So it seems pretty sure either the site or the OP are scammers. The obvious answer is...

No, sorry. What I meant is that when a company says someone is a scammer, said company usually provides full info on how the said person is a scammer.

Also, I don't think I will show examples, but a good resource is BHW's sh! tlist section. (Just as an example, bhw is a marketing forum and they have a section dedicated to all scammers and the party that says someone scammed them reveals all the info).

Yea, the sections is called CrapList, literally. change crap for sht.

Actually, in the case of poker sites, they often don't.

they were pretty keen to post the evidence they deemed as worthy up to this point, just not the one that might make them look bad.

So you said you may have played the same table with one of your friends sometimes....but they have you playing at the same table with one of two friends 86% of the time. What is your explanation for this?

So funny... they know about this thread... know we think there are bots... people talking about it on the biggest poker site in the world and they don't even defend themselves lmfao. But are so quick to talk **** to this guy about how he cant do anything and they are going to steal his money, lmao

Simple explanation that is in my evidence reply.
I've played the site probably less than 10 days before getting scammed by cryptopokerclub.
I play most days 9am-13pm. It's a small site without many tables - and both other players play signifcantly more than me - so it was pretty much impossible for me to not sit with them since they are sitting every table while playing.

Generally in any small poker site if you pick a few guys who play at similar timezones/stakes, most of their volume will be together.

Every sign about this site now that I am looking deeper looks very bad. They have a twitter account with 200 followers that hasn't been active for a year with multiple people complaining about withdrawals and a lot of deleted posts. If I had to guess the reason they won't reveal my handhistories is because that would clearly show botting/collusion from their house players.

Yeah, well your replies make no sense to me.

1. You claim in your video that 90% of your hands would not have been played with your friend but their information shows it was 86% of your hands were played with one of your two friends. A pretty big discrepancy between what you told us and reality. How do you explain it other than you lied about the percentage of hands played together?

2. From your video, You signed up with a friend who you work with and coach together but you do not even know his player name (because you dont care, you are just there to play poker). I call bull**** on this one.

4. If it is true, how would you know if you sat at the same table with him? This is a poorly constructed lie.

5. Your friend lies about knowing you.

6. You identify your play as bumhunting recreational players. How would you id your friends as pros based on such a small sample size and no knowledge of their screennames?

It seems to me, that it would be impossible for you not to know you were sitting with your two friends for your limited play given that they multitable all the hi stakes games at a very small site and that the three of you were caught colluding/playing together.

this is easy to tell if someones pro or rec, so bad point

even if all of the above is true, which is a big even, this only goes to prove that 3 friends have played together at the same table. also notice how the evidence is constructed, one user has player 84% of his hands with the other two. how many did hands did player 2 and player 3 play with each other and player 1?
very easy to manipulate this to look concerning.

im very sure it would be very easy to confirm collusion of 3 players collaborating by exposing hand histories for the community to judge.

on the one hand there are 3 players with reputable names in the community willing to put their name on the line, on the other hand there is a dodgy site operator that goes out of his way to prove that 3 players that know each other have sat at same table or have same ip but no actual prove of collusion!

1. In my video I was accused of playing with one specific user, who I barely played with. In the site's later posted document, they amended this to include a second user. This explains the discrepancy. No lie was told, the site just changed their accusation because my point about not playing was actually true.

2. You can call bull**** but it's true, I only played the site for a week, and did not bother asking him for his name - he wasn't playing there often. Which is why we didn't play many hands together. I play on many sites at the same time so don't bother to check everyone's username all the time.

4. Two reasons - first, when being banned I found out his username and I did recognize it, but not as one that I had played with a lot. There were two specific guys who played a lot during my sessions, Tao_Dang and one other guy whose name begins with an "I" who was also starting tables. Second, he did know my username, and he told me we had barely played together.

5. I actually explain this in my document (did you read it?). He did not lie about knowing me. He got an email from the site saying he had been banned for multi-accounting or something like that. Then made an angry reply "no way there is another person from israel on your site". After which he told our group what happened and immediately realized his error. It was an unfortunate reply made in the heat of the moment due to being falsely accused of something he didn't do.

6. Generally when a player sits alone at a table, he is not a recreational. When playing a session, I join all tables that have 2+ players on them, and scan the lobby for new ones every now and then. If there are no players sitting open tables I will opensit them, but if there are I assume they are regs and don't sit to play them unless I feel like regbattling heads up. I also did know Tao_Dang's username, just not Richard_Geil. Most of my sessions were played with Tao_Dang at the table because he was just sitting all the tables while I was playing.

If anything about this doesn't make sense please let me know and I'll be happy to clear it up.

I'll add that all the points you are bringing up have nothing to do with collusion and I have no reason to lie about them. I'm happy to clear them up as much as you want any which way though.

When it is above board in a live room, I have no problem with three friends sitting at a table and soft playing each other and even bumhunting.

When these three friends did it on line and were confronted, one claimed he did not know the others, one claims they sat at different tables 90% of the time (which appears false) and claims he did not know his buddys on line screen name. I think these lies and a small sampling of hands played alluded to in the investigation letter is enough to conclude collusive behavior by the site.

just for full disclosure, i am the other player that got his funds confiscated.

also i should have suspected it was a scam when i tried to withdraw my money and suddenly started receiving offers to keep it on
why would he go thru all this effort to keep my money on the site???

