The accusation is that GG bans players with a certain winrate, implying GG only allows breakeven/slight winners. Im just speaking from my own expirience since there is no one really going against he eco chambers of 2+2.

Maybe the issue is that winrates at NL are small. Most players are nits so beating the rake becomes almost impossible. But, just because NL ring games are very tough to beat it doesnt mean you cant achieve decent winrates at other games. Ofc I could be wrong and a great winrate could be achieved at NL since I know nothing about NL ring games but I hope you understand my point here.

If someone where to only bumhunt in the most predatory way they could, 40+bbs/100 could easly be achived. Games are that good, but people who provide the action dont want to feel like they are preyed upon. I hope you see the problem there. It think its safe to say that most winning players that dont bumhunt at PLO on GG are winning at least between 5-15bb/100 with rakeback.

Like you said, if people where getting banned just for being good at poker, we should be hearing way more from legit complaints that people are being unfairly banned.

You are assuming what you read on a free internet forum to be turh.

I dont mean no disrispect but the fact that you have been playing small stakes for years and think that you are good at poker speaks for itself. You are able to make money beacuse your opponents are worse than you, not because you are great at poker.

If people did receive bum hunting warnings - would it be worth switching to tournaments? I mean afterall you literally cannot bum hunt in tournaments. And every whale can have a hugely successful Bink in a tournament once in a while.

So just thinking maybe it would avoid any problems

This is good to know and re-assuring. Ive recently started at GG myself and was just getting worried reading these posts, that one day you could just log in to see youve been banned. Also i literally only play Rush and Cash so if i ever got accused of bum hunting -well, that would then prove these allegations. But my only other worry is they asked me about my gambling habits in casino via email - and i just wonder whether one day they may use that against me as a reason to ban me, but well see

It is a concern I dont know if it is true. Its kind of like if there were rumors that someone on my street was violent criminal and they looked quite rough. I do not necessary assume those rumors to be true I just try to keep a safe distance from them and associate with them as little as possible to be on the safe side.

I dont see how a personal attack on me is relevant I wont go into debate on whether or not I am a good poker player I am good enough to make a consistent profit but not enough to make a decent living. How you define good is always relative at my local Casino I may be considered one of the best players a strong shark. In small stakes games the same, If I sat down for high stakes on pokerstars I likely would be considered a terrible player and great money.

I think the reason I have played for years and not had huge success is I did not put much effort into study before. Recently my graphs have looked like a straight ladder up vs my long term history which appears more like a hike on a very minor hill.

I am showing promising progress since I recently started to focus on studying the game.

This is all utterly irrelevant though It does not matter if I am a terrible poker player or the best of all time. I am more then confident that at low stakes games ($10 and below) for sngs and MTTs I would be profitable on GG. Without sitting around resorting to bumhunting.

I just dont play there due to the fears that I have expressed. Its not I absolutely believe these rumors without question, its more I am unsure one way or the other.

wouldn't stick my entire poker bankroll on one game that would be stupid. However when you think about it that is in effect what I would be doing if I played on GG. I would be risking my entire future profits on poker for potentially very soft games which would be highly profitable. If its 97% chance It goes well and no bans or restrictions etc but 3% chance the rumors are true I get banned and restricted from other sites and lose any future profit chances then I would say its a terrible gamble.

The rake on GG low-stakes games is absolutely absurd. People underestimate it.

I ran a few 3max 50NL preflop simulations to compare the effects of no flop no drop vs raked preflop games. The rake per hand almost doubles.



https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/s...47&postcount=4

While you are away, learn the difference between slander and libel.

Libel is found in print, slander is found in speech.

Where? Did you make it public? Afaik you cant search up anyone's graph in PLO on GG

They don't rake SRP preflop IIRC. Just 3-bet +. I posted actual rake earlier. It's not so much more than other sites at low stakes.

some poster mentioned the bbj/cashdrop, how much p/hand is that tho?

for bbj you pay about 3-4bb/100 in omaha, probably a bit less in holdem because pots are smaller. in the long run you get it back tho, so not really rake, but definitely hurting in the shortterm

i think the vast majority of players realize very little of that equity in practice, there are ppl who have played 1MM hands and never hit it, ty for info tho

We can't find you. Please provide correct screenname. Tbh I'm not surprised we can't find you.

Rofl getting it back in the long run. You can run for your whole life and you ain't getting it back. Good god people are stupid. Atm plo even takes majority of the bbjps down and holdem funds them. Ignore you go.

Huh? So you're saying all these lotto tickets i've bought won't print in the long run?

With this data -- your statement seems delusional. So every high volume reg loses before rakeback, but some how "the average reg" should easily beat the site. Recreational players have to lose more than the rake for the average reg to beat the game. According to prime dope, GG rakes roughly 6.3bb/100 at 5/10, so a fish losing $378 per 100 is a breakeven game for the regs.

volume based doesnt mean a thing, those players often multitable a lot to win with rakeback while on stars you can max 4 normal tables

but this certainly says something:
if you search smart*hand top50 ev winning regs 50nl 6max last 180days on stars and on GG you will find that the number #50 on the stars list (+$3726) actually wins more than the #1 on gg ($3117)
number 1 for stars is $10594 for comparison.

Just what does 'good at poker' mean, anyway? There are dozens of stories of this and that pro broke, in debt to dozens of people, and robbing Peter to pay Paul. The math of the game wins out in the end. IMO, no one is good at poker in the long run. The key to success in the game is knowing when to run away and keep running.

This whole post makes no sense.

Well, that's just the regs that are left who didn't get banned...

Only fish are left in poker with a rake that is unbeatable. The good players evolved and moved on. That's what smart people do.

So if your playing. Your chasing a dream that no longer exists. You are a fish. Get with the times. That's what every good player did. Got with the times.

It's a sad reality, but it's also pure in the sense that it wasn't about poker at all. It was just about smart people being able to capitalize on an opportunity.

No.

this hits hard

ban him

its hard to believe this .I've played some small-mid stake low rake PLO game for 2 years ,and I had a 10+bb/100 winrate over 800K hands,eventhough I had 3 lost months and 2 breadeven months, I cant believe any PLO player can win every week,especially on high stakes like PLO1K