SwCpoker.eu | No Banking, Only Bitcoin | Bitcoin Poker 2.0 LIVE NOW!

[Micon]

What do you think are the biggest issues with SwC Poker right now?

[we know you want the mac / linux / android clients.  I'm looking for game issues, general things you'd like to see, maybe something you are missing from Seals that you feel belongs on SwC]

Maybe one thing for me would be the ability to withdraw less than 0.02 BTC and instant withdrawals.
0.02 is not a suitable limit for microstake players. it feels like being told, either lose all your BTC on the site, or try and make 10x the amount you are depositing.

.02 is still a relatively small amount of value, and was implemented on Seals to prevent "transaction attacks" in that if we lowered the withdraw amount to a satoshi, one could make many small withdraws to make us incur transaction fees and make many bitcoin network transactions.

SwC will be a proper home for micro-stakes players.  As you can tell, I've left on "no rake microstakes" as I believe it's proper to forgo the small income a site can rake on the absolute lowest limits & offer the players a no-fee, micro-buy-in test of new games.

the withdraw minimum may be lowered in the future, but right now we are too busy improving other areas of the site to look at it today.

[tspacepilot]

What do you think are the biggest issues with SwC Poker right now?

[we know you want the mac / linux / android clients.  I'm looking for game issues, general things you'd like to see, maybe something you are missing from Seals that you feel belongs on SwC]

Maybe one thing for me would be the ability to withdraw less than 0.02 BTC and instant withdrawals.
0.02 is not a suitable limit for microstake players. it feels like being told, either lose all your BTC on the site, or try and make 10x the amount you are depositing.

.02 is still a relatively small amount of value, and was implemented on Seals to prevent "transaction attacks" in that if we lowered the withdraw amount to a satoshi, one could make many small withdraws to make us incur transaction fees and make many bitcoin network transactions.

SwC will be a proper home for micro-stakes players.  As you can tell, I've left on "no rake microstakes" as I believe it's proper to forgo the small income a site can rake on the absolute lowest limits & offer the players a no-fee, micro-buy-in test of new games.

the withdraw minimum may be lowered in the future, but right now we are too busy improving other areas of the site to look at it today.

Good points Micon, however, at a standard transaction fee of 0.00001 (1KSat) you might still lower your withdrawal quite a bit without having the transaction spam issue you were talking about.  Perhaps 0.01 would be a relatively nice compromise.  As a small/micro stakes player myself I've definitely run into the issue of winning 15 or so chips and thinking oh, I'll withdrawal --- nope!  I never really minded just leaving the chips on there as a bankroll but I think the guy has a point about the fact that you can deposit 1 chip but can't withdrawal until you hit 20.  That does seem lopsided.

As for what's missing on the site---what used to be there that isn't anymore---it's me!

[dooglus]

SwC will be a proper home for micro-stakes players.  As you can tell, I've left on "no rake microstakes"

One of the first games I played on the new site I saw a guy win a 0.05 chip pot and get raked 0.01 chips. That's 20% rake at microstakes.

I think it was an OFC/p table but I'm not sure.

I think it was taking 1% but rounding up to the next 0.01 so it was unfairly penalising microstakes players.

I wish I had taken a screenshot because now I'm not familiar with any of the details other than the 20% rake. I said "20% rake?" in the table chat when it happened if that helps locate it in the logs.

Edit: I just went to try to collect a screenshot of it happening, but couldn't. There was no 0.05 game happening so I watched the 0.01 game, and nothing was getting raked (but I didn't see any pots of 1.00 or more). I'll check later for a 0.05 game.

[Sicilian]

What do you think are the biggest issues with SwC Poker right now?

[we know you want the mac / linux / android clients.  I'm looking for game issues, general things you'd like to see, maybe something you are missing from Seals that you feel belongs on SwC]

Maybe one thing for me would be the ability to withdraw less than 0.02 BTC and instant withdrawals.
0.02 is not a suitable limit for microstake players. it feels like being told, either lose all your BTC on the site, or try and make 10x the amount you are depositing.

