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

[marlais]

TL;DR: SWC reversed their position on providing player HHs to independently verify they refunded players in full and stated there is no appeals process if you find a discrepancy between your HHs and the amount refunded.

------
I have some more questions; some are old ones that were never answered, others are new.

1. Why did you reverse your position on releasing hand histories and are now rejecting appeals?
Can you please explain why you reversed your position on distributing hand histories between August 18th and today? It looks like something happened during that time frame that required you to block players from having any recourse or access to data that would prove you're an honest site. If I had to speculate, I'd guess it's because the numbers of chips owed wouldn't match (screenshots below).

2. When did the bug occur the first and second times, and why weren't players informed/refunded the first time?
Your players have given you the benefit of the doubt for the last 2 years that you are trustworthy based on your predecessor's good reputation, only to find out from other players that you owed them thousands of dollars that you failed to mention. Only then did you take action, and then with a 5-month delay. Even if this bug was unintentional, I cannot come up with a scenario where an honest site would find a bug that was stealing money off the table, fix it, and not inform/refund players like SWC when they found the bug the first time around. SWC has repeatedly ignored questions about why they swept it under the rug. Please explain how this can be construed as unintentional, because I would like to think that SWC hasn't been flat-out lying by omission.

3. Where and when can players get accurate data regarding their hands?
Poker players have no way to determine if a site is trustworthy unless they have HHs. The HHs that your client saves are broken and corrupted and this has not been addressed since the site's inception. As it currently stands, even if players personally saved a complete set of HH files, they cannot determine how much you owe them because the files are corrupted. Even if they could get past the data corruption and can show you specific instances where they have been shorted, it doesn't matter because there are no appeals. I do not know of an honest poker site that would not refund a customer who realized they were shorted and provided proof.

4. Why is SWC fading questions and decreasing transparency?
Why the utter lack of transparency and accountability about such a serious bug? You were happy to tell us what you spent on the leaderboard promotion, so why is information about how many players were affected and the amount of coin involved treated like a matter of national security? Some players were refunded close to a coin, although I believe it should have been in the multiple coins based on the incomplete data that I've seen. Why should we blindly trust that your refund code isn't buggy or that you didn't do a half-assed job calculating refunds when SWC has an impeccable track record of writing buggy code and doing half-assed jobs months or years behind schedule? You were doing well in the regaining trust department by stating that you would release HHs and a script so that players could perform self-audits. Going back on your promise looks extremely suspect.

5. Is SWC really "use at your own risk" now?
I have also seen e-mails recently stating that users should play on SWC "at their own risk" until the new client is developed (no ETA of course). Can you explain this in more detail? Does this mean that going forward, if a player loses money because of an SWC bug, you're not refunding them? This raises concerns regarding SWC's ability and desire to spread fair games.

I can't play on a site with a "use at your own risk" clause, close to zero communication with players, and who has done their best to obfuscate and minimize the fact that they took tens of thousands of dollars of player funds straight off the table under sketchy circumstances for which they won't provide concrete answers. You say it was an honest mistake and everyone was made whole, and I will believe you when I see the results of the self-audit. I resent SWC for taking a great site with a dedicated community and huge amount of potential and turning it into a raging dumpster fire during the biggest BTC boom to date. Their mismanagement has already alienated the majority of the player base and continues to do so. The only players left are the ones who don't mind being ignored or verbally abused by the staff, getting raked up to 2 chips/hand when BTC is close to $5k (the Venetian is capped at $5), don't mind the lack of meaningful promotions, and who can blindly trust the man-behind-the-curtain management.

Hi people

Because I am bored to read hundred messages can someone please post for me if this platform for poker is legit and trustworthy.
Also, do you know a number of constantly online players?

Thanks a lot

No, I do not consider them legit or trustworthy. How would you feel if you found out from another player that the house had taken thousands of dollars from you for years and only refunded it when other players realized it on their own and called them out in a public forum? Because that's how players at SWC are feeling right now.

[1714112171]

1714112171

[1714112171]

1714112171

[TwitchySeal]

TL;DR: SWC reversed their position on providing player HHs to independently verify they refunded players in full and stated there is no appeals process if you find a discrepancy between your HHs and the amount refunded.

------
I have some more questions; some are old ones that were never answered, others are new.

1. Why did you reverse your position on releasing hand histories and are now rejecting appeals?
Can you please explain why you reversed your position on distributing hand histories between August 18th and today? It looks like something happened during that time frame that required you to block players from having any recourse or access to data that would prove you're an honest site. If I had to speculate, I'd guess it's because the numbers of chips owed wouldn't match (screenshots below).

2. When did the bug occur the first and second times, and why weren't players informed/refunded the first time?
Your players have given you the benefit of the doubt for the last 2 years that you are trustworthy based on your predecessor's good reputation, only to find out from other players that you owed them thousands of dollars that you failed to mention. Only then did you take action, and then with a 5-month delay. Even if this bug was unintentional, I cannot come up with a scenario where an honest site would find a bug that was stealing money off the table, fix it, and not inform/refund players like SWC when they found the bug the first time around. SWC has repeatedly ignored questions about why they swept it under the rug. Please explain how this can be construed as unintentional, because I would like to think that SWC hasn't been flat-out lying by omission.

