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

[Free Market Capitalist]

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.

Although many times I have totally opposite opinions to yours, I will always take into great consideration what you tell me.

In this case I am open to withdraw my support to the flag but I would like you to specify why.

In my case, the reason for the red tag is the same reason for support the flag. I mean I deposit the money in your business and you take the money from me claiming that I have done something wrong, but you don't prove anything. I am not the one who has to prove that I have done nothing wrong, you are the one who has to prove it because you have taken my money.

In this case these hands do not prove either that there was collusion or that there was not, but the burden of proof is on you, who are the one who took my money.

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.

You've nailed it. That's exactly what I was thinking.

Of course we can't prove that, which is what we understand to be most likely based on our experience, but it's not up to us to prove anything, it's up to the room to prove what the OP has allegedly done wrong.

Other than that, I see the casino doesn't have a license, no? So the OP can't escalate his case to a regulatory body (maybe it has one but I haven't seen it). And in the event that he wanted to take this to court, let's see where.

[nutildah]

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?

Several hands show normal results, sure, but the first 64 hands without a showdown is abnormal. Just as only 1 showdown between 2 of the players accused of collusion in over 700 hands played together is abnormal. That's why I cannot support the flag. These aren't full tables. There's an average of 5 players involved in each hand. The fact that these two players only ever made it to a showdown together 1 time is an anomaly, statistically-speaking.

At the same time, I am not going to oppose the flag, either. I don't think there's enough evidence to know what happened for sure one way or the other.

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.

Although many times I have totally opposite opinions to yours, I will always take into great consideration what you tell me.

In this case I am open to withdraw my support to the flag but I would like you to specify why.

In my case, the reason for the red tag is the same reason for support the flag. I mean I deposit the money in your business and you take the money from me claiming that I have done something wrong, but you don't prove anything. I am not the one who has to prove that I have done nothing wrong, you are the one who has to prove it because you have taken my money.

The language of the flag states this:

"popek1990 alleges: SwC_Poker violated a casual or implied agreement, resulting in damages, in the specific act referenced here."

Per the evidence reported from both sides in this thread, and looking at it as a whole, I don't see either side's story being totally proven. You seem to be combining factors outside of this thread when making your decision to support the flag, which I don't think is a good idea, as each flag should be handled on a case-by-case basis -- independent of what you consider to be the casino's overall reputation.

In addition - aside from being wholly AI-generated - one of the strange things OP said caught my attention was this:

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.

If these players are all the same person, then it would make no sense to go all in against yourself, as the goal is to get chips from other players. Hence the lack of showdowns between the (suspected) colluding players relative to everyone else.

Having said that, I don't know for sure whether OP is telling the truth or not, and can't rule out the possibility that he is.

[Free Market Capitalist]

The language of the flag states this:

"popek1990 alleges: SwC_Poker violated a casual or implied agreement, resulting in damages, in the specific act referenced here."

Per the evidence reported from both sides in this thread, and looking at it as a whole, I don't see either side's story being totally proven. You seem to be combining factors outside of this thread when making your decision to support the flag, which I don't think is a good idea, as each flag should be handled on a case-by-case basis -- independent of what you consider to be the casino's overall reputation.

But, again, on whom does the burden of proof fall?

What the flag says would be false if the OP had not had the money taken from him, but it was taken from him, both parties agree on that. And the other guy who reported him too because he says he got his money back.

For me the agreement is that they are not going to take the money if they don't have proof. And the damages are that they have taken money from the OP.

If SWC Poker were denying that it has taken money from him, it would be a different matter. But no, they recognize that it has been taken from him.

And focusing on the specific case without going into other things, the explanations they have given on this thread and to him are poor, as far as we can see based merely on a hunch, and with no possibility of appeal.

[drwhobox]

If these players are all the same person, then it would make no sense to go all in against yourself, as the goal is to get chips from other players.

The accounts will go all against each others when there are no more players left except the accounts.

