SWC Poker - it's a SCAM / My review and true story

[SwC_Poker]

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=3394

Please support SwC here

Don't let this cheater bully us on Bitcointalk

[popek1990]

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=3394

Please support SwC here

Don't let this cheater bully us on Bitcointalk

@SwC_Poker – linking to the flag you’re trying to down-vote isn’t a defence.  
Instead of proof you post “please support us” and keep deleting my replies in your own self-moderated thread.

Here’s the PM notice for the latest deletion (today 5hours ago):  
https://i.ibb.co/Jw0fQrr3/2025-05-16-23h39-36.png

So much for “decentralized BTC Poker”.

Reminder for anyone following:  
• I published the full 700-hand history (page 2 of this topic).  
• SWC said they “can’t” show HH for privacy – yet I just did. No collusion lines, no chip-dump.  
• Still no TX-hashes, no IP logs, no evidence from SWC.

If a site withholds winnings, the burden of proof is on them – not on the player they froze.

🚩 Support the flag if you think facts > censorship:  
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=3394

And for anyone curious why SWC keeps erasing my posts, their self-mod thread is here (watch how fast this one disappears too):  
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5068812.0

Deleting questions won’t erase what’s on-chain and what's here. Show the hashes or stop calling people “cheaters.”


EDIT :
Twitter - they also ban me
https://i.ibb.co/60cVysjb/2025-05-16-23h59-55.png

[LastcallS]

You may want to throw in GPT or another large ML model to do an analysis of whether or not he thinks it was collusion. Data very much ...

From myself, I will add, I have now uploaded to GPT_3o . Here is the answer :

https://i.ibb.co/HfJ28YY0/2025-05-16-20h49-15.png

Yes popek1990 I played vs your 3 accouts, pretty unfair right. In fact I was the one who reported you. One suggestion from me don't you ever try to cheat again. It does not worth it. Play fair.

Here is the email I receive from swc

Sorry for the delay. SwC is a small team, it was a lot of manual work, and we wanted to make sure that we got this right. The collusion investigation has been completed, and we have reimbursed you with 112,800 chips.

Thank you for playing SwC Poker

[Blossom15]

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=3394

Please support SwC here

Don't let this cheater bully us on Bitcointalk

Your behavior - deleting posts and comments you don't like makes you guilty in my eyes.

[nutildah]

OK, so I had some time to analyze the hand history provided by OP.

During the hands when gd1990, caroline93, and MichaelDE are playing by themselves, there ZERO showdowns. So not 1 single showdown in the first 43 hands. That's a bit odd.

The first showdown happens in hand 65, or #242704944, after valentinos77 and AshPK have joined in. gd1990 wins the pot.

The second showdown happens in hand 70, or #242712360. MichaelDE wins the pot.

The third happens in hand 79, or #242712484. gd1990 wins the pot (the one in this screenshot).

So you can see that showdowns only started happening after other players had joined the table. The longest streak of no-showdown, across all 867 hands, is by far the first 65 hands; 43 of which were only played with the 3 players suspected of collusion.

While other players were playing:

Showdowns between gd1990 and caroline93: 5

Showdowns between gd1990 and Michael DE: 11

Showdowns between MichaelDE and caroline93: 1

Across 700+ hands played together, there was only 1 showdown between these two players... That's pretty anomalous, don't you think?

[Free Market Capitalist]

OK, so I had some time to analyze the hand history provided by OP.

During the hands when gd1990, caroline93, and MichaelDE are playing by themselves, there ZERO showdowns. So not 1 single showdown in the first 43 hands. That's a bit odd.

The first showdown happens in hand 65, or #242704944, after valentinos77 and AshPK have joined in. gd1990 wins the pot.

The second showdown happens in hand 70, or #242712360. MichaelDE wins the pot.

The third happens in hand 79, or #242712484. gd1990 wins the pot (the one in this screenshot).

So you can see that showdowns only started happening after other players had joined the table. The longest streak of no-showdown, across all 867 hands, is by far the first 65 hands; 43 of which were only played with the 3 players suspected of collusion.

While other players were playing:

Showdowns between gd1990 and caroline93: 5

Showdowns between gd1990 and Michael DE: 11

Showdowns between MichaelDE and caroline93: 1

Across 700+ hands played together, there was only 1 showdown between these two players... That's pretty anomalous, don't you think?

That two players only make it to showdown 1 time in 700 hands is not so rare, nothing can be concluded from that. I find the above analysis more indicative. All in all it can indicate collusion. It could be due to variance, but quite extreme, that the players involved do not reach SD until more people join. I will review this case later.

