Quote:
Originally Posted by CrazyAndy27s
I posted one the other day on Reddit and people actually got mad at me so I guess in general people don’t feel like doing it as it is ‘frowned upon’ which I find boring.
I actually looked up the 'potripper' threads.
Common theme is that if it's not high enough stakes; they don't care and assume complaining user is a 'riggie'; and they do get mad at users that aren't ultra high stakes users. (At one point in a thread a mod came in stating they were banning users who brought up other possible superuser/cheating and blatantly called them 'riggies' in a thread where it was proven at least one user actually was)
Common claim is 'low stakes not worth cheating at' due to 'rake being too high'.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Whenever the next scandal hits; mark my words -> It'll be at low stakes because that's the one place people refuse to look. It's too easy to claim 'riggie' against any user, and the common shared belief is low stakes rake is too high to be worthy of cheating.
(My POV is that if rake was too high to cheat at microstakes; it'd be too high to cheat at high stakes...so their logic is a fallacy. The rake is the same is the same is the same. % is a % is a %. Sure; it may be a lower profit per hour; but it's safer profit. Nobody takes complains by low stakes players seriously. They have a huge blanket of protection by doing it in low stakes.)
To be clear; there is no difference in rake between stakes. A % is a %. So why are all these users claiming low stakes isn't possible to cheat in due to rake being too high? My POV: They're colluding or doing some small scale cheating; and they want to spread the idea that cheating can't happen at low stakes so they have even more protection. (It's also possible that when they were playing back then; rake was different percent between buy in sizes)