3. Where and when can players get accurate data regarding their hands?
Poker players have no way to determine if a site is trustworthy unless they have HHs. The HHs that your client saves are broken and corrupted and this has not been addressed since the site's inception. As it currently stands, even if players personally saved a complete set of HH files, they cannot determine how much you owe them because the files are corrupted. Even if they could get past the data corruption and can show you specific instances where they have been shorted, it doesn't matter because there are no appeals. I do not know of an honest poker site that would not refund a customer who realized they were shorted and provided proof.

4. Why is SWC fading questions and decreasing transparency?
Why the utter lack of transparency and accountability about such a serious bug? You were happy to tell us what you spent on the leaderboard promotion, so why is information about how many players were affected and the amount of coin involved treated like a matter of national security? Some players were refunded close to a coin, although I believe it should have been in the multiple coins based on the incomplete data that I've seen. Why should we blindly trust that your refund code isn't buggy or that you didn't do a half-assed job calculating refunds when SWC has an impeccable track record of writing buggy code and doing half-assed jobs months or years behind schedule? You were doing well in the regaining trust department by stating that you would release HHs and a script so that players could perform self-audits. Going back on your promise looks extremely suspect.

5. Is SWC really "use at your own risk" now?
I have also seen e-mails recently stating that users should play on SWC "at their own risk" until the new client is developed (no ETA of course). Can you explain this in more detail? Does this mean that going forward, if a player loses money because of an SWC bug, you're not refunding them? This raises concerns regarding SWC's ability and desire to spread fair games.

I can't play on a site with a "use at your own risk" clause, close to zero communication with players, and who has done their best to obfuscate and minimize the fact that they took tens of thousands of dollars of player funds straight off the table under sketchy circumstances for which they won't provide concrete answers. You say it was an honest mistake and everyone was made whole, and I will believe you when I see the results of the self-audit. I resent SWC for taking a great site with a dedicated community and huge amount of potential and turning it into a raging dumpster fire during the biggest BTC boom to date. Their mismanagement has already alienated the majority of the player base and continues to do so. The only players left are the ones who don't mind being ignored or verbally abused by the staff, getting raked up to 2 chips/hand when BTC is close to $5k (the Venetian is capped at $5), don't mind the lack of meaningful promotions, and who can blindly trust the man-behind-the-curtain management.

Hi people

Because I am bored to read hundred messages can someone please post for me if this platform for poker is legit and trustworthy.
Also, do you know a number of constantly online players?

Thanks a lot

No, I do not consider them legit or trustworthy. How would you feel if you found out from another player that the house had taken thousands of dollars from you for years and only refunded it when other players realized it on their own and called them out in a public forum? Because that's how players at SWC are feeling right now.

This is super disappointing to see --- would be really great to see a reasonable response to all of marlias' questions.

[BrokeNeck]

TL;DR: SWC reversed their position on providing player HHs to independently verify they refunded players in full and stated there is no appeals process if you find a discrepancy between your HHs and the amount refunded.

------
I have some more questions; some are old ones that were never answered, others are new.

1. Why did you reverse your position on releasing hand histories and are now rejecting appeals?
Can you please explain why you reversed your position on distributing hand histories between August 18th and today? It looks like something happened during that time frame that required you to block players from having any recourse or access to data that would prove you're an honest site. If I had to speculate, I'd guess it's because the numbers of chips owed wouldn't match (screenshots below).

2. When did the bug occur the first and second times, and why weren't players informed/refunded the first time?
Your players have given you the benefit of the doubt for the last 2 years that you are trustworthy based on your predecessor's good reputation, only to find out from other players that you owed them thousands of dollars that you failed to mention. Only then did you take action, and then with a 5-month delay. Even if this bug was unintentional, I cannot come up with a scenario where an honest site would find a bug that was stealing money off the table, fix it, and not inform/refund players like SWC when they found the bug the first time around. SWC has repeatedly ignored questions about why they swept it under the rug. Please explain how this can be construed as unintentional, because I would like to think that SWC hasn't been flat-out lying by omission.

3. Where and when can players get accurate data regarding their hands?
Poker players have no way to determine if a site is trustworthy unless they have HHs. The HHs that your client saves are broken and corrupted and this has not been addressed since the site's inception. As it currently stands, even if players personally saved a complete set of HH files, they cannot determine how much you owe them because the files are corrupted. Even if they could get past the data corruption and can show you specific instances where they have been shorted, it doesn't matter because there are no appeals. I do not know of an honest poker site that would not refund a customer who realized they were shorted and provided proof.

4. Why is SWC fading questions and decreasing transparency?
Why the utter lack of transparency and accountability about such a serious bug? You were happy to tell us what you spent on the leaderboard promotion, so why is information about how many players were affected and the amount of coin involved treated like a matter of national security? Some players were refunded close to a coin, although I believe it should have been in the multiple coins based on the incomplete data that I've seen. Why should we blindly trust that your refund code isn't buggy or that you didn't do a half-assed job calculating refunds when SWC has an impeccable track record of writing buggy code and doing half-assed jobs months or years behind schedule? You were doing well in the regaining trust department by stating that you would release HHs and a script so that players could perform self-audits. Going back on your promise looks extremely suspect.

5. Is SWC really "use at your own risk" now?
I have also seen e-mails recently stating that users should play on SWC "at their own risk" until the new client is developed (no ETA of course). Can you explain this in more detail? Does this mean that going forward, if a player loses money because of an SWC bug, you're not refunding them? This raises concerns regarding SWC's ability and desire to spread fair games.