This may be an issue for some, but it sure isn't among the biggest issues with SwC Poker right now.

Traffic seems low in general, but it may be that players are getting spread out among all the new offerings.  As for myself, when I had time to play, I used to be in 4-6 seats of NLHE 6-max, but if I'm playing OFC/p i'm only going to be in one seat for now.  I don't know the answer.  Getting bodies in the seats will get more bodies in the seats, but how?

[calci]

What do you think are the biggest issues with SwC Poker right now?

[we know you want the mac / linux / android clients.  I'm looking for game issues, general things you'd like to see, maybe something you are missing from Seals that you feel belongs on SwC]

Maybe one thing for me would be the ability to withdraw less than 0.02 BTC and instant withdrawals.
0.02 is not a suitable limit for microstake players. it feels like being told, either lose all your BTC on the site, or try and make 10x the amount you are depositing.

.02 is still a relatively small amount of value, and was implemented on Seals to prevent "transaction attacks" in that if we lowered the withdraw amount to a satoshi, one could make many small withdraws to make us incur transaction fees and make many bitcoin network transactions.

SwC will be a proper home for micro-stakes players.  As you can tell, I've left on "no rake microstakes" as I believe it's proper to forgo the small income a site can rake on the absolute lowest limits & offer the players a no-fee, micro-buy-in test of new games.

the withdraw minimum may be lowered in the future, but right now we are too busy improving other areas of the site to look at it today.

\

Why don't you rather make minimum withdrawals to around 0.005, and charge the transaction fees from the users itself ?

[dooglus]

I think the think that's most noticeably missing at the moment is multi-table sit-n-go's.

I'd also like to see heads up OFC/p ring games - it seems there's only 3 seat at the moment.

Also, I got my 'dooglus' account back at last!

Is there any way I can have the krill from the temporary 'doog1us' account I used transferred over to 'dooglus'?

[jmurjeff]

Is there a way to not see completed tournaments in the lobby but also still be able to view late registration tournaments?

[IrregardlessSWC]

I've also been able to recover my Irregardless account finally.  TY support (assuming glitch got me this, ty glitch as well).
GL all.

[dooglus]

One of the first games I played on the new site I saw a guy win a 0.05 chip pot and get raked 0.01 chips. That's 20% rake at microstakes.

This is still happening.

In 0.05 OFC/p rake is always taken, from every winning player.

If you win 0.05, the house takes 0.01, or 20% of your winnings.

It seems the rake is 1%, capped at 3 chips, rounded up to the nearest 0.01.

Wouldn't it be better to round it down, not up?

Here are some examples:



See how every pot is 0.01 short of a multiple of 0.05? That's the rake. In the last example 0.01 was taken from both amounts (0.50 and 0.25), making the total rake 0.02 on a 0.75 pot, or 2.66%. One the last but one example MistCat paid 0.01 rake on a 0.15 win, or 6.66% rake.

I know we're talking about tiny amounts here, but it's going to be hard to make the game pay at microstakes if you're paying up to 20% rake like that.

[dooglus]

It would be really useful to be able to see how many "points" of action each player at an OFC table has left. When hands can stretch out over several visits to FL it's hard to keep track of how many points each player has played already.

At 25 chips per point, a player starting a hand with 1000 chips would be shown as having: 1000 (40)
If he gets to FL, the next hand would update his balance to 1250 (30) or whatever - his stack can grow while his remaining action decreases.

[rdbase]

Hi Micon.....how about an option to create a table like the old seals. If I want to sit at 6-12 badacey, the option isn't available. I wouldn't mind trying some fixed 5 card draw but I don't see those games either.  Love everything about the new SWC but I do miss the create tables option.

[CryForMeSky]

It would be really useful to be able to see how many "points" of action each player at an OFC table has left. When hands can stretch out over several visits to FL it's hard to keep track of how many points each player has played already.

At 25 chips per point, a player starting a hand with 1000 chips would be shown as having: 1000 (40)
If he gets to FL, the next hand would update his balance to 1250 (30) or whatever - his stack can grow while his remaining action decreases.