The strategy can be swapping chips between each others too to make other players weaker in chips.

All depends on the development but the first goal is always keeping all three accounts alive so that they can have the top finishing spots to maximize their profits.

[noob7777777]

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.

Who asked you if saying something from creating an alt is legitimate?

What's not legitimate is calling someone an idiot then denying the fact you said it.

If these players are all the same person, then it would make no sense to go all in against yourself, as the goal is to get chips from other players.

The accounts will go all against each others when there are no more players left except the accounts.

The strategy can be swapping chips between each others too to make other players weaker in chips.

All depends on the development but the first goal is always keeping all three accounts alive so that they can have the top finishing spots to maximize their profits.

This also makes it easy to cashout cheated winnings from a single source.

[Free Market Capitalist]

Who asked you if saying something from creating an alt is legitimate?

You're not exactly a rocket scientist, are you?

What's not legitimate is calling someone an idiot then denying the fact you said it.

You've got the IQ of a rock.

This also makes it easy to cashout cheated winnings from a single source.

I'm not explaining this to you, I'm explaining it to anyone who doesn't have the IQ of a rock: if a business takes your money, it has to have proof that you have broken the rules and not mere speculation like this, which is not the case here. Everything in this thread is mere speculation like the bullshit you just said.

[drwhobox]

#  Author  Posts  User Page  View Posts
1  popek1990  14  View  View
2  AHOYBRAUSE  11  View  View
3  Free Market Capitalist  10  View  View
4  alani123  6  View  View

It's understandable the topic creator is angry and helping his own emotion but why the other two are as emotional as the OP?

There must be something else going behind the public conversation.

These two users want to prove a point that does not even exists. It's like everyone else know nothing about poker and the game, only these two know it all. When they are out of words they are insulting you. Something is not right with them.

[alani123]

It was clearly stated with no uncertainty that some people are disappointed with SWC for their own reasons.

That shouldn't be a way to judge a case by holding personal bias especially when there's evidence presented. In the event people release data the biases need to stay out of the room when discussing things like chance because this is the only objective way such cases can be judged.

[noob7777777]

3  Free Market Capitalist  10  View  View

It's understandable the topic creator is angry and helping his own emotion but why the other two are as emotional as the OP?

There must be something else going behind the public conversation.

These two users want to prove a point that does not even exists. It's like everyone else know nothing about poker and the game, only these two know it all. When they are out of words they are insulting you. Something is not right with them.

This idiot in perticular needs a rocket scientist to explain his bs, but actively participating in this so called 'speculation' thread, playing poker with rocket scientists might have had gotten into his head.

[memehunter]

OP are you willing to give me your sign-in details? I will personally go through your hand history to see what is going on. I will release my report to the public. Why me? I think I have some experience in poker investigation work, did that for an Indian poker site. I know you already have copy-pasted your hand history but just to eliminate any doubt, I am suggesting this.
I am not promising that I will come up with any definite answer to prove who is telling the truth.

Edit:
swc is also welcome to release the hand details of OP as OP has no problem with it.  Or are you confirming that OP has posted all hands without hiding/manipulating anything? If you say yes, I will analyze those.

[AHOYBRAUSE]

OP are you willing to give me your sign-in details? I will personally go through your hand history to see what is going on. I will release my report to the public. Why me? I think I have some experience in poker investigation work, did that for an Indian poker site. I know you already have copy-pasted your hand history but just to eliminate any doubt, I am suggesting this.
I am not promising that I will come up with any definite answer to prove who is telling the truth.

Edit:
swc is also welcome to release the hand details of OP as OP has no problem with it.  Or are you confirming that OP has posted all hands without hiding/manipulating anything? If you say yes, I will analyze those.

Actually there is no need for that, if he made one crucial click under hand history options where you can store them on your computer.



If he saved them he could just forward the file to you actually. Problem is, on default this option is not activated so I think there is a good chance it wasn't saved unfortunately. I always saw that option but also never clicked on the thing to activate it.