I edit to respond to this:

You may want to throw in GPT or another large ML model to do an analysis of whether or not he thinks it was collusion. Data very much ...

From myself, I will add, I have now uploaded to GPT_3o . Here is the answer :

ChatGPT gives me a different answer.

https://chatgpt.com/share/682a368c-6ab0-800e-b6c0-1dc1995258dd

So, as we can't trust ChatGPT 100%, as I said before, I will review the case later and decide whether to continue or withdraw my support to the flag. I'm leaving the red tag for the moment because I find the SWC Poker representative's way of deleting replies in his self-moderated thread unacceptable.

[LastcallS]

OK, so I had some time to analyze the hand history provided by OP.

During the hands when gd1990, caroline93, and MichaelDE are playing by themselves, there ZERO showdowns. So not 1 single showdown in the first 43 hands. That's a bit odd.

The first showdown happens in hand 65, or #242704944, after valentinos77 and AshPK have joined in. gd1990 wins the pot.

The second showdown happens in hand 70, or #242712360. MichaelDE wins the pot.

The third happens in hand 79, or #242712484. gd1990 wins the pot (the one in this screenshot).

So you can see that showdowns only started happening after other players had joined the table. The longest streak of no-showdown, across all 867 hands, is by far the first 65 hands; 43 of which were only played with the 3 players suspected of collusion.

While other players were playing:

Showdowns between gd1990 and caroline93: 5

Showdowns between gd1990 and Michael DE: 11

Showdowns between MichaelDE and caroline93: 1

Across 700+ hands played together, there was only 1 showdown between these two players... That's pretty anomalous, don't you think?

This!!! Playing on the table it felt 99.9% that the 3 accounts are playing together. Having experience of playing poker for many years it was very obvious what is happening. I am sure if there is a way to find out the hands of the 3 accounts in every hand it will become clear as day.

[Free Market Capitalist]

This!!! Playing on the table it felt 99.9% that the 3 accounts are playing together. Having experience of playing poker for many years it was very obvious what is happening. I am sure if there is a way to find out the hands of the 3 accounts in every hand it will become clear as day.

What kind of experience do you have? Have you been making profits regularly for all those years you say you've been playing? Because after reviewing it I can see that this could be the typical table where the top three regulars come in and just play carefully against each other until the fish come in. I've done that myself a lot of times over the years.

But that aside my flag support and my red tag still stands. If a private company is going to take your money it can't do it in an arbitrary way. It has to give you the reasons why, show you the proof, a chance to appeal, and then if you don't agree you go to the regulatory body, arbitration body or directly to court. That hasn't happened here, apart from the pathetic deletion of comments you don't like in your self-moderating thread.

[popek1990]

Yes popek1990 I played vs your 3 accouts, pretty unfair right. In fact I was the one who reported you. One suggestion from me don't you ever try to cheat again. It does not worth it. Play fair.
Here is the email I receive from swc
Sorry for the delay. SwC is a small team, it was a lot of manual work, and we wanted to make sure that we got this right. The collusion investigation has been completed, and we have reimbursed you with 112,800 chips.

@LastcallS
Recording a short screen-capture—log in, open a hand, show you’re really BillySwords or Eazy1—would settle this instantly. 
I ask you about it. I was sure you wouldn’t do it, and I wasn’t wrong. Instead we get more empty words

It felt 99.9 % like collusion.

Feelings aren’t evidence. A retroactive chip credit only proves SwC can move chips, not that I cheated.
Show a video or specific hand IDs, or stop calling people cheaters.

@FreeMarketCapitalist

I reviewed your ChatGPT prompt and the response you got.
ChatGPT spit out a generic “red flags” list for collusion but never examined a single hand. There’s not one hand ID or example showing “soft-play” or “chip-dump”—just high-level speculation.
It didn’t analyze the session data at all; instead it defaulted to random internet quotes (PokerStars, PokerListings, SFGATE, bezy.co.uk).
ChatGPT is a powerful tool, but you must guide it with a precise prompt. For a real analysis, rework your prompt and paste the entire .txt hand history directly into the model rather than just linking.


I’d like to add one more important point.
The big all-in wins did NOT come from MichaelDE or Caroline93 (the accounts they claim were mine). Instead, they came from regular players like Easy1, BillySwords, and Valentinos77.

Take a look:

KK vs QQ (flop 9, K, Q) – a hand against @Easy1
https://i.ibb.co/DDZ0BGk6/2025-02-05-11h26-12.png

AA vs JQ (flop 8, Q, 6 → turn J…)
https://i.ibb.co/7xFMbg71/2025-02-05-11h28-47.png

3A vs 9A (flop A, 3, 9)
https://i.ibb.co/9kQxmqW4/2025-02-05-11h42-23.png

There were more such hands where 2 players have strong cards & flop.
Does 3 vs 3 or 2 pair vs 2 pair look like cheating? 

