Two weeks in a row I clear the 150 points and and play the anon satellite then I get an email saying my account has been credited the $50 which it hasn't yet.

I'm not impatient but I hate when they email me saying I've received something when I haven't yet.

I don't think that is accurate. They don't make money when you deposit, they make money when you play. What they don't want is for donkeys to get turned off by losing all the time and leaving the site, so they want to level the field b/t donks and not donks so that more recreational players play and stay on the site. As far as their profits, it does not matter who wins, the volume is what is important. It seems to be working, Bovada is the No. 1 US facing site in terms of players that play cash games.

the CEO of Bodog has stated publicly they do not want winning poker players.

He can say whatever he wants...but what he really wants is to make money and for the player base to grow...however that may be. Think about it, if no one would be winning then everyone is losing then they leave the site after awhile, saying they can't win there. What they want is no HUD or anything to would give someone an advantage over one that does not use it. Most sites allow, they have their grouppies, then you have the non HUD grouppies and the only place is Bovada, so they have be little competition for those players.

You can play the satellite whenever you want.

You have no idea what you're talking about.

Tell me why!. As far as I know they only make money on rake and nothing else. Maybe a little interest on deposits. Why would net deposit players bring them more money other than the increase in player base and players playing. Sometimes you have to use common sense and not believe everything you read. Stars is the biggest and they don't give a **** who wins. That is want they one, to keep growing the player base. Anything esle make no sesne.

Very simply their primary source of revenue doesn't come from poker. Bovada/Bodog is a sports betting site. If rec player x wins at poker there is a decent chance he loses that money betting sports/blackjack/casino. If I win at poker that money won't be lost betting sports, etc. So it does matter who wins. If they cared about growing their poker player base they'd allow 24 tables, have some VIP program or rakeback, have numerous deposit bonuses, etc.

5th is better at explaining these things, maybe he'll chime in.

Do you have any data to back that up? That what rec players win at poker they bet on sports?

normally if u request like 9k or so, the first check will take like 2 weeks or so but the 2nd and 3rd check come in like a week. so if u wanna cash out a large amount (say 30k), request 30k via check and after the inital check u should get 3k a week. on top of that u can do the WU cashouts. after u play on bovada for a while u will have access to the wires.

yeah it's in Bovada's annual report

LOL, does it say there that recs bet on sports and regs don't? Using yourself as the sample size is just too small to be accurate. Also, a lot of people that bet sports there don't even play poker.

Of course you do not want to think this is accurate. Grinders often bristle at this perspective, nobody wants to think their action has less value to a provider. Denial is the most powerful drug known to man.

It’s not about volume, it’s about profits. Bodog wants to profit by discouraging winning players who take more than they give. The high volume model used by PS and others can, also, lead to profit. That is because, mixed in with the winning players are a lot of pretenders who think they can profitably play 24 tables, but can’t. But Bodog does not embrace that model currently. They have chosen the less volume, higher profit model. Maybe with the changes in the US market, they will switch, but they haven’t yet. They still limit the number of tables, and have sick software.

Try cascading or stacking tables and seriously tell me they are encouraging the high volume model.

What I said that they want is more players not players that play more tables. At any rate, the argument was that they don't want winning players. Is there evidence that a player playing 24 tables is more profitable than a player that plays one table at much bigger blinds, but really pays attention and cleans up?

Just opened a Bovada account today. Anyone have any tips for multi-tablers? It seems to be much harder for me than on other sites. I find myself timing out and making misbids, while still playing less tables (STTs, in this case) than I'm used to. Some of the things I'm finding difficult:

• Tables requiring action pop to front even if what already has focus is a different table requiring action
• Tables in the background requiring action don't pop to front after completing action on a different table
• If I have tables tiled (or really any time, but particularly when tiled), it's hard to tell if a table requires action (I'm used to the player box or some other thing on the table flashing)

Couple of other minor things, but that's the major ones. Are there any approved third-party software that can make things easier? Any other tips about things particular to Bovada software that anyone might have?

You said:
A player playing 24 tables produces more volume than a one-table player.

