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

I believe the question comes down to this: can softplaying result in more EV for a stable (or players within the stable) than playing a GTO strategy (assumption being no outright cheating such as card sharing is happening)?

A player facing a 3Bet is already in a -EV situation with their range (compared to if they had already folded - not saying it's not +EV to continue) assuming nothing too out of the ordinary is happening with ranges. Each player in a stable in the long run should be equally as likely to be Player A or Player B in my scenario - can a benefit be derived for all the players within a stable by not 3Betting the 0 EV/lowest EV combos?

I think it's a tough question because on one hand - it's a 0 EV 3Bet for (Player B) but -EV for the opener (Player A) ... which with simple math adds up to a net negative for the stable. A 0EV 3Bet minus any EV at all is bad for the stable ... (except when the rakeback outweighs the lost EV) ... but the equilibrium changes so it really isn't that simple. Player A could open wider, 4bet tighter, call tighter, etc. if he isn't getting 3Bet as much.

Strangely it almost seems like softplaying would be more trouble than it's worth, but I also suspect there might be some way to profit from it.

Simply put, ACR's argument was "soft play amongst players". This is such a weak accusation and can be easily proven wrong, so if they don't allow Zinhao to prove his point, or THEY prove this happened for their benefit, they cannot sustain this thesis.

I'll just give you a small hint: they won't be able to sustain it. They will either keep this as an extremely dictatorial decision, or they'll say: "upon further review, we were wrong, here is your money."

For the safety of players and companies working with poker, this CANNOT possibly happen. The fact we are discussing something done within the site rules is slightly revolting and I'll finish by saying: this doesn't affect you, until it does. You don't wanna be the victim, but keep supporting these atrocities and eventually it's gonna happen to you.

Seems you are arguing an academic point rather than answering what actually happened in this circumstance.

The fact that incentives exist to soft play does not amount to proof of soft play.

Exactly.
I’ve been on this forum about a decade and I’ve noticed two things in that time.

- 2p2/poker community universally agrees that poker site security/management sucks

- every ****ing time someone posts about how they were mistreated by a poker site, the thread devolves into victim blaming, finding reasons why the players were actually in the wrong and somehow deserved what came to them.

It’s mind boggling.

The other day I was chatting with a rep about making a new acc on a diff ACR skin for a RB deal.
Definitely probably won’t do that now because there is some chance ACR can claim I’m “abusing bonus system” (whatever the **** that means, what the **** is the point of offering rewards if not to incentivize volume) in the future.

That wasn’t my point at all, simply trying to figure out whether there is merit to Zinhao’s argument that soft playing in cash games is against a stable’s best interest. I think that argument is pretty close to the truth, maybe with some small exceptions. Just wondering if anyone has any proof (mathematically) one way or the other.

The reason people side with the site a lot of the time is that honestly almost every time someone ends up being allegedly "unfairly banned" by the site and complain on 2+2, they have been cheating, clearly broken the TOS or at the very least done something that the normal average player wouldnt. I.e played from a banned country under VPN, signed up with a second account after being banned prior (and then complaining "why wasnt my new account banned while I was losing???) etc. Or in this case, even where the case is murkier, the "stiffed" player would not have been treated the same way if he was a normal player who is not part of a stable - normal players understandably hate stables and can see the situation from the site's point of view when targeted by a stable who are playing on their site for the sole purpose of gaming the bonus.

The simple reality is that normal poker players very seldom get f'd over by the site (not counting shitty smaller scam off shore sites that routinely close down and take with them the players' deposits in the drain) in ways like this, because they dont do anything that the site can use as a reason to withhold big wins. If an honest player thinks "would I have done the same if I was playing on the site?" and the answer is "no", there is naturally little sympathy to be found.

It's hard to have sympathy for poker stables that are completely unethical sharing mass data, ghosting, and a complete drain on the poker economy. They should really be banned - would almost guarantee when a horse makes a deep run in a big MTT they are taking over/influencing decisions, and they have way more data to study from then the average player. The sites need to protect themselves against situations like this - greedy stables extract all the money out of the economy causing the weak/new players to leave, and ultimately games won't run at some point.

I just made 1000$ more in rakeback this month then rake paid am I cheating? No sometimes sites do things to win market shares they are free to change it in the future if they feel they got taken advantage of but they still have to pay it out. They can afford to take some losses because 90% of the people trying for it would fail. Its a drop in the bucket for them . Like any business you can choose to take short-term losses for market share

If they play from the same bankroll, then yes. It clearly advantages both players and we have no way to differentiate between "accidental" and "planned" collusion.

First of all sorry that this has happened to you guys, I know these situation are stressful af and I would be upset too. Hopefully you find some sort of solution to get some back.