[SwC_Poker]

OK, so I had some time to analyze the hand history provided by OP.

During the hands when gd1990, caroline93, and MichaelDE are playing by themselves, there ZERO showdowns. So not 1 single showdown in the first 43 hands. That's a bit odd.

The first showdown happens in hand 65, or #242704944, after valentinos77 and AshPK have joined in. gd1990 wins the pot.

The second showdown happens in hand 70, or #242712360. MichaelDE wins the pot.

The third happens in hand 79, or #242712484. gd1990 wins the pot (the one in this screenshot).

So you can see that showdowns only started happening after other players had joined the table. The longest streak of no-showdown, across all 867 hands, is by far the first 65 hands; 43 of which were only played with the 3 players suspected of collusion.

While other players were playing:

Showdowns between gd1990 and caroline93: 5

Showdowns between gd1990 and Michael DE: 11

Showdowns between MichaelDE and caroline93: 1

Across 700+ hands played together, there was only 1 showdown between these two players... That's pretty anomalous, don't you think?

Thank you very much for taking the time to go through these hands and give your opinion.

OP did collusion with obvious tactics, and now makes all of these threads and accusations after getting caught.

It is actions of a person without morals and without ability to accept their actions.

SwC will continue our 10 year history of spreading fair and fun bitcoin poker, this cheater will not stop our mission.

[Free Market Capitalist]

I reviewed your ChatGPT prompt and the response you got.
ChatGPT spit out a generic “red flags” list for collusion but never examined a single hand. There’s not one hand ID or example showing “soft-play” or “chip-dump”—just high-level speculation.
It didn’t analyze the session data at all; instead it defaulted to random internet quotes (PokerStars, PokerListings, SFGATE, bezy.co.uk).
ChatGPT is a powerful tool, but you must guide it with a precise prompt. For a real analysis, rework your prompt and paste the entire .txt hand history directly into the model rather than just linking.

First you have to know that this forum is quite anti-IA so no ChatGPT analysis, no matter how detailed, is going to convince anyone. Then, it is true that the more details you give it tends to be more accurate but for me the most relevant thing is not ChatGPT's analysis, which I grant you yours is more truthful than the one I posted, but things like this:

Thank you very much for taking the time to go through these hands and give your opinion.

OP did collusion with obvious tactics, and now makes all of these threads and accusations after getting caught.

It is actions of a person without morals and without ability to accept their actions.

SwC will continue our 10 year history of spreading fair and fun bitcoin poker, this cheater will not stop our mission.

Does that prove anything to you? What you prove here is that you don't have a fucking clue about poker and have arbitrarily stolen popek1990's money.

Also, your casino operates illegally because it accepts people from all countries without having a specific license as required in many European countries.

And the joke is that you advertise that you can play poker anonymously on the site, with no other requirement than an email, and you can steal people's funds because you feel like it or you think there is collusion.

It's pathetic, but of course, now you're going to spend a lot of money on advertising on the forum so you can continue to arbitrarily steal people's money.

[AHOYBRAUSE]

Thank you very much for taking the time to go through these hands and give your opinion.

OP did collusion with obvious tactics, and now makes all of these threads and accusations after getting caught.

It is actions of a person without morals and without ability to accept their actions.

SwC will continue our 10 year history of spreading fair and fun bitcoin poker, this cheater will not stop our mission.

Does that prove anything to you? What you prove here is that you don't have a fucking clue about poker and have arbitrarily stolen popek1990's money.

Also, your casino operates illegally because it accepts people from all countries without having a specific license as required in many European countries.

And the joke is that you advertise that you can play poker anonymously on the site, with no other requirement than an email, and you can steal people's funds because you feel like it or you think there is collusion.

It's pathetic, but of course, now you're going to spend a lot of money on advertising on the forum so you can continue to arbitrarily steal people's money.

Couldn't agree more. The thing about the signature campaign, it won't bring them anything. They are in this forum for a long time and I have never seen a bitcointalk member on SWC when I played very frequently. They never gain any new players, any new account with them is almost always an alt of an older member.
At PEAK they have like around 160 people online at the same time and only a tiny fraction is actually playing, the rest is just chatting in the trollbox, mostly about weed and illegal drugs.
A mix of overcharged rake, no player base, no tournaments and so on is a big NO for poker players. Knowing you might not get paid just add up to the negatives. The one and only thing speaking for SWC is the daily rakeback, which when you have a good "VIP level" can be pretty generous % wise. But that's about it.