Lol, yes. The whole pre-bf, internet-poker-pro, I-want-to-buy-an-island-on-ebay experience was based on that evidence. The rationale is that a player who can make, say, a 5% roi by playing one table, can make more money by playing 24 tables even if he can only expect a .5% roi on each table.

Indeed, this question belies your own notion that higher volume produces more profits. You argue that volume is what is profitable for a provider, but then dismiss this very notion when it comes to a single player.

Simply put, Ps, Ft Stars et al, relied on higher volume, but lower profits per player. But since they had millions of players, they made more money.

Bodog, took the opposite approach. They decided to carve out their own niche market, probably because they did not think they could compete well with PS et al, and probably because their niche complimented their Book better.

Maybe now post BF they will change their approach, but they haven't yet.

A player playing much higher stakes can produce more profit than a player playing multiple tables at micro stakes.

Also, not too sure that a 24 tabler can keep the even close to 5% return on investment, and would have to play substantially lower stakes. Rationale is one thing but actually pulling off is another. Is there evidence of that anywhere? And can they keep it up without burning out? Also, what % of the player base plays 24 tables or close to it?

Is that not what I said, that they wanted the no HUD niche market?

The argument was that they don't want winning players. Just b/c they chose a particular niche of the market does not mean that they don't want winning players. I am sure there are a lot of non HUD winning players. It's overrated, particularly if you don't multi-table.

This shouldn't even be an argument. Bovada has stated this flat out in their press releases and interviews. If you want to argue that, then I don't think anyone here can help you.

exactly any nonbeliever in the CEOs statement is just a moron.

Have you looked at the hand histories and confirmed that your opponents were colluding?

Due to the very strange and wild play on Bovada, I often find myself more suspicious than usual during certain hands. I mark the hand down, wait a day, grab the hh, and check it out.

Any hand I've checked out so far has resulted in an "oh, yeah, ok, that makes sense. he had that and then he folded because of that. right. ok."

One time I was at a table where after about an hour I was sure I was being cheated. So I left. The next day I poured through the entire session, almost hoping to find cheats. No foul play found.

But let us know if you find any collusion. I haven't yet. I still think I will at some point.

And to your point about people buying in simultaneously for the same amount, well first of all, if they really were cheating and playing together, do you think they'd be stupid enough to buy in for the same amount? Unless it's something like $146.32 then I don't think you have much to worry about there.

And I'm often sitting alone waiting to start a game, then when one person appears, suddenly a second, or even third pops in immediately. It freaked me out at first, but then I realized it's most likely due to people watching the table waiting for others to sit before they do.

In short, the new and unfamiliar environment at Bovada is causing us to feel more suspicious more often. It's natural. But I do feel like they've given us enough tools to police our games if need be. I do think that, as per usual policy of poker rooms, it's largely up to the players to police their own games.

I will add one more thing. I am extremely confident that I've been up against some bots. I have complained to support about it and I too got the stock "we'll look into it but due to security we cannot reveal the details of our findings." That sucked.

What I read was what I posted before, that they wanted to level the playing field, or the perception of the playing field, saying that sharks are not good for the eco system. That is the perception that they want to give. Can you post the link to where they said they don't want winning players?

Do you have any link or info on where a winning player had the account suspended because they were too good? If you can post that then I stand corrected. Othewise, you are the moron for believing everything you read. The former CEO of Ultimate Bet constantly stated that the integrity and the security of the game was the most important thing. Then he waited for Ben Affleck to log in and to play him knowing his hole cards.

And if you really believe what you say, why are you playing on a site that does not want you to be a winning player?

totally standard hands imo. when you played on stars i guess you didnt get bad beats

Look I found the exact press release that says bovada hates whinning players


http://calvinayre.com/2012/01/23/pok...nning-players/

On another note... Does anyone's default buy in setting work? I have everything set for 100bb in the preferences tab, but when I join a table, the default selection is always 30bb. I have to manually select "max for table". Is there another setting somewhere I have missed?

set it to 101 bb then it works