I can't play on a site with a "use at your own risk" clause, close to zero communication with players, and who has done their best to obfuscate and minimize the fact that they took tens of thousands of dollars of player funds straight off the table under sketchy circumstances for which they won't provide concrete answers. You say it was an honest mistake and everyone was made whole, and I will believe you when I see the results of the self-audit. I resent SWC for taking a great site with a dedicated community and huge amount of potential and turning it into a raging dumpster fire during the biggest BTC boom to date. Their mismanagement has already alienated the majority of the player base and continues to do so. The only players left are the ones who don't mind being ignored or verbally abused by the staff, getting raked up to 2 chips/hand when BTC is close to $5k (the Venetian is capped at $5), don't mind the lack of meaningful promotions, and who can blindly trust the man-behind-the-curtain management.

https://i.imgur.com/fsIvrt1.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/yHtqLQR.png

Hi people

Because I am bored to read hundred messages can someone please post for me if this platform for poker is legit and trustworthy.
Also, do you know a number of constantly online players?

Thanks a lot

No, I do not consider them legit or trustworthy. How would you feel if you found out from another player that the house had taken thousands of dollars from you for years and only refunded it when other players realized it on their own and called them out in a public forum? Because that's how players at SWC are feeling right now.

As a customer who has earned more than 250k krill I find it very untrustworthy that your staff continually goes back on their word, like blowing off players who need hand histories and promising but never delivering on your software deadlines.  For over 2.5 years i was very loyal to your site, helped promote your site and arguably paid the most rake of any player on your site.  Management has done nothing but drive the site into the ground, while you continued to hide the truth from your players about the over rake bug and did not recognize it  until it was brought to public attention in the bitcoin talk thread.  Your tournament director has harassed, threatened and doxxed many of your longest rake paying customers. I also do not think that the response that was given about the refund policy was adequate. Your response basically told me to go screw myself.  Now it's time for you guys to give a nice public response in the bitcointalk thread that addresses all these problems. I find myself forced to take these issues to a public forum because when I e-mail support they show no intention of addressing my concerns or even replying in a timely manner. Trust me I can tell by the way management runs this site that i have more time and energy to devote to letting players know that this site is run by thieves than you guys have to make things right with the players you have been screwing over for years.  So please take a break from counting your bitcoins and take the time to address all the concerns in the bitcoin talk thread.

A long time loyal rake paying pissed off customer
BrokeNeck

[RunGoodFish]

TL;DR: SWC reversed their position on providing player HHs to independently verify they refunded players in full and stated there is no appeals process if you find a discrepancy between your HHs and the amount refunded.

------
I have some more questions; some are old ones that were never answered, others are new.

1. Why did you reverse your position on releasing hand histories and are now rejecting appeals?
Can you please explain why you reversed your position on distributing hand histories between August 18th and today? It looks like something happened during that time frame that required you to block players from having any recourse or access to data that would prove you're an honest site. If I had to speculate, I'd guess it's because the numbers of chips owed wouldn't match (screenshots below).

2. When did the bug occur the first and second times, and why weren't players informed/refunded the first time?
Your players have given you the benefit of the doubt for the last 2 years that you are trustworthy based on your predecessor's good reputation, only to find out from other players that you owed them thousands of dollars that you failed to mention. Only then did you take action, and then with a 5-month delay. Even if this bug was unintentional, I cannot come up with a scenario where an honest site would find a bug that was stealing money off the table, fix it, and not inform/refund players like SWC when they found the bug the first time around. SWC has repeatedly ignored questions about why they swept it under the rug. Please explain how this can be construed as unintentional, because I would like to think that SWC hasn't been flat-out lying by omission.

3. Where and when can players get accurate data regarding their hands?
Poker players have no way to determine if a site is trustworthy unless they have HHs. The HHs that your client saves are broken and corrupted and this has not been addressed since the site's inception. As it currently stands, even if players personally saved a complete set of HH files, they cannot determine how much you owe them because the files are corrupted. Even if they could get past the data corruption and can show you specific instances where they have been shorted, it doesn't matter because there are no appeals. I do not know of an honest poker site that would not refund a customer who realized they were shorted and provided proof.

4. Why is SWC fading questions and decreasing transparency?
Why the utter lack of transparency and accountability about such a serious bug? You were happy to tell us what you spent on the leaderboard promotion, so why is information about how many players were affected and the amount of coin involved treated like a matter of national security? Some players were refunded close to a coin, although I believe it should have been in the multiple coins based on the incomplete data that I've seen. Why should we blindly trust that your refund code isn't buggy or that you didn't do a half-assed job calculating refunds when SWC has an impeccable track record of writing buggy code and doing half-assed jobs months or years behind schedule? You were doing well in the regaining trust department by stating that you would release HHs and a script so that players could perform self-audits. Going back on your promise looks extremely suspect.

5. Is SWC really "use at your own risk" now?
I have also seen e-mails recently stating that users should play on SWC "at their own risk" until the new client is developed (no ETA of course). Can you explain this in more detail? Does this mean that going forward, if a player loses money because of an SWC bug, you're not refunding them? This raises concerns regarding SWC's ability and desire to spread fair games.