[memehunter]

OP are you willing to give me your sign-in details? I will personally go through your hand history to see what is going on. I will release my report to the public. Why me? I think I have some experience in poker investigation work, did that for an Indian poker site. I know you already have copy-pasted your hand history but just to eliminate any doubt, I am suggesting this.
I am not promising that I will come up with any definite answer to prove who is telling the truth.

Edit:
swc is also welcome to release the hand details of OP as OP has no problem with it.  Or are you confirming that OP has posted all hands without hiding/manipulating anything? If you say yes, I will analyze those.

Actually there is no need for that, if he made one crucial click under hand history options where you can store them on your computer.



If he saved them he could just forward the file to you actually. Problem is, on default this option is not activated so I think there is a good chance it wasn't saved unfortunately. I always saw that option but also never clicked on the thing to activate it.

I get what you are saying (Pokerstars India used to have the same settings). I want to eliminate any doubt on OP's part. Files can be tampered easily as they are in notebook format and it will only take one hand where someone folded AA/KK pre to have an idea. For me it is simple, someone has to be in there or swc verify.

[Free Market Capitalist]

It was clearly stated with no uncertainty that some people are disappointed with SWC for their own reasons.

That shouldn't be a way to judge a case by holding personal bias especially when there's evidence presented.

What is the evidence presented? The only evidence has been presented by the OP, not by the casino, neither to him nor in this thread. The only bias here is to think that a casino can steal your money with no evidence and no possibility to appeal.

[alani123]

It was clearly stated with no uncertainty that some people are disappointed with SWC for their own reasons.

That shouldn't be a way to judge a case by holding personal bias especially when there's evidence presented.

What is the evidence presented? The only evidence has been presented by the OP, not by the casino, neither to him nor in this thread. The only bias here is to think that a casino can steal your money with no evidence and no possibility to appeal.

Yes evidence was presented by OP but it's not that strong to support his claims.
The consensus is that more evidence would be needed to conclusively prove what OP is claiming.

The lack of further evidence actually allows SWC's arguement to remain quite strong. For OP it's not so much about proving his hands but also being specific about proving the amounts came from a single account and he didn't violate any rules about collusion.

[xOrpian]

I am no Poker expert but companies do use certain softwares to detect unfair advantages, and these softwares (working cannot be revealed for many reasons).

If you think you've gotten scammed, then ask SWC Sean to share your Bitcoin address in public (since it's your personal and you've given the consent then there should be no reason for them to not make it public) --- If they also Believe that other accounts with 100% certainity has links to your bitcoin address, then you can continue discussion from there (As of now there's nothing meaningful going to come out of it).

They accused me of owning 3 accounts, claiming there was a deposit connection (BTC transactions).

I love Bitcoin's blockchain and transparency. Since I played fair, I asked them for proof (BTC transaction hashes).
They even promised to show it to the community



They never did. Instead, they quickly banned me and erased all messages to cover it up...

There is a thing that's hard for me to digest which is, you've decoracted this thread quite well (When someone gets scammed, the person mostly gets frustrated and rarely work on decorations that much, but after seeing from the Linktr Bio is that you're a Copyrighter so it makes sense.

[Free Market Capitalist]

Yes evidence was presented by OP but it's not that strong to support his claims.

Of course not, because he doesn't have to prove anything.

The consensus is that more evidence would be needed to conclusively prove what OP is claiming.

The consensus within your imagination

The lack of further evidence actually allows SWC's arguement to remain quite strong.

Bullshit.

For OP it's not so much about proving his hands but also being specific about proving the amounts came from a single account and he didn't violate any rules about collusion.

I hope that if some casino steals money from your account in the future, you will prove that you have done nothing wrong.

I think I'm done with this conversation. Between the fool who created an alt, the other crybaby, the casino guy with his lousy communication skills, and the reputation users who argue that if the casino steals from you, you have to prove that you did nothing wrong instead of the other way around, I don't think the arguments here are going to change anything.

