What did I lie about?

Did you even read what I said or just not understand it? I said I wouldn't get the best seat, but simply be able to get a seat at the table or at the top of the wait list. If I'm only monitoring a table or 2 I often get a seat or get on the top of the wait list. It does require you to have good anticipation and make quick decisions, which is made easier with less tables to monitor.

Hi Mike,

I'd love to see a change that restricts player's ability to seat hop. Like if you leave a table, have the software force you to sit back down in the same seat if you wish to re-join the table.

Anyways, MCAChiTown has listed a bunch of good suggestions. However, it feels to me like you aren't all that interested in implementing any changes.

Maybe I'm mistaken though, could you provide a list of the changes you have made since you began posting in this thread? I'd be interested to see that list.

Was looking through my PT4 database today and noticed that 25NL is getting raked $3 when it's supposed to be $2 max. 10NL is getting raked > $2 when it's supposed to be $1 max. If this is accurate and others can confirm I will be pretty furious. Its straight up theft.

https://www.betonline.ag/help

Everything else where we slightly disagree could be due to different game conditions in NL and PLO/PLO8 where I usually play. Sometimes there is only 1 or 2 tables open at a stake and if recs come and go sometimes, having a 1 hr ban on returning to the table could be a big deal. I agree generally with your ideas and definitely support the theme that recs+game starters should get the benefits of changes and bumhunters and anglers should have their lives made more difficult/less profitable. I just think we need to make sure that suggestions aimed impeding bumhunters don't affect the recs and/or hurt the overall ecosystem as well.

yeah I've actually seen recs immediately leave the table after bumhunted

Seat hopping is pretty ridiculous and banning seat changes should be standard.

Almost 0% rake on table starters should be standard.

Not opening up new tables until the current ones are full is a decent method to fill tables up.

You have to be very very careful about banning for inactivity, especially in my situations where the tables become bot infested, and I choose to sit out instead of leave. Or when a table breaks and there are now only 2 players remaining. I'll sit out and wait for more.


Pretty much the easiest solution to every problem listed is to have a "seat me" button without the option of choosing your seat like some other sites have. But if this was implemented on Chico, I would immediately take ALL my money off the site (I just took half of it off) because the bot problem isn't being addressed in any way) because this system does not match up well at all with a bot infested ecosystem.

I guess I'll just try to have 1 table open sometimes while I am mainly grinding 888 and pokerstars. I tried guys, I really tried for you to help with the bot problem. I know how to fix a lot of it, but when bots like SuDDeN that have been there for YEARS are still there after I provide immensely detailed statistical analysis, this is a deal breaker for me.

To Mr. Fuss, I'm not sure how to filter for rake in HM2 or Hand 2 Note. I think I remember something about PT4 having rake calculation problems though. I don't know, I'll let someone else comment on that. Would be insane if true. But I would imagine if it was true, I would have seen it posted more often here.

So here is a hand history where effective stacks are greater than 100BB.

I mean...it looks like the rake is $3 which is 12 BB. Definitely over the $2 cap. I will paste the text form as well which shows a different river pot calculation method in total $ value instead of split pot value and it seems the same thing is showing, a $3 rake.

SDeddie has the effective stack of 32.08. There is 0.10c SB posted. Multiply that stack by 2 and you get 64.16 + 0.10c = 64.26 expected return once pot is won, assuming 0% rake. Pot returned is 61.26 which is a $3 difference. Can we get extra confirmation here? $3 is obviously above the sites stated $2 cap.

If this is true...I'm not going to freak out just yet...Mike needs to refund players some serious money. That would be potentially be hundreds of thousands of dollars stolen.

@ Mr. Fuss it looks like your 10NL isn't even hitting it's cap yet at $2.41. WTF?

what it looks like is happening is Chico is still taking $1 for BBJ even at the limits where BBJ doesn't apply.

Yeah if this is accurate it's hard for me to believe that no one else has brought it up. Im fairly concerned but waiting for more confirmation.

It looks to me like they're just raking more than the stated cap. It's basic math.



48.25/18 = 2.68
47.16/18 = 2.62
43.85/18 = 2.43

Well BOL isnt over raking pots. They're just incompetent. I found a different rake structure listed in their general rules.

https://www.betonline.ag/rules



Fairly substantial difference between BOL and ACR although ACR is a mess.

https://www.americascardroom.eu/play...al-money/rake/

pokerstars is a 4.5% rake with $2 cap at 25NL. Chico is 5.5% rake with $3 cap. That's an extreme difference.

Also the fact they still have rake structure charts on their official website showing a $2 cap for 25NL and $1 cap for 10NL is in fact fraud. In any normal system, financial incompetence and negligence to this degree could be sued over.

Unfortunately I don't have access to any regulated online poker sites. Sucks pretty hard. There are no good options.