I can't play on a site with a "use at your own risk" clause, close to zero communication with players, and who has done their best to obfuscate and minimize the fact that they took tens of thousands of dollars of player funds straight off the table under sketchy circumstances for which they won't provide concrete answers. You say it was an honest mistake and everyone was made whole, and I will believe you when I see the results of the self-audit. I resent SWC for taking a great site with a dedicated community and huge amount of potential and turning it into a raging dumpster fire during the biggest BTC boom to date. Their mismanagement has already alienated the majority of the player base and continues to do so. The only players left are the ones who don't mind being ignored or verbally abused by the staff, getting raked up to 2 chips/hand when BTC is close to $5k (the Venetian is capped at $5), don't mind the lack of meaningful promotions, and who can blindly trust the man-behind-the-curtain management.

https://i.imgur.com/fsIvrt1.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/yHtqLQR.png

Hi people

Because I am bored to read hundred messages can someone please post for me if this platform for poker is legit and trustworthy.
Also, do you know a number of constantly online players?

Thanks a lot

No, I do not consider them legit or trustworthy. How would you feel if you found out from another player that the house had taken thousands of dollars from you for years and only refunded it when other players realized it on their own and called them out in a public forum? Because that's how players at SWC are feeling right now.

As a customer who has earned more than 250k krill I find it very untrustworthy that your staff continually goes back on their word, like blowing off players who need hand histories and promising but never delivering on your software deadlines.  For over 2.5 years i was very loyal to your site, helped promote your site and arguably paid the most rake of any player on your site.  Management has done nothing but drive the site into the ground, while you continued to hide the truth from your players about the over rake bug and did not recognize it  until it was brought to public attention in the bitcoin talk thread.  Your tournament director has harassed, threatened and doxxed many of your longest rake paying customers. I also do not think that the response that was given about the refund policy was adequate. Your response basically told me to go screw myself.  Now it's time for you guys to give a nice public response in the bitcointalk thread that addresses all these problems. I find myself forced to take these issues to a public forum because when I e-mail support they show no intention of addressing my concerns or even replying in a timely manner. Trust me I can tell by the way management runs this site that i have more time and energy to devote to letting players know that this site is run by thieves than you guys have to make things right with the players you have been screwing over for years.  So please take a break from counting your bitcoins and take the time to address all the concerns in the bitcoin talk thread.

A long time loyal rake paying pissed off customer
BrokeNeck

Wtf is this true? Any evidence to back up this claim there BrokeNeck?

Surely a company with any kind of integrity or common sense would have fired an employee who threatened their own customers.

[looseleo]

platform = very solid and smooth; wide game selection from NLHE to Open Chinese poker.

Trustworthiness = been on there about 6 months, never had an issue depositing or cashing out (withdraws happen with 0-6 hours).

Player volume = low, but higher on the weekends.

Support quality = very professional/prompt.

*Other Notables*

They offer free-rolls which don't require krill/depositing.

The "krill" concept combines the concept of "player status levels" with rake-back/perks. The higher your krill, the higher rack back return; there's a visual matrix on the site that explains in detail the levels/return %.

Another benefit of krill is it qualifies you for GTD's (guaranteed prize pool) tournaments. You still have to pay a buyin, but its small compared to the GTD (1c, 3c, 5c ect); some of the GTD's can range from 60 to 150+

your krill level/status is permanent/doesn't reset

1 BTC = 1,000 chips (this is a static ratio, it will never  change)

Min withdraw (at the time of this posting) is 20 chips (.02 BTC)

[TwitchySeal]

TL;DR: SWC reversed their position on providing player HHs to independently verify they refunded players in full and stated there is no appeals process if you find a discrepancy between your HHs and the amount refunded.

------
I have some more questions; some are old ones that were never answered, others are new.

1. Why did you reverse your position on releasing hand histories and are now rejecting appeals?
Can you please explain why you reversed your position on distributing hand histories between August 18th and today? It looks like something happened during that time frame that required you to block players from having any recourse or access to data that would prove you're an honest site. If I had to speculate, I'd guess it's because the numbers of chips owed wouldn't match (screenshots below).

2. When did the bug occur the first and second times, and why weren't players informed/refunded the first time?
Your players have given you the benefit of the doubt for the last 2 years that you are trustworthy based on your predecessor's good reputation, only to find out from other players that you owed them thousands of dollars that you failed to mention. Only then did you take action, and then with a 5-month delay. Even if this bug was unintentional, I cannot come up with a scenario where an honest site would find a bug that was stealing money off the table, fix it, and not inform/refund players like SWC when they found the bug the first time around. SWC has repeatedly ignored questions about why they swept it under the rug. Please explain how this can be construed as unintentional, because I would like to think that SWC hasn't been flat-out lying by omission.

3. Where and when can players get accurate data regarding their hands?
Poker players have no way to determine if a site is trustworthy unless they have HHs. The HHs that your client saves are broken and corrupted and this has not been addressed since the site's inception. As it currently stands, even if players personally saved a complete set of HH files, they cannot determine how much you owe them because the files are corrupted. Even if they could get past the data corruption and can show you specific instances where they have been shorted, it doesn't matter because there are no appeals. I do not know of an honest poker site that would not refund a customer who realized they were shorted and provided proof.

4. Why is SWC fading questions and decreasing transparency?
Why the utter lack of transparency and accountability about such a serious bug? You were happy to tell us what you spent on the leaderboard promotion, so why is information about how many players were affected and the amount of coin involved treated like a matter of national security? Some players were refunded close to a coin, although I believe it should have been in the multiple coins based on the incomplete data that I've seen. Why should we blindly trust that your refund code isn't buggy or that you didn't do a half-assed job calculating refunds when SWC has an impeccable track record of writing buggy code and doing half-assed jobs months or years behind schedule? You were doing well in the regaining trust department by stating that you would release HHs and a script so that players could perform self-audits. Going back on your promise looks extremely suspect.