I think this is a fantastic idea.  Also throwing up a quick page explaining how points of action work in OFC is needed.  I try to explain it to people when they get all up in arms when their FL stops/doesn't pay out in full but it's somewhat complicated without visuals.

[dooglus]

Also throwing up a quick page explaining how points of action work in OFC is needed.  I try to explain it to people when they get all up in arms when their FL stops/doesn't pay out in full but it's somewhat complicated without visuals.

I'm not entirely clear on it myself.

Suppose you scoop me (6 points), I have a flush at the back (4 points) and you have a full house (6 points).

How many points worth of action does that consume?

Is it 6 for the scoop + 4 for the flush + 6 for the full house = 16?
Or 6 for the scoop + (6 - 4) for the difference in royalties = 8?

It seems to be the latter. Is that right? ie. royalties cancel each other out before consuming action.

But if I lose 8 points to you, and gain 8 points from the other guy, that counts as 16 points of action consumed out of my starting stack, even though my net profit is 0 for the hand. Right?

[CryForMeSky]

Also throwing up a quick page explaining how points of action work in OFC is needed.  I try to explain it to people when they get all up in arms when their FL stops/doesn't pay out in full but it's somewhat complicated without visuals.

I'm not entirely clear on it myself.

Suppose you scoop me (6 points), I have a flush at the back (4 points) and you have a full house (6 points).

How many points worth of action does that consume?

Is it 6 for the scoop + 4 for the flush + 6 for the full house = 16?
Or 6 for the scoop + (6 - 4) for the difference in royalties = 8?

It seems to be the latter. Is that right? ie. royalties cancel each other out before consuming action.

But if I lose 8 points to you, and gain 8 points from the other guy, that counts as 16 points of action consumed out of my starting stack, even though my net profit is 0 for the hand. Right?

The way it was explained to me maybe a year and a half ago was that it was net points won/lost after paying everyone per hand.  

So to expound on your example, if we both start the hand with 100 points, and I scoop you and gain +2 from royalties, that consumes 8 points of action for both of us.  

In the 2nd example, you would have consumed zero points and the other two people would have consumed 16 points.  

[jmurjeff]

Did they make any rakeback payments yet?

[WearsMyLiberty]

This may be an issue for some, but it sure isn't among the biggest issues with SwC Poker right now.

Traffic seems low in general, but it may be that players are getting spread out among all the new offerings.  As for myself, when I had time to play, I used to be in 4-6 seats of NLHE 6-max, but if I'm playing OFC/p i'm only going to be in one seat for now.  I don't know the answer.  Getting bodies in the seats will get more bodies in the seats, but how?

Yeah, that's always the key problem.  You need people playing in order to get people to play.

I've had decent success trying to start tables and then posting action requests.  So it feels like there are people there waiting for games to get going.

Maybe you guys could do a temporary krill promotion for like a week just to help get things kickstarted.

Something like 1.5x krill in ring games, and 2x krill during overnight hours.

[ZeroCloo]

What do you think are the biggest issues with SwC Poker right now?

For me, headsup Pineapple tables, populate HUSnGs in all games, and making the filter work properly. (All games in tournaments, filter the Active tab.)

Also whatever it is that makes empty tables continue to show they have players.

[dooglus]

Getting bodies in the seats will get more bodies in the seats, but how?

Yeah, that's always the key problem.  You need people playing in order to get people to play.

As well as getting people to play, you need to stop scaring them off.

I was at a full 9-seat ring game earlier. Something weird happened, and one-by-one over half the players started showing up as "disconnected". I found myself sat out with "wait for big blind" auto-checked. Half the table sat out, a few people left their seats, and the game fell apart.

It's critical to iron out whatever is causing these random disconnections because nobody wants to have their hand ruined by technical troubles.

[Wendigo]

Will there be a browser client for HTML5 by any chance?

[kotos123]

Cannot GET /register/

And i cant recovery password ...