[CoinPoker] Heads-Up Ruling: CoinPoker Allows Bumhunting & Penalizes Those Who Fight Back

[S3mper]

I would recommend making your case in the Coin Poker Discord if you haven't already. I'm not certain they can 'overturn' a decision but if you politely make your case they may contact support on your behalf or something. At the very least you'll get your argument seen by more CP support including some pros

 

[maronza1]

I can definitely see why you’re frustrated, heads-up should be about competing, not dodging tougher opponents. Protecting someone who only plays vs recreational players really feels like favoritism and long-term it probably hurts the ecosystem.

I get that sites want to keep the casuals happy, but letting a player sit out every time a reg joins doesn’t seem fair at all. Do bigger sites like Stars or GG even allow that, or is this just a CoinPoker thing?

Right now it sounds like regs have to fight each other while bumhunters get a free “invincibility shield” 😂. No wonder you cashed out.

 

[13Meow37]

I would recommend making your case in the Coin Poker Discord if you haven't already. I'm not certain they can 'overturn' a decision but if you politely make your case they may contact support on your behalf or something. At the very least you'll get your argument seen by more CP support including some pros

Ill try !

 

[MK_]

I disagree with this is bum hunting. If he's playing everyone, he can also look for favorable games. Bum hunting is only targeting specific players and refusing to play anyone outside of those specific players. Saying any time someone sits with a fish or 'x' player when they see them is essentially arguing table selection is bum hunting. With HU there can be a less clear line between table selection and bum hunting but if he's battling regs I don't see how one could say he's crossed that line

I don't have the evidence so I can't see if that is what he is actually doing but assuming it is Coin Pokers ruling makes no sense. Why can't he play with this player if he's also playing with others? What does it matter his reasons for wanting to play VS this player?

...well you're right, you don't have the evidence just one side of the story.., just a simple cursory read of the original post

admitting in his own words of chasing specific players and sitting just to intentionally block players...

that's clearly targeting specific players, I'm still waiting on this email... must be a doozy 😎👍

 

[S3mper]

...well you're right, you don't have the evidence just one side of the story.., just a simple cursory read of the original post

Right, based solely on OPs side of things I'm concluding that it's not bum hunting - If OP isn't doing as he says it could very well be. but people are concluding it is bum hunting based on OPs story which I disagree

admitting in his own words of chasing specific players and sitting just to intentionally block players...

that's clearly targeting specific players, I'm still waiting on this email... must be a doozy 😅👍

OP's definition of targetting as written and the rules definition of targetting are not the same. The rules specifically states that targeting is defined as "only choosing to play against perceived weaker players while avoiding stronger ones." Not as just sitting specific players. If using just the latter as defining targeting/bum hunting then table selection would be against the rules.

 

[MK_]

Right, based solely on OPs side of things I'm concluding that it's not bum hunting - If OP isn't doing as he says it could very well be. but people are concluding it is bum hunting based on OPs story which I disagree


OP's definition of targetting as written and the rules definition of targetting are not the same. The rules specifically states that targeting is defined as "only choosing to play against perceived weaker players while avoiding stronger ones." Not as just sitting specific players. If using just the latter as defining targeting/bum hunting then table selection would be against the rules.

I don't think you can use just the part that agrees with your point.... it's not just about table selection....

it's about targeting specific players which he admits to doing .... in his own words he's sitting to block

specific players, chasing specific players..., that's more than sitting at a table waiting,

he should be happy all they said was he was "essentially" bumhunting, no poker site should allow

people chasing players around and targeting them personally, they also said his attitude was

predatory so I don't think we're getting all the info and seeing the whole picture,

..... I'm sure that email is coming any day now😎👍

 

[S3mper]

I don't think you can use just the part that agrees with your point.... it's not just about table selection....

it's about targeting specific players which he admits to doing .... in his own words he's sitting to block

specific players, chasing specific players..., that's more than sitting at a table waiting,

he should be happy all they said was he was "essentially" bumhunting, no poker site should allow people

chasing players around and targeting them personally, but I don't think we're getting all the info and

seeing the whole picture, ..... I'm sure that email is coming any day now😎👍

If he's just in the lobby watching tables waiting for 'x' player to sit down to sit him then yes that is against the rules.
Playing or sitting while waiting at tables and then seeing 'x' player sit down and playing against them is not against the rules.

Again targeting is defined in Coin Pokers rules and by their definition he is not targeting (As told in the story). Although he's keeping an eye out for specific players the fact that he is playing everyone gives him that right.

 

[13Meow37]

@S3mper you are losing your time arguing with those guys, they just want to be contrary just for the sake of it, regardless of logic...
Now that they dont have any more ideas to argue, they are just saying the original post is a liar

Btw, im not very comfortable with the idea of sharing