The only ludicrous assertions are yours. First your claims about your RNG/System have no credibility.

Second, some random poster who claims he won against KK could be his sock puppet, chip dumping co-conspirator or someone lucky enough to play KK when KK didn't have access to the super-user account.

We all have heard bad beat stories from fish and pros every day we've played poker and understand how people can get paranoid, esp. when they don't understand the games they are playing or the underlying math and variance.

But this is a long time professional player who plays at some of the highest stakes around, who has won over an immense amount of hands online at many sites.

And he didn't say KK ran good. He gave specific examples of ludicrous calls and plays that KK made and won doing, that have a hugely negative expectation without knowing your opponents cards.

The funny part is I'm perfectly willing to believe KK just ran super good against a couple good players and had no ability to see their cards. The only thing that keeps me believing that KK may be a superuser are SWC's responses.

I think the problem that I have is let's assume a player were to get banned (not KK specifically but anyone), we can only assume the reason was some type of cheating, as what else is there on an anonymous Bitcoin site.

Now once he's banned for cheating, what will stop a player from getting new accounts and new IP addresses and continuing on except now he knows he needs to be careful.

To be fair, the site does say that swc is likel the Wild Wild West and the only way to make sure you are not getting cheated is to play heads up, and I accept that. I just think that when the highest volume player on a site with a very small player base diapers and the site, says it's because he was banned, it would be in theor best interest to disclose why.

If it was for some highly technical reason, of which disclosing information would be bad for the site, I can appreciate it (like if he hypothetically found a way to hack players on the site by copying and pasting clickable hyper links in the chat).

Humour me and tell us, who audits the code and server setup.

There are sophisticated viruses, which exist solely in memory and are sold on the dark web. Having the rng or cards be generated in memory doesn't really make much of a difference when a server is compromised.

A smart hacker would rather steal from a poker site offering play to US players than any bank. I can think of many reasons but the main one is that Seals will never be supplied with any help compared to what banks will receive.

Anyway, Seals should at least be providing the banned users' hand histories and blacking out the screen-names of opponents the banned user played.
Seems reasonable to let people examine the hands and come to a conclusion of their own.

This is kind of an open letter to SwCPoker:

I used to play quite a bit on the old Seals with Clubs, and I found the site very trustworthy. I had no problem keeping as much as 25 btc on there, maybe more. The site owner was very open here and on bitcointalk. I didn't know his real name, but I was familiar with his posts in politics and other areas of this forum for many years, and he seemed to have the right mindset for running the site safely, and for dealing with customer service issues correctly. He also seemed to have made a very large amount of money buy buying bitcoin early, and this also played into my level of trust. No matter how well intentioned, people have been known to do desperate things when their business is threatened financially.

When the original Seals shut down, and SwC was opened, I was a little more cautious. Micon seemed to share the same philosophy for the site, but I did not know his current financial situation, and while I don't know the whole story, I know he has had controversial business dealings in the past. Once he was indicted, and stopped associating with the site altogether, I decided to withdraw all funds. I still play some freerolls and microstakes for fun and to learn new games, but that is all.

I think if SwC is to be successful, there needs to be some work put in to trust issues and customer service. Openness would be an important start. I may be off on this, but it almost sounds like whoever is in charge now has that kind of "post-iron-curtain" business philosophy that does not engender trust in the west. And you cannot simply rely on past performance. As Andreas Antonopoulos pointed out, there is a new phenomenon that came along with the bitcoin world, where unknown site owners could make a killing by building a reputation for several years, and then running off with all the money once there was a large enough amount on deposit. I don't know the solution to this, but if the site is to succeed this concern will need to be addressed.

Unlike the cash deposit sites, it is not necessary to park your bankroll on SwC. I leave enough there to log in and play.

That they only use emails on SWC doesn't have much to do with the privacy issue. Players often disclose their identities in various forums, personally amongst other players, or because of various types of money exchanges. SWC can't possibly have any idea whose privacy they would be violating since those disclosures are completely out of their control and beyond their purview.