5. Is SWC really "use at your own risk" now?
I have also seen e-mails recently stating that users should play on SWC "at their own risk" until the new client is developed (no ETA of course). Can you explain this in more detail? Does this mean that going forward, if a player loses money because of an SWC bug, you're not refunding them? This raises concerns regarding SWC's ability and desire to spread fair games.

I can't play on a site with a "use at your own risk" clause, close to zero communication with players, and who has done their best to obfuscate and minimize the fact that they took tens of thousands of dollars of player funds straight off the table under sketchy circumstances for which they won't provide concrete answers. You say it was an honest mistake and everyone was made whole, and I will believe you when I see the results of the self-audit. I resent SWC for taking a great site with a dedicated community and huge amount of potential and turning it into a raging dumpster fire during the biggest BTC boom to date. Their mismanagement has already alienated the majority of the player base and continues to do so. The only players left are the ones who don't mind being ignored or verbally abused by the staff, getting raked up to 2 chips/hand when BTC is close to $5k (the Venetian is capped at $5), don't mind the lack of meaningful promotions, and who can blindly trust the man-behind-the-curtain management.

Hi people

Because I am bored to read hundred messages can someone please post for me if this platform for poker is legit and trustworthy.
Also, do you know a number of constantly online players?

Thanks a lot

No, I do not consider them legit or trustworthy. How would you feel if you found out from another player that the house had taken thousands of dollars from you for years and only refunded it when other players realized it on their own and called them out in a public forum? Because that's how players at SWC are feeling right now.

As a customer who has earned more than 250k krill I find it very untrustworthy that your staff continually goes back on their word, like blowing off players who need hand histories and promising but never delivering on your software deadlines.  For over 2.5 years i was very loyal to your site, helped promote your site and arguably paid the most rake of any player on your site.  Management has done nothing but drive the site into the ground, while you continued to hide the truth from your players about the over rake bug and did not recognize it  until it was brought to public attention in the bitcoin talk thread.  Your tournament director has harassed, threatened and doxxed many of your longest rake paying customers. I also do not think that the response that was given about the refund policy was adequate. Your response basically told me to go screw myself.  Now it's time for you guys to give a nice public response in the bitcointalk thread that addresses all these problems. I find myself forced to take these issues to a public forum because when I e-mail support they show no intention of addressing my concerns or even replying in a timely manner. Trust me I can tell by the way management runs this site that i have more time and energy to devote to letting players know that this site is run by thieves than you guys have to make things right with the players you have been screwing over for years.  So please take a break from counting your bitcoins and take the time to address all the concerns in the bitcoin talk thread.

A long time loyal rake paying pissed off customer
BrokeNeck

Wtf is this true? Any evidence to back up this claim there BrokeNeck?

Surely a company with any kind of integrity or common sense would have fired an employee who threatened their own customers.

Who is this tourney director?  Glitch?  (been out of loop for a while)

[DarkDays]

While I've never been harassed or threatened by someone I'd known to be a site employee and I'm not sure how one would even know who the tourney director is (or any employee), Broke Neck has/is been a loyal player who has always struck me as an honest and ethical player/person online.

I've heard these stories before and never understood it, maybe cuz the only tourney I played was the Sunday 12g a half dozen times.  But it doesn't seem like GTO to harass players.  Like what could possibly prompt a site employee (do they chat in different colors? how do I identify them?) to act like that?  Doesn't seem like a smart move, from any perspective.

Speaking of threats, there is a punk w screenname Mamma that decided, in the middle of a HU 12g match I was trying to play, to call me a shill and accuse me of lying about getting a refund.  He seemed mad at seals, singled out yepimnaked like he was the antichrist and cussed me out.  I've been victimized by every single instance there has been: over rake bug, non-random button bug (for which I was compensated 100k krill after reporting guys' playing like 1 or 3 hands and then sitting out after buttoning me constantly), and the good ole' Kunty Kunter account.  But none of his bs bothered me - except for the fact that he was doing this in the middle of a $10/20 USD 12g hu match against a tough opponent, which I had to quit.  Don't care about none of the rest, but you tried to fuck w my money.  That's not something I'm happy with.

Mamma, please pm me so we can figure out a way to resolve our differences in person.  I'm happy to see you anywhere near Boston, foxwoods, or vegas next summer.  If anyone would like to provide his info to me, I will gladly pay for it.  I just want explain my side of the story to him in person is all. thanks

I know about as much about the losers who chat troll on SWC as you do, but I seem to remember people saying that that player was homeless and living in Buffalo.  So I doubt he's going to "fight you irl". 

The underlying problem, however, is a complex one.  Is free speech...even that which angers us...a good thing or a bad thing?  Personally, I feel that any speech, as long as it isn't directly cheating/colluding, is fine.  If people want to express themselves in vile or overly obscene ways, that's their right and exposes their character.  In the interconnected world of poker, I'd rather know someone's character and be called a name than have things sanitized.   

[RoKSeouljah420]

There's a block chat feature for a reason. Use it, quit being a tool, and put your fucking e-peen away.

