Quote from: AHOYBRAUSE on May 20, 2025, 02:17:05 PM

I tend to favor taking their word over OPs, independent of anything outside of this thread.

Why? OP showed several hands that show normal results. He is open to share everything. SWC on the other hand just put out words, without 1 single proof. It would be SO EASY to defend their actions, yet just ignoring questions about proof remain unanswered.
So in your opinion the word of a site is worth that much?
[/quote]

Several hands show normal results, sure, but the first 64 hands without a showdown is abnormal. Just as only 1 showdown between 2 of the players accused of collusion in over 700 hands played together is abnormal. That's why I cannot support the flag. These aren't full tables. There's an average of 5 players involved in each hand. The fact that these two players only ever made it to a showdown together 1 time is an anomaly, statistically-speaking.

At the same time, I am not going to oppose the flag, either. I don't think there's enough evidence to know what happened for sure one way or the other.

Quote from: Free Market Capitalist on May 20, 2025, 02:35:36 PM

Quote from: nutildah on May 20, 2025, 02:00:29 PM

Exactly. They don't prove anything, which is why nobody should be supporting OP's flag against SwC. I don't have any problems with your negative trust against them, as its for other reasons. But as far as the flag is concerned, OP didn't really supply enough evidence that contradicts what SwC has to say about the matter. I tend to favor taking their word over OPs, independent of anything outside of this thread.

Although many times I have totally opposite opinions to yours, I will always take into great consideration what you tell me.

In this case I am open to withdraw my support to the flag but I would like you to specify why.

In my case, the reason for the red tag is the same reason for support the flag. I mean I deposit the money in your business and you take the money from me claiming that I have done something wrong, but you don't prove anything. I am not the one who has to prove that I have done nothing wrong, you are the one who has to prove it because you have taken my money.

The language of the flag states this:

"popek1990 alleges: SwC_Poker violated a casual or implied agreement, resulting in damages, in the specific act referenced here."

Per the evidence reported from both sides in this thread, and looking at it as a whole, I don't see either side's story being totally proven. You seem to be combining factors outside of this thread when making your decision to support the flag, which I don't think is a good idea, as each flag should be handled on a case-by-case basis -- independent of what you consider to be the casino's overall reputation.

In addition - aside from being wholly AI-generated - one of the strange things OP said caught my attention was this:

Quote from: popek1990 on May 19, 2025, 11:37:09 AM

I’d like to add one more important point.
The big all-in wins did NOT come from MichaelDE or Caroline93 (the accounts they claim were mine). Instead, they came from regular players like Easy1, BillySwords, and Valentinos77.

If these players are all the same person, then it would make no sense to go all in against yourself, as the goal is to get chips from other players. Hence the lack of showdowns between the (suspected) colluding players relative to everyone else.

Having said that, I don't know for sure whether OP is telling the truth or not, and can't rule out the possibility that he is.