Come to Thailand, I am living on $180/month lol (not joking)

I can't say I'm shocked at the mess that BOL is behind the scenes, I always get the impression they have too few employees, or are disorganized and barely functioning. I mean they have SUCH an awesome core poker product. Meanwhile there is still a laughably outdated tournament schedule posted on the website (while they keep advertising the new one), the fiasco over what software was acceptable, obvious scripting and blatant use of bots, a player VIP system that is basically just theft on their part, and more. On top of that, they are messing up our rake and falsely stating what the rake cap is?!?! That is not good and this stuff being on the forum does nothing to help drive new traffic.

I will say this - if anyone is reading this crap thinking whether to deposit here or one of the other guys, it is still the best for U.S. players IMO and where I put most of my volume in. Getting a sub forum here is a great step too. Customer support has always helped me out and they ALWAYS pay out on time. But come on Chico - don't settle for mediocrity!

Chico / Betonline, seriously - if you ensured everything operated in a professional manner, and made sure everything you planned to do was on point, you would have such an enormous opportunity to compete so many US players. We are ALL looking for that site that can be the defacto choice for everyone that doesn't have Stars etc. It's like there's just a few people behind the scenes, barely able run things and content to just collect rake from while they just focus on keeping their heads above water and keep it all functioning.

^ ^ Mike, this is a good post and I’d say that every single reg has similar sentiments. With Stars basically forcing players to look elsewhere for volume, it’s a golden opportunity for you guys to grab a big portion of the market share, and you seen content to just leave things as they are. I understand that regs aren’t your priority, but imagine the type of business you guys could do if you started to become the most popular site for US players to play on. It’s poor business sense

Hey Mike,

Please make it known to the responsible party that the FAQ Rake Chart located at https://www.betonline.ag/help is out-of-date. This has obviously led to the confusion seen over the last dozen or so posts and has misled any poker players who have previously come across that chart since the current rake structure was put in place.

I don't believe this was intentional since the one on the Rules page was updated around the time the current rake structure was put in place. I think it was more likely an oversight made by the person whose job it was to update the website information. Nevertheless, please ask for this to be corrected ASAP.

Thanks!

Well I won’t be playing cash here until this is addressed. What an absolute mess online poker is for U.S. players. So depressing

Thanks guys, hopefully the list will get updated as I have now requested it.

Some great points Cheapsuit and oladipo, and our poker team really is working hard to make huge improvements.

Kind Regards

Mike

My main question would be who had the bright idea of increasing rake cap 50% or more? Going from $2 to $2.25 for 25NL or $1 to $1.2 for 10NL or something comparable would be understandable. But to skip from $2 to $3 or $1 to $3 for 10NL (300% increase???) is just awful.

Not sure if Chico management understand this but players will literally take their bankrolls off certain sites they think are rake gouging them. Luckily they have a desperation moat surrounding them that allows them to jack the rake up comparatively with other USA sites like ACR or Blowvada/Ignition/w/e it is now.

As others have said, you guys are in a good situation to take advantage of market share. I had a conversation today with a former high volume reg who put in minimum 700k hands on Chico over the last 3 years...he told me he will never play on Chico anymore after trying out pokerstars. You also have other players stating in the thread (myself included) that they probably won't be playing much longer on the site. Many other high volume regs I played against last year are not around anymore either. Hmmmm....

The ONLY good thing I can say about Chico is that I never had problems with payouts. I've always gotten my money pretty fast.

Worse than this, they can't win and end up broke. A broke player can't pay rake.

I would add that their software is superior to other US facing sites imo. I have also had good experiences with their customer service.

This is a very normal request. Will it be followed up on?

Mike sent me a private message basically saying "Thank you for the information you provided. The security team followed up and took care of the problem. I cannot tell you the exact account names because of security reasons, but your information helped us in banning some accounts."

Then I log on and within an 8 hour period I find 5 bots between 25NL and 50NL.

litvla, Balabas, fireman, medic1, radiance

If I happen to find more I'll just list them here.

I know fireman was in the original complaint I sent and prettttyyyy sure litvla was as well as they are both part of the same strain of bot related to the other bots I sent data with more than a month ago.

Oh yes, yes I did. Here is one of the images I sent to Mike in Skype chat, which he read but never responded to.

Hahaha. Sudden and Tesla are still active too. Mike, what are you trying to sell me my friend? Somebody above you is blowing you smoke or you are blowing me smoke. I'm pretty sure you are not blowing me smoke knowingly because you know by now that I will post these things publically anyways. So someone above you is definitely blowing you smoke.

Sudden is literally the tetris lvl 1 I was talking about. He is one of the original king bots, the mac daddy, the tour de force, the one and only, as was d00ble. Sudden is one of the bots that literally in EVERY report and message I sent you, included his name and statistical analysis. He is one of the most well known bots on the sites for YEARS Mike! For YEEAAARRRSSS!

Come oooooooooooooonnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn Mike!

Come ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooonnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn nnnnn!!!

Really!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!??????????????????????????? ??

Wow, lots more than ignition. Not read rest of thread yet to see if response.

Morning everybody,

We had some outdated info on the help section of the website.

I just took it down and we will be adding the relevant content soon.

The most up-to-date info is on our “Rules” page:https://www.betonline.ag/rules#poker-rules

Okay, will keep reading, not depositing. Probably ACR.