-Bttb

[marlais]

Just FYI, as of September 8, 2017, SWC is still stealing money off the table.

This is despite their assurance in April that the "over-raking" bug was fixed.

We are deploying a fix to this bug with our next restart.
We had thought to have fixed this, but after a subsequent patch was applied it seems to have come back.

As shown in the below screenshots. The max rake cap for OFC is nominally 2 chips, but it didn't stop them from raking these pots 3.35 chips and 2.45 chips.

Will players be refunded for the coin they were shorted as a result of this bug, or is playing at SWC considered "at your own risk" now?

[SwC_Poker]

We are investigating the OFC hand that appears to have over-raked the pot.
We will make appropriate refunds and fix this bug.
SwC Poker takes this situation very seriously and will do right by our players.

[TwitchySeal]

We are investigating the OFC hand that appears to have over-raked the pot.
We will make appropriate refunds and fix this bug.
SwC Poker takes this situation very seriously and will do right by our players.

Some very reasonable questions were asked over a week ago. ==> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=962440.msg21431811#msg21431811

Sadly this thread is starting to smell like a Betcoin.ag thread.  Well over a year ago they over-raked players, then ignored it for months, then made things even worse with a half-ass resolution that they have refused to address ever since.  Things have been regularly getting worse ever since.

Hope you prove me wrong.

[RoKSeouljah420]

Just FYI, as of September 8, 2017, SWC is still stealing money off the table.

This is despite their assurance in April that the "over-raking" bug was fixed.

We are deploying a fix to this bug with our next restart.
We had thought to have fixed this, but after a subsequent patch was applied it seems to have come back.

As shown in the below screenshots. The max rake cap for OFC is nominally 2 chips, but it didn't stop them from raking these pots 3.35 chips and 2.45 chips.

Will players be refunded for the coin they were shorted as a result of this bug, or is playing at SWC considered "at your own risk" now?

ILY Marlais, and you are doing some great work. Sadly, in case you haven't noticed by my fruitless posts in this thread, the more noise you make, the harder you get ignored. Keep fighting the good fight though.

-BttB

[marlais]

ILY Marlais, and you are doing some great work. Sadly, in case you haven't noticed by my fruitless posts in this thread, the more noise you make, the harder you get ignored. Keep fighting the good fight though.
-BttB

I stopped sending e-mail to support a while ago for the same reason. I certainly don't expect an answer here either, but at least it's out in the open that they're still shorting people.

[ladypenelope]

TL;DR: SWC reversed their position on providing player HHs to independently verify they refunded players in full and stated there is no appeals process if you find a discrepancy between your HHs and the amount refunded.

------
I have some more questions; some are old ones that were never answered, others are new.

1. Why did you reverse your position on releasing hand histories and are now rejecting appeals?
Can you please explain why you reversed your position on distributing hand histories between August 18th and today? It looks like something happened during that time frame that required you to block players from having any recourse or access to data that would prove you're an honest site. If I had to speculate, I'd guess it's because the numbers of chips owed wouldn't match (screenshots below).

2. When did the bug occur the first and second times, and why weren't players informed/refunded the first time?
Your players have given you the benefit of the doubt for the last 2 years that you are trustworthy based on your predecessor's good reputation, only to find out from other players that you owed them thousands of dollars that you failed to mention. Only then did you take action, and then with a 5-month delay. Even if this bug was unintentional, I cannot come up with a scenario where an honest site would find a bug that was stealing money off the table, fix it, and not inform/refund players like SWC when they found the bug the first time around. SWC has repeatedly ignored questions about why they swept it under the rug. Please explain how this can be construed as unintentional, because I would like to think that SWC hasn't been flat-out lying by omission.

3. Where and when can players get accurate data regarding their hands?
Poker players have no way to determine if a site is trustworthy unless they have HHs. The HHs that your client saves are broken and corrupted and this has not been addressed since the site's inception. As it currently stands, even if players personally saved a complete set of HH files, they cannot determine how much you owe them because the files are corrupted. Even if they could get past the data corruption and can show you specific instances where they have been shorted, it doesn't matter because there are no appeals. I do not know of an honest poker site that would not refund a customer who realized they were shorted and provided proof.

4. Why is SWC fading questions and decreasing transparency?
Why the utter lack of transparency and accountability about such a serious bug? You were happy to tell us what you spent on the leaderboard promotion, so why is information about how many players were affected and the amount of coin involved treated like a matter of national security? Some players were refunded close to a coin, although I believe it should have been in the multiple coins based on the incomplete data that I've seen. Why should we blindly trust that your refund code isn't buggy or that you didn't do a half-assed job calculating refunds when SWC has an impeccable track record of writing buggy code and doing half-assed jobs months or years behind schedule? You were doing well in the regaining trust department by stating that you would release HHs and a script so that players could perform self-audits. Going back on your promise looks extremely suspect.

5. Is SWC really "use at your own risk" now?
I have also seen e-mails recently stating that users should play on SWC "at their own risk" until the new client is developed (no ETA of course). Can you explain this in more detail? Does this mean that going forward, if a player loses money because of an SWC bug, you're not refunding them? This raises concerns regarding SWC's ability and desire to spread fair games.

I can't play on a site with a "use at your own risk" clause, close to zero communication with players, and who has done their best to obfuscate and minimize the fact that they took tens of thousands of dollars of player funds straight off the table under sketchy circumstances for which they won't provide concrete answers. You say it was an honest mistake and everyone was made whole, and I will believe you when I see the results of the self-audit. I resent SWC for taking a great site with a dedicated community and huge amount of potential and turning it into a raging dumpster fire during the biggest BTC boom to date. Their mismanagement has already alienated the majority of the player base and continues to do so. The only players left are the ones who don't mind being ignored or verbally abused by the staff, getting raked up to 2 chips/hand when BTC is close to $5k (the Venetian is capped at $5), don't mind the lack of meaningful promotions, and who can blindly trust the man-behind-the-curtain management.

https://i.imgur.com/fsIvrt1.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/yHtqLQR.png

Hi people

Because I am bored to read hundred messages can someone please post for me if this platform for poker is legit and trustworthy.
Also, do you know a number of constantly online players?

Thanks a lot

No, I do not consider them legit or trustworthy. How would you feel if you found out from another player that the house had taken thousands of dollars from you for years and only refunded it when other players realized it on their own and called them out in a public forum? Because that's how players at SWC are feeling right now.

As a customer who has earned more than 250k krill I find it very untrustworthy that your staff continually goes back on their word, like blowing off players who need hand histories and promising but never delivering on your software deadlines.  For over 2.5 years i was very loyal to your site, helped promote your site and arguably paid the most rake of any player on your site.  Management has done nothing but drive the site into the ground, while you continued to hide the truth from your players about the over rake bug and did not recognize it  until it was brought to public attention in the bitcoin talk thread.  Your tournament director has harassed, threatened and doxxed many of your longest rake paying customers. I also do not think that the response that was given about the refund policy was adequate. Your response basically told me to go screw myself.  Now it's time for you guys to give a nice public response in the bitcointalk thread that addresses all these problems. I find myself forced to take these issues to a public forum because when I e-mail support they show no intention of addressing my concerns or even replying in a timely manner. Trust me I can tell by the way management runs this site that i have more time and energy to devote to letting players know that this site is run by thieves than you guys have to make things right with the players you have been screwing over for years.  So please take a break from counting your bitcoins and take the time to address all the concerns in the bitcoin talk thread.

A long time loyal rake paying pissed off customer
BrokeNeck

Wtf is this true? Any evidence to back up this claim there BrokeNeck?

Surely a company with any kind of integrity or common sense would have fired an employee who threatened their own customers.

Who is this tourney director?  Glitch?  (been out of loop for a while)

What an unfair comment from BrokeNeck. I was a computer programmer and I know how a glitch like this can be missed. Not only have they refunded everything, they've also added BCH to the refunds. That is a horrible programming task.

I've been on SWC a year, I'd take the, over any of the others any day.

[RoKSeouljah420]

Anyone ever get their BCH sent? I started the automated process, which stated I would receive my funds in 48 hours. That was about 60 hours ago. Can't say I'm surprised though, as SWC is at the technological forefront of dragging ass.

RIP,
BttB

[Dannyde]

Hi guys,

Not too involved with current controversy but a big fan of bitcoin poker, and SwC is a bit too inactive for my liking.

This might not be the appropriate place to post this, but does anyone use any similar bitcoin poker sites showing more life?

[shtako]

Hi guys,

Not too involved with current controversy but a big fan of bitcoin poker, and SwC is a bit too inactive for my liking.

This might not be the appropriate place to post this, but does anyone use any similar bitcoin poker sites showing more life?

There isn't any similar bitcoin poker site providing OFCp, Big O, Stud games, etc. And yes it is sad to see so few players at SWC. There are too many nits with nice krill status (from the old sealswithclubs) who never sit at cash game tables and play exclusively freerolls. And the increase of bitcoin price don't help. In addition, there is no incentive to rake more, like the previous weekly krill leaderboard did. It used to create a good action at midstakes. But I know the site was losing money.

I keep hope that upcoming new clients will attract more players and new promotions will emerge. It could be a good idea to create a weekly or monthly krill leaderboard according to each stakes : low, mid and highstakes. Or maybe some specific promotions in the most played games like OFCp, NLHE and Big O. And I am in favor of an increase in the rake if necessary.

Seals desperately need support for mobile devices. Today most people only use their phones for poker and gambling. The era of desktop grinders 16-tabling with huds is mostly gone.

[RoKSeouljah420]

Anyone ever get their BCH sent? I started the automated process, which stated I would receive my funds in 48 hours. That was about 60 hours ago. Can't say I'm surprised though, as SWC is at the technological forefront of dragging ass.

I can confirm I received my BCH. You should contact the support if you encounter a problem.

I've been in contact with support, and it's been 4 days since I initiated my request. They have yet to respond to my latest inquiry, sent about 24 hours ago.

Hi guys,

Not too involved with current controversy but a big fan of bitcoin poker, and SwC is a bit too inactive for my liking.

This might not be the appropriate place to post this, but does anyone use any similar bitcoin poker sites showing more life?

There isn't any similar bitcoin poker site providing OFCp, Big O, Stud games, etc. And yes it is sad to see so few players at SWC. There are too many nits with nice krill status (from the old sealswithclubs) who never sit at cash game tables and play exclusively freerolls. And the increase of bitcoin price don't help. In addition, there is no incentive to rake more, like the previous weekly krill leaderboard did. It used to create a good action at midstakes. But I know the site was losing money.

I keep hope that upcoming new clients will attract more players and new promotions will emerge. It could be a good idea to create a weekly or monthly krill leaderboard according to each stakes : low, mid and highstakes. Or maybe some specific promotions in the most played games like OFCp, NLHE and Big O. And I am in favor of an increase in the rake if necessary.

I already made a similar suggestion about the leaderboard, over 6 months ago.

Comparing Stars (pre-Amaya) and SWC is comparing apples and oranges. The main point being Stars used dealt rake, and AFAIK, SWC uses contributed rake. Therefore, they're not even in the same universe, let alone dimension, so let's not waste any more time on that.

The main problem with the VIP system, imho, is that there's no guaranteed value for your time. I never liked the fact that krill value was based on having to find the time to play a freeroll, and then running well/cashing high enough to get x amount of value for your time/krill. If you didn't cash, your krill was worthless. If you won a few of the larger krillrolls, then you had great perceived value for your krill.

I suggested that SWC implement a system like some other sites, where you can trade krill for tournament tickets or for bitcoin, at a below market rate. Your overall krill count would not reset, as it would still be an indicator of your rakeback level, but your total available krill could be spent, like FPP's, FTP's, etc.

While I agree that table starter rakeback is a nice thing, I always believed it was meant to be a way to start action, not as a way to game the RB system, which is pretty much what it has become. And while SWC does have some low rake structures, that shouldn't be perceived as receiving the equivalent of 50% rakeback since rakeback is based on what the site makes off of you, and you get a percentage of that back. If I don't pay any rake, I'm not receiving 50% of anything, therefore no value.

While I don't see any change in the overall rake structure happening at SWC, I suggested that they split the current leader board into multiple leader boards, one mid-high stakes, one low-to mid stakes. Leave the top 5 spots on the current leaderboard, then move the remaining prize pool and scale a leader board for micro/low stakes players. This actually encourages players who normally don't have a shot at the current leader board, because they don't play mid to high stakes mixed games for hours, to one, table start, and two, not leave the table when a fourth player sits down.

These were just some of my suggestions that were either shot down, dismissed, or completely ignored. As a realist, I understand that implementing even the smallest change in current systems could possibly require a whole rework of code, and therefore I don't expect anything to happen in the near future, if at all. But I believe the above suggestions would help to improve both new player traffic, and current player retention.

-BttB

Edit - Need more info about fresh krill. It would depend on the value of the "fresh krillrolls" and the amount of krill required/amount of days valid to determine if had any value. How about some 'old krillrolls'? You know, krillrolls for players with x amount of krill and accounts older than 2 years? You know, for still tolerating SWC and all it's feet-dragging? I'd even clear out some time to make it a point to play it.

Obviously, the entire post was completely ignored, despite SwC asking for player feedback at the time.

Regarding lluboski's statements about Krill, we recently discussed ways to expand the program to address that very issue - rewarding current players. The idea of "Fresh Krill" came about, whereby players would need a certain amount of "Fresh Krill" to enter certain KrillRolls. "Fresh Krill" would be Krill earned in the last X days.
It is still in the discussion stage and any feedback or new Krill ideas are appreciated.

It is time for the Saturday 420.
A growing Bitcoin Poker tradition.

-BttB

[DarkDays]

Hi guys,

Not too involved with current controversy but a big fan of bitcoin poker, and SwC is a bit too inactive for my liking.

This might not be the appropriate place to post this, but does anyone use any similar bitcoin poker sites showing more life?

All bitcoin poker rooms are going to be inactive or outright scams (like Betcoin).  The fact of the matter is, poker doesn't make the site a ton of money unless the site is huge, like Stars is.  So people spend a bunch of time making a site and then when they see low numbers day after day they kind of abandon it and stop promoting it after seeing the low turnout.  It happens with fiat rooms, too.

[RoKSeouljah420]

Hi guys,

Not too involved with current controversy but a big fan of bitcoin poker, and SwC is a bit too inactive for my liking.

This might not be the appropriate place to post this, but does anyone use any similar bitcoin poker sites showing more life?

All bitcoin poker rooms are going to be inactive or outright scams (like Betcoin).  The fact of the matter is, poker doesn't make the site a ton of money unless the site is huge, like Stars is.  So people spend a bunch of time making a site and then when they see low numbers day after day they kind of abandon it and stop promoting it after seeing the low turnout.  It happens with fiat rooms, too.

I think comparing Betcoin to SWC is a bit unrealistic. The thing about sites like Nitrogen and Betcoin is that they are sportsbooks with poker, SWC on the other hand is only poker. So yeah, generally speaking, compared to the sports side, poker generates a significantly smaller portion of a site's income. The same is true for brick and mortar casinos as well, where the poker room is more of a draw to get people in the door, in hopes that they will spend money in the pit or on slots.

Also, using Stars as an example to compare bitcoin poker sites to is a bit unfair, as Stars was well-established, long before Amaya took over. It was well known among the online poker community that Stars had some of the best value and one of the best VIP systems pre-Black Friday.

SWC had the opportunity to become the leader in the Bitcoin poker industry. The problem is they squandered it by terrible management, both of their site and of their initial capital. They purchased a half-ass client and went live well before it was realistic to do so, without any expectation of being able to properly update their software, or release timely updates.

tl:dr - It's possible to make a profitable poker site, but the onus, like any business, comes down to how you manage it. As it stands now, there's a glaring gap in the Bitcoin poker industry, waiting for someone to come along and capitalize on it.

-BttB