WPN ''Steals'' more than 50k in rewards

so 200blitz actually runs better than 200zoom on stars.. they are really letting things slip

If this is the case and they are so spectacular, why would they grind so much time on 200b?

They thought it was the best option? highstakes is pretty grim these days. They even went over it. Some of us have access to good games. they do not. (they clearly made a poor decision tho)

I believe this guy. He puts forward a very solid point and I think acr should pay him out if they grinded and didnt get all that they earned. (I am legend rank at acr for 5th yr in a row so clearly have some credibility on this topic).

It is not surprising that ACR would do anything they felt was in their financial benefit. The site has been the most unreliably shady platform in poker for the last 5-10 years. Ownership is not trustworthy, support is handcuffed, and there have been botting issues on the site for as long as it has existed. Find me an ACR headline on this forum that is positive. Any time they are mentioned, they have done something shady.

Quick question first.

The rake back on ACR, does it become the players once earned, like cash in your account, or is it just a reward until it is cashed in by the player?

Examples:

A) Is it like the interest earned at a bank when you invest in a CD. Where once the time period elapses that money is yours legally.

or

B) It it like credit card rewards points or casino comps where you don't have legal ownership of those rewards until you cash them in

I haven't read thru the terms at any of the poker rooms but I'd venture a guess they reserve the right to revoke bonuses or rewards at any time at their discretion. Wonder where rake back would fall in regards to a reward. Even in a regulated environment the only thing preventing a poker room from revoking rewards as a money grab is they don't want to lose customers or get a bad reputation, not because it would be illegal.

Seems like a lot of the players are referring to the rake back owed as "theirs." Maybe they just don't know any better? 99.9% of the time it would not be an issue. They might want to be a little more cautious if they are from a country that may be deemed undesirable, or if they are part of a stable as in this case, or maybe just playing in a manner the poker room does not desire where they could invoke their right to refuse paying a reward.

Even in a regulated environment you might not have any legal entitlement to the rake back. Usually the business will cave if enough pressure and bad press is created. I'd still be careful though, if they feel the only bad press would be among other pro's they might just do what they did in this case. Pay the balance owed, refuse any rewards and not worry if it causes other similar players to leave. The fact that it could be unregulated just makes it that much easier for them.

50k in rewards x X number of players in stable qualifying for the bonus is the reason the matter was brought to public.

Another clown with less than 100 posts, telling me how I should react to a guy suspected of colluding in online poker.

Post count means anything? 😂

Unironically yes as low post count posters are more likely to be shills and/or people who have a personal connection to the topic they are replying to, and not organic posters on the site.

Its not automatically cashed to your account if that answers your question. It needs to be redeemed manually.

Hi zinhao,

Your stable is at the cutting edge of poker and it would be foolish to throw that away for 30K in rakeback at 200NL Blitz. I fully believe that you never meant for this to happen.

To expand briefly on my thoughts: If I was Nizza or Biluzin playing 200,000+ hands a month, I have one main challenge which is to remain fresh so that my poker skill does not get substantially worse over the massive volume. One of the easy ways to stay fresh is to fold more (less decisions = less decision fatigue). The best player to do this against is the one that I have least edge against (my stablemate) , so over time basically both players start to play a different tighter strategy against each other than the pool.

This tighter strategy saves rake paid (which is good when all matchups are -5bb/100) and also preserves mental acuity. This amounts to soft collusion, because another non-stable player has to fight for every pot with both of them, while they get to take the pots off between themselves.

Again, I do not think is metagame's intention, bu it is a consequence of heavy volume with a well-known player in a negative sum game.

I am on a similar situation, I really hope you guys are legit, it´s been 4 months sending mails nonstop and they do not care...

There is not always a hero in a story. It is possible for there to be two villains, an online poker site and a stable. It is possible to dislike both.

And you can question that “ they are seeking to just inform the poker community of the evil online provider” when they aren’t part of this community.

not cashing this rb out immediately is just foolish given acr's history

So if two strong regs that play the same schedule 3bet each other a little less than other regs, that's soft collusion? Realistically every player is going to have some opponents/sessions/times of day where their aggression deviates from their own average/GTO/pool averages/whatever metric you want to use.

Hey men this isn't true. All regs that started/play good volume at b200 were decent/strong regs. So i would vpip less vs all regs ? This would hurt my volume goal since i would have to play even more hands daily.
The situation you describe is the same if you sit to play vs any good reg on the limits you play. I don`t see your point.

If you have some update on their part please DM me. I have a very similar situation with even less potential causes of a red flag.

Ralph, you're taking a seat when it's half full of the same stable?

Nizza surely you don't share funds/strategy/databases with "all regs?"

Since we're talking stable let's talk entire farm. What's the crop of choice?

uh yeah like I said on page 1 I played them all and probably lost to them collectively so I don't have incentive to defend them

I see Bozemanite's point ... if the situation is marginal - is there a benefit to soft playing when you have a 0 EV hand? For example if Player A opens and Player B chooses not to 3Bet a "0 EV" combo - would that be to Player A's benefit?

Based on what I know, I am pretty certain it benefits Player A ... but I think if Player A realizes this softplay is happening, then the definition of what a "0 EV" combo is changes for Player B ... so Player A could defend tighter / 4bet tighter if he knows Player B is "softplaying" ... if Player B realizes Player A has adjusted then he can tighten or loosen based on what he thinks the more +EV response ... so on and so forth ... so maybe there is no benefit to soft playing here if the best option is to try and play close to GTO.

It absolutely benefits player A from a purely theoretical lens, player A in this scenario gets to over realise (frequency of getting 3bet decreases) and as you correctly pointed out would then shift both players strategies again and the "0 EV" combos to a new equilibrium. However these 0 EV combos are 0 EV for a reason, not taking the opportunity to 3bet/call those combos minutely swings theoretical ev, you can check this stuff out via preflop nodelocks.
A caveat to this is in wider range spots like 3betting preflop HU...not taking any 0EV 3bet is an obvious blunder for many reasons

This is a shame! I hope they solve the problem. I don't trust this site.