The one that was missing is the enlightened one that I have on ignore.

[drwhobox]

Bro thinks he owns the house. He talk nonsense and thinks everyone will nod with his nonsense. But when bro realize he does not have an influence of a janitor he calls others a fool and crybaby. Bro mind your own business. Bye bye.

What are the possibility that the topic creator account and our bro is the same person? Otherwise it does not go into my head that why our bro is so desperate to prove the house is wrong and receive the cheated chips.

[Kalaea]

Ok, I play small stakes on SwC, and have successfully reported colluders before (with my HH evidence). I like to think I am playing on a fair site, so I gave OP the benefit of the doubt and started to look through the HH's.
First, it seems clear they have been edited. The most obvious one is the hand starting at line 710, which is incomplete. OP is dealt KK otb, rest of the hand is missing, and his stack size is unchanged for the next hand, showing it was folded. Red flag 1.

8 hands are played HU to start with. Not only are there no showdowns, there is only 1 flop seen in a limped hand. HU. Hmmm. Ok, maybe they are just nits.

There are then 35 hands played mostly 3 hands, although Caroline93 changes seats 4 times for god knows why. Valentino sits after hand 33 and is dealt in hand 36. Only 7 of 32 hands see a flop, with no 3! and the first hand to see a turn is the one where the mark sits. So it's not 43 hands with no showdown, it's 40 without even seeing a turn and only 8 seeing a flop! Three handed, that's just really improbable. OP isn't playing tight either, so there should be some playback here somewhere.

Once one and then 2 new players join, about half the next 50 hands see a flop and 10 get to turn or river. There are zero 3 bets in those hands, which again is odd but fits if we just play the best hand and fold the other 2.

Certainly enough to be suspicious, even without hole cards. Will look through the rest as i can.

[AHOYBRAUSE]

Ok, I play small stakes on SwC, and have successfully reported colluders before (with my HH evidence). I like to think I am playing on a fair site, so I gave OP the benefit of the doubt and started to look through the HH's.
First, it seems clear they have been edited. The most obvious one is the hand starting at line 710, which is incomplete. OP is dealt KK otb, rest of the hand is missing, and his stack size is unchanged for the next hand, showing it was folded. Red flag 1.

Good find about the KK hand, this also makes me curious. Looking at the stack size next hand it is apparent that OP folded KK in the button and then the sb folded to the bb. Yeah, folding KK on the button makes no sense, unless it's misclick of course. There was also no time out or something since the next hand started fairly quickly.
Strange also that the rest of the action is missing, doesn't even say anything, no show down, no summary, no nothing, while it should look like this:

*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to gd1990 [2h 7c]
gd1990: folds
Uncalled bet (200) returned to MichaelDE
*** SHOW DOWN ***
MichaelDE: doesn't show hand
MichaelDE collected 400 from pot
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot 400 | Rake 0
Seat 3: gd1990 (button) (small blind) folded before Flop
Seat 5: MichaelDE (big blind) collected (400)

That's an example of a different hand where OP folded on the button and sb also folded to bb.
Just a small oddity on the hand hand but makes you wonder if things in this list have been altered with.

[Kalaea]

In the first 250 hands there is exactly *one* 3bet pre between the accused colluders. That hand both players had AK and got it in pre after the others folded to chop. The bet sizes post also seem to be smaller vs each other than vs the marks. I think there is enough to say they are at the very least soft playing each other and card sharing. Obv SwC has all the hole cards and i would expect there to be some very damning hands. Too many coincidences for me.
Well done SwC.

edit - time stamps are interesting. After taking almost 2 minutes to play the first hand, they play the next 40 in 21 minutes. That is ridiculously fast for a high stakes table. In 40 hands there don't seem to be *any* decisions that require any extended thinking. More indirect evidence that it's all just one person.