After reading "tripleberryjam's" post about you guys potentially receiving more than 100% rb if you would play the targeted volume, I think that's the reason wpn decided to step in. Because you guys are probably not doing anything wrong indivually (if you guys telling the truth about not softplaying eachother and things like that which I believe likely to be true) and are incentivized to play max ev vs eachother. But from a stable pov let multiple horses (playing with their bankroll) play infinite volume vs each other with more than 100% rb while they are almost freerolling is clearly just exploiting the rakeback system. And I don't think it's super out of line from wpn to step in, they can still decide who plays and doesn't play on their site. Just the part of you not getting your already required rakeback is kinda ****ed up tho, hope this gets resolved somehow

I wonder what others think about this

and if the actual rakeback is not more than 100% pls forget what I said 😃

a system where players, in any way shape or form, can get more than 100% rakeback is very flawed

why? If said player can play more hands then everyone else and drive the site action by keeping the games running that otherwise would not is he not worth 100% or more to them? What if that's available to everyone but only one person is willing to do it? They also said they received far less then 100% rb a couple times but its such a stupid argument sites dont care when you lose 100%.
Many sites have volumn promos with lb's that can give over 100% rb to the winner for a day . Its pretty normal but there's only one winner. Its the sites choosing to do these not the players. This one just happened to be for more money

Sorry I'm not following here. Where does this imply that you're getting more than 100% rb?

This is why we see mistakes in this type of topics. PPL like to generalize everything. Because some mtt stables do bad practices they think all stables do the same. I not asking for you be pro stables. But just have some empathy as a human being and grinder. For someone who has worked like crazy, a lot of volume. so in the end the site ban him with no rational argument

this makes no sense sorry

Actual rakeback will never be more than 100%. If u reach the highest status u still getting 80% rb and this would start only next year. Right now we had 60-65% rb max. So even if we played 3 handed like crazy and splits the win;losses on the table ( wich we didin't, and never done since i join metagame stable 4 years ago) we would still lose money to the site.

Yes. When I was banned, I sent an email trying to show that what they were arguing didn't make sense and asking for proof of some kind of "softplay". However, they simply replied that they were not open to discussion and that the decision had already been made in a very authoritarian manner, as you yourself mentioned.

It is really revolting to see people here defending the site, because this could have happened to any other player and, as I said before, the consequences of this can even end a player's career. We have to put ourselves in other people's shoes and have a little empathy, because losing all the money from hard work, with a weak accusation like the one made by the WPN, it is unbelievable to have people defending this, because we are all in danger when a site does something like this. The security of your work is always at risk in this way.

and if you are playing your local cardroom, make the final table of a tournament, and find that two of your opponents are a husband and wife, do you go to the cardroom director and report them for collusion because they are playing from a 'shared bankroll' and you have no way to differentiate between accidental and planned collusion?

If they play a different strategy against each other than everyone else, then yes that's collusion. I think the tournament director has an awful scenario on his hands, because teams in poker are bad.

Maybe phrase this a different way if my 4 teammates and I sit down at a table with you. We "swear" we do not collude, but admit to one bankroll. Do you play this game?

Stables are a cancer on poker and no stable is ethical give me a break.

Anyone can be on a 'team' in poker, or have a 'shared bankroll' with someone else.

The standard to prove collusion needs to be focused on strategies taken like you said.

Instead, your argument amounts to 'they're in a stable, lock them up and throw away the key' and you're having trouble understanding why this is problematic?

They showed their databases to ACR so ACR could make a judgment based on their gameplay. Unfortunately ACR is hardly an objective party here.

I understand where you're going with these questions and although I have very little hope that you have the will to understand, I'll try:

We don't need to, no one in the world needs to do this. If you go to hh***********, statname.net, ********.com, you can buy a database larger than any stable is capable of producing. This war on stables and public opinion against us is just a tool that the websites managed to shove down your throat so that you come up with these bizarre accusations or these maxims that don't make any sense like "the stables dried up the game" and other nonsense . Anyone who has worked with data seriously in any market would laugh at people who say this, as these accusations make no sense. That's not how MDA works.

Now about hand histories or mass data: any private company has the right to ban any player it wants, without prior notice or for any reason whatsoever. Now tell me: if I have a bank account and get a statement, can the bank prevent me from sharing my statement with someone else? This fear of mass data only exists for those who are ignorant on the subject and don't know how to do it or what it's for. So it is very simple for the site to say that it prohibits sharing a document that is no longer its own, to use people who do not understand what they are talking about as a scapegoat and to turn public opinion against the stables and sweep under the carpet the real problem that they can't combat: bots and rta.

Who do you think found GG's superuser? Who do you think finds bots and collusion? In any serious market, all types of data are made available and people have access.

answering your questions:
1- no, because we don't need it.
2- this is ridiculous, any of these sites have a much larger database than this.
3- ghosting is something that happened in MTT stables in the past and that no serious stable does anymore. The accusations against Brazilians are completely unfounded and the result of envy on the part of those who are beaten by them. But obviously I don't even need to say why ghost doesn't exist in cash, right? Or are they going to accuse us of that, too? lol

staking is the biggest proof of guts anyone can have. take that person, teach them and put your own money where your mouth is.

You didn't ask me but I can tell you: yes, there are Russian bot farms that combine bots with players' RTA and MDA. And it's not by getting a cute hand history that pokerstars puts out for you to download on your app. they take hand histories even from sites that boast of not providing them (like wpt global) and do what they want, while the masses of maneuverers here are here hating real people who grind 200 hours a month.

including the security of sites like pokerstars which have always been held up as an example are poor, Russian bots have killed midtakes, highstakes and nosebleeds for years, that's all I can say.

Congratulations, you have been brilliantly brainwashed

you are not seeing the reality of how the situation works because you are too worried about hating stables without even understanding how they work: all players on our company have individual contracts, individual interests and individual deals, individual routines, lifes etc. there's no such thing as "stable's best interest", we didn't tell Rubens Barricello to stop the car so Schumacher could pass, they don't have common interests, we are not a pool.