If that is really a rep from swc posting in that type of manner; i recommend no one play there. Just terrible customer service

So how are they responsible ?

I'm not sure by what you mean by "how are they responsible?" My point, though, is that players aren't anonymous exclusively on the basis of being identified by the site. There are other ways for players to lose their anonymity through their own volition. The information that the site would be releasing wouldn't necessarily be that of anonymous players. There is no way for the site to separate out the anonymous players from the non-anonymous.

This is a point that I've made in the past regarding the release of info from other sites as well. People forget that just because a site doesn't identify the player, that the player won't be identified.

I appreciate their desire to protect their rule abiding users privacy. But not when the player violated TOS and likely was colluding or cheating. When that happens the fact the cheater disclosed their identity somewhere else shouldn't stop SWC from announcing they banned the account and why. In fact I argue it would be best if they reported the player to other online sites as a cheater.

I think the owners of SWC need to reconsider everything about their operating rules, or they will never build the necessary customer confidence to ever increase the player base substantially.

Well, I definitely don't know KK but although I'm confident I'm up against him.............I would love to know why he was banned. I play hu/shorthanded against everyone and am looking for answers to what happened like everyone else on here (whether I'm ahead or not against KK)

i don't want to take any side here, but imo a poker room shouldn't address details of an investigation - looks super unprofessional (even it would be "better" for forum users like us).


you made some valid points itt so far, but i was wondering, what do you think about OP. isn't it more likely, that he got attacked directly?

That's not the way it works here. If you'd like to post as a site rep, you can email us so we can verify you're legit, and explain the rules to you - like the fact that only advertisers can use a branded account.

I've given you my email address in your ban reason, and you can find it in my profile.

To others in the thread - we have no issue with SWC answering questions in this thread, and encourage them to do so. We just require they have their account verified before doing so, as the previous management did for the old thread.

the link to their tweet doesn't work for some reason, but SwCpoker confirmed that the person posting in this thread is one of their peeps:

BBB ‏@realbigbadbabar 21h21 hours ago

@SwCPoker just hoping you can confirm that 'SwcPoker' posting in this thread (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/28...eated-1545749/ …) is one of you guys - thanks very much


SwC Poker @SwCPoker Jul 19

@realbigbadbabar yes, but we were quickly banned from the forum.

Not sure why you think it would be unprofessional. The fact they won't even say whether it was collusion or cheating is shady.

And forum users like us are their customers. They need to find a way to convince us they are trustworthy and so far they are failing.

I doubt he was attacked directly. He was using a brand new windows computer dedicated to online play and KK should have no way of knowing who he is and what his computers IP address is, even if his windows install has some sort of remote access account on by default.. Unless SWCs client software leaks that information.

Thank you, BBB.

Please refer them to Bobo Fett's post at http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...7&postcount=89.

A professionally run site is not a guarantee either as UltimateBet was a professionally run site, except they were professional crooks.

Being owned is not suspicious by itself. What makes it suspicious is the way you are owned, where it seems that the other player knows your cards. It happened to me once right before Seals went under and I posted this in the Bitcointalk former Seals thread

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?to...70#msg10291570

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?to...00#msg10305400

I have never read a more self serving post. So how do they know they are more secure than banks??? LOL
I didn't know that Dutch Boyd was such a coding security expert.

If seals doesn't come through with the terms of our agreement, this thread is going to become very interesting. Stay tuned.


As I told management, all of our calls were recorded. So, yeah, think about it before reneging.

I'm interested

Now we have threats of blackmail from a banned alleged cheater who claims to have a secret agreement with management.

I'm pretty sure this cat's not going back in the bag.

I'm sorry. SWC has draw and mixed games?! I'll see you all soon!

Yea, you claimed to be KK and that you were never banned, yet you were unable to play on that account again.

Now you've recorded some random conversations with someone you claim is SWC management over some agreement you won't disclose?

You are all hat, no cattle. Can't you troll some other thread when bored?