[Free Market Capitalist]

Knowing you might not get paid just add up to the negatives.

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).

[drwhobox]

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).

nutildah is an idiot and you are a poker generous that is what you are saying. May I see your poker portfolio?

I agree with nutildah's analysis. These three players always had information between them. When you know cards you can easily take advantage from others.

[Free Market Capitalist]

nutildah is an idiot and you are a poker generous that is what you are saying.

I am not calling nutildah an idiot I am calling SWC Poker and idiot.

May I see your poker portfolio?

Sure. There you go.

I agree with nutildah's analysis. These three players always had information between them. When you know cards you can easily take advantage from others.

Your poker hand analysis skills must be similar to your reading comprehension skills.

[noob7777777]

nutildah is an idiot and you are a poker generous that is what you are saying.

I am not calling nutildah an idiot I am calling SWC Poker and idiot.

May I see your poker portfolio?

Sure. There you go.

I agree with nutildah's analysis. These three players always had information between them. When you know cards you can easily take advantage from others.

Your poker hand analysis skills must be similar to your reading comprehension skills.

Oddly weird observation, anyone else analyzing cards, other than the user drwhobox mentioned?, no need to do that 'I am not'

[drwhobox]

nutildah is an idiot and you are a poker generous that is what you are saying.

I am not calling nutildah an idiot I am calling SWC Poker and idiot.

May I see your poker portfolio?

Sure. There you go.

I agree with nutildah's analysis. These three players always had information between them. When you know cards you can easily take advantage from others.

Your poker hand analysis skills must be similar to your reading comprehension skills.

You do not have a manner to continue a civilized conversation. I suspect you are not a professional poker player too. You might have played with friends occasionally and you are considering yourself a pro in the field.

You are over estimating yourself in the open forum, but you know less, have a little experience. You can convince amateurs or the members who have no knowledge about poker but to the people who know the game with good knowledge will laugh at you. You already made me laugh tbh.

You can reply this post but I don't continue conversation with uncivilized people. You need schooling first.

[Free Market Capitalist]

Oddly weird observation, anyone else analyzing cards, other than the user drwhobox mentioned?, no need to do that 'I am not'

If you are going to create an alt account to say things in this thread, which is totally legitimate, you might as well make sure you get your point across.

I suspect you are not a professional poker player too.

Of course not.

You might have played with friends occasionally and you are considering yourself a pro in the field.

Lol

You are over estimating yourself in the open forum, but you know less, have a little experience. You can convince amateurs or the members who have no knowledge about poker but to the people who know the game with good knowledge will laugh at you. You already made me laugh tbh.

It is nice that I make you laugh but what happens here is the opposite, that those hands for someone who doesn't know much about poker may look like collusion but if you know poker you see that they don't prove anything.

[nutildah]

It is nice that I make you laugh but what happens here is the opposite, that those hands for someone who doesn't know much about poker may look like collusion but if you know poker you see that they don't prove anything.

Exactly. They don't prove anything, which is why nobody should be supporting OP's flag against SwC. I don't have any problems with your negative trust against them, as its for other reasons. But as far as the flag is concerned, OP didn't really supply enough evidence that contradicts what SwC has to say about the matter. I tend to favor taking their word over OPs, independent of anything outside of this thread.

[AHOYBRAUSE]

It is nice that I make you laugh but what happens here is the opposite, that those hands for someone who doesn't know much about poker may look like collusion but if you know poker you see that they don't prove anything.

I tend to favor taking their word over OPs, independent of anything outside of this thread.

Why? OP showed several hands that show normal results. He is open to share everything. SWC on the other hand just put out words, without 1 single proof. It would be SO EASY to defend their actions, yet just ignoring questions about proof remain unanswered.
So in your opinion the word of a site is worth that much? They refuse to share the hands in question, even having the possibility to black out names of the player involved they are claiming to "protect", talking about privacy and such nonsense.

I distrust SWC for a very long time already, long before this case. When I reported collusion the did absolutely NOTHING. They kicked me out of the telegram group for even mentioning it. That's behavior of people that are trying to hide something.

There is a reason why their player count doesn't even surpass 200 people at the same time, because nobody trusts this site, even though they are around for such a long time.
Right now only, 146 people playing on 6 active tables with more than 1 player sitting. Thriving business huh.





My suspicion, they just want to keep one of their "highrollers" happy, the one that lost some money and then complained, just to keep him around. With a tiny player base of course they do something like this. Just blame some newbie accounts because the other guy lost.
By the way, why haven't we seen 1 suspicious hand shown here form LastcallS, he was the one the made the report, so he has the hand history as well. Show some suspicious hands. You must have some samples that you sent SWC, or not?