, and then that player pushes all-in if they want to. Neither is bound to honor 'check it down?'

Since they are the only two left active, and are open about it for all to see, what is the problem?

If they were colluding in private pretending to not be doing so I would agree, that's a problem and needs to be dealt with, but openly agreeing to check it down, I don't think counts as 'colluding'.

This kind of table talk I have seen lots of times at real tables. Most of the time when chopping blinds, where the last two remaining players ask and agree to an action.

If those two were doing so consistently, then maybe it would be worth investigating.

My 2 cents...

-- Smoov

[darkmule]

If you have 2 people left, and one asks to check it down, openly, I don't see any problem with that. The other person has no obligation to honor that. They could keep checking it down, until the last possible moment for action, and then that player pushes all-in if they want to. Neither is bound to honor 'check it down?'

Since they are the only two left active, and are open about it for all to see, what is the problem?

There were others in the hand, they were just not currently connected.

If they were colluding in private pretending to not be doing so I would agree, that's a problem and needs to be dealt with, but openly agreeing to check it down, I don't think counts as 'colluding'.

This would not be tolerated in any poker tournament I am aware of.  Where have you seen this done in tournaments?

This kind of table talk I have seen lots of times at real tables. Most of the time when chopping blinds, where the last two remaining players ask and agree to an action.

Chopping blinds in a cash game has nothing to do with explicit collusion in a tournament, and is between the blinds.  Some people routinely agree to do it if it folds around to the blinds, others don't.  It's nobody's business who isn't in the hand.  Apples and oranges.

[FreeMoney]

When there are only 2 players remaining in a cash game and you are one of them chatting about the hand is fine.

If there are 3 players or more in a hand no one should chat about the hand.

Don't chat about a tournament (including SNGs) hand in progress.

Can I get a collusion ruling from admin please?

I was playing a plo8guar. There where six players left. 2 players where in a pot hu with same stacks. Player asked other player to check it down. Can I have a ruling from admin on whether this is deemed collusion please?

So this is against the rules. I will send warnings. Usually people just don't know.

[Smoovious]

If they were colluding in private pretending to not be doing so I would agree, that's a problem and needs to be dealt with, but openly agreeing to check it down, I don't think counts as 'colluding'.

This would not be tolerated in any poker tournament I am aware of.  Where have you seen this done in tournaments?

Ahh, that's the piece I was missing. I was assuming a cash table. Tourneys, of course, are different. My mistake.

-- Smoov

edit: but, if all of the other "players" are disconnected ones who's stacks are just being blinded off, I don't count those as active players. In the real tourneys I've played, stacks that have been blinded down up to the cutoff for new entrants to join, got removed from the table. Stacks for players who have joined, but are just gone, won't get removed, but IMHO, if you can't even be bothered to be there and play your stack, you don't really have a right to complain about the other players who are there, choosing among themselves, to check down until your stack is gone. That's probably my #1 gripe about people joining tourneys, never showing up, and their no-play stacks out-last people actually playing to survive into a paying position. Still not relevant to your issue tho, but it came to mind.

[darkmule]

edit: but, if all of the other "players" are disconnected ones who's stacks are just being blinded off, I don't count those as active players. In the real tourneys I've played, stacks that have been blinded down up to the cutoff for new entrants to join, got removed from the table. Stacks for players who have joined, but are just gone, won't get removed, but IMHO, if you can't even be bothered to be there and play your stack, you don't really have a right to complain about the other players who are there, choosing among themselves, to check down until your stack is gone. That's probably my #1 gripe about people joining tourneys, never showing up, and their no-play stacks out-last people actually playing to survive into a paying position. Still not relevant to your issue tho, but it came to mind.

I'd agree with this to some extent in those freerolls where people sign in and aren't there, but I believe the poster who brought up this issue mentioned it was PLO8, and there are no PLO8 freerolls on SWC.  So I assume they were somehow disconnected against their will, and were probably going to reconnect again.  I don't think it's legit even to collude like that in freerolls, but players in freerolls are much more likely to have just never actually showed up, and the "colluders" in such tournaments are much more likely just not to know the rules.

[sootedtho]

yahhhhh!!!!

just logged in 4 hrs, no longer a noob!!!!!!!!!

1st post outside newbie section had to be in swc thread.

Micon, loving seals!!!!

GLGL all @ the tables!!!!

[ranlo]

If you have 2 people left, and one asks to check it down, openly, I don't see any problem with that. The other person has no obligation to honor that. They could keep checking it down, until the last possible moment for action, and then that player pushes all-in if they want to. Neither is bound to honor 'check it down?'

Since they are the only two left active, and are open about it for all to see, what is the problem?

If they were colluding in private pretending to not be doing so I would agree, that's a problem and needs to be dealt with, but openly agreeing to check it down, I don't think counts as 'colluding'.

This kind of table talk I have seen lots of times at real tables. Most of the time when chopping blinds, where the last two remaining players ask and agree to an action.

If those two were doing so consistently, then maybe it would be worth investigating.

My 2 cents...

-- Smoov

This all depends on the people, really. In RL games I've seen times where the last 3-4 people in a tournament would just agree to split the pot according to estimated ratios. Some will split evenly. Sometimes people get infuriated at the idea of it.

Something I've learned from playing is that even though you may experience something being accepted in some rooms, others may have rules against it.

I agree, by the way, that agreeing between two people to check it down would NOT be colluding.

For the record, I got in trouble in one room because I was heads-up against someone and went all-in. He was taking forever to make his decision so I told him what I had and flipped over my cards to make it easier. I ended up being force-folded for it, although it was just me and him anyways.

[joeyjmr8484]

Can I please be let back as joeyjmr8484. Please, you should have just given me a warning like you are doing about others that people complained about collusion.

[donk4u]

People panicking that can't access cashier?

[Luciddd]

People panicking that can't access cashier?

If you log out you cannot get back in... Can anyone else confirm this?

[supremecream]

People panicking that can't access cashier?

If you log out you cannot get back in... Can anyone else confirm this?

confirmed.

i am unable to login from the website as well ("Bad Login").
can you confirm this?

[Luciddd]

People panicking that can't access cashier?

If you log out you cannot get back in... Can anyone else confirm this?

confirmed.

i am unable to login from the website as well ("Bad Login").
can you confirm this?

Yeah when I saw CASHIER error it was weird because I could join tables and what not.. I made the mistake of coming out of client now I cannot get back on the site or through client..

[jimafternoon]

F***, same here -- I came to ask a question about my google authenticator, I thought it was screwed up somehow.

[FreeMoney]

We are investigating now.