Anyone who actually believes there's even the possibility of a non-zero probability OP was doing anything wrong here.....is clueless. Site is a scam.

This was your first response to being accused of colluding:

My reply:
Hi,
If the account is who I think it is (he also got the same message), we are friends who work together in a poker coaching for profit group.

You never played the same games as him, never knew his screen name despite, joining at the same time based upon the recommendation of the same friend but your initial response indicates you know the account and that he received the same message. Hmmmm, who sounds clueless to the possibility of a non-zero probability?

You are twisting facts - a bit like cryptopokerclub.
The fact is that both knowing someone and playing with someone are legal and do not constitute proof of collusion.
From the start I've asked the site to make things more public - which I certainly would not do had I colluded. The site on the other hand, holding all the
information, barely replies - just keeping the money and trying to move on.
I'm not going to get the money back - that is quite clear. This thread at this point is just here to warn others about the cryptopokerclub scam.

Let me reply one by one to the things you're saying:
I said I barely played the same games as him, not never. I think I said less than 20% of my total volume.
My response indicates I know the account because he got banned a bit before me, instantly told me about it. I went to check my account and saw that it was blocked as well. 1+1=2. I really don't see what you're getting at here. We work together in a coaching group and talk daily, how can I not know about this?
Regarding claiming not to know his username - I also claimed he did know mine. And that I know the third guy's user. These are all irrelevant tidbits. And if I did know his username? So what? I have no reason to lie about this, please don't repeat it as though it's an important facet of the case - I only brought it up quite recently and it's certainly not important in any way.

It is important because of it's impact on your credibility, which you have very little of. The bottom line is they have you playing 86% of your hands with the buddy on whose recommendation you joined the site and the buddy you joined with and coach and talk to daily.

You want 2+2 to believe that you did not collude because:

1. You did not know one buddy's screen name
2. You only played 10% of your hands together (now 20%)
3. On your honor, you never colluded.

With all of the discrepancies and incredulous statements, I don't believe 1,2 or 3 are true. When colluding is as easy as talking on the telephone while playing and sharing information, I think their investigation provides a strong basis to withhold your money.

You are sinking quite low with your post. I can't prove that I didn't collude. Can anyone? Why and on what basis are you attacking my credibility? There is a conflict here between me and an unknown poker site, with them holding my money, and each of us saying something different, but them not releasing any information while I am constantly asking for them to make the information public.

The accusations are baseless and lack any relevant evidence. I'm not "guilty until proven innocent". The site thinks I colluded, takes my money, and stops replying until I go public. After which there is one reply with repetitive/irrelevant/partial information, and again silence.

I want the handhistories to be made public so that people can judge for themselves whether or not I colluded. But the site is ignoring this request.

Just to be crystal clear because I don't appreciate being attacked:
If the money is returned (which it won't be) I would be happy for it to be held in escrow by a known 2+2 member and the entire sum donated to charity. As long as this thieving/scammy site doesn't get to keep it.

Dude,

Its a good thing for you that I am not the decision maker in this matter and i am just giving you my opinion on the internet. It is a fairly amateurish scam sharing information while playing poker online with your buddies. Even moreso when you get caught by a small club site. But in the end, your demands to prove colluding or donate my money to charity are ridiculous grandstanding.

I dont believe you. I cannot prove anything either way but I dont buy the bull**** you are trying to sell. End of story.

Fair enough man, you don't have to believe me. You've posted your thoughts and we can move on. As I said this thread is more of a warning than anything else.

I'll post my reply to your last comment:
Asking for a site to provide proof when confiscating money - ridiculous grandstanding?
Assume for a second that I am innocent. How would you expect me to act when falsely accused, money taken, and having no power to do anything about it?

You wrote "donate my money to charity" as if it's your money (you are connected to the club?) - I'll assume that was a typo.

Me asking to make things public and saying that I am willing to pass on the money is in my eyes very strongly correlated with someone who did not actually cheat. You are free to call these things what you want, everyone can judge for themselves.

Regarding it being a good thing you're not the decision maker - I agree! Sounds like you would be willing to confiscate funds without evidence. So lets say you read everything and you are 70% sure I am guilty - are you ok with a site that takes balances of 7 guilty players and 3 innocent players (and keeps all the money for itself)? Or do you think there should actually be due process when an unknown site with no address takes money from a player's account and adds it to their own account?

The "my" referred to your offer in the first person to give the money to charity. Also - giving your money to charity is the grandstanding. I dont work for the site.

In all your posts you still have not reconciled the fact that you actually played 86% of your hands with your buddies at the same table when you claimed it was 10%. I would expect a better answer than "i did not know my buddys screen name" if you were innocent.

If I were the site, i would ban the three players, including the affiliate. I would return the profits to the players you sat with and return your principal amounts.

Good luck with your quest.

I did actually reconcile that fact but ok...
Returning the principle amounts and the profits to the players I would have much less of a complaint - that sounds like a reasonable thing to do.

Cheers mate.

So you can't play with friends at the same table?!

the 86% statement is very missleading
there are 3 accounts in question, 1 of them hasnt been banned or charged with collusion why is he even part of the debate?
then there is the third account. what about data for that account? my account. how many hands have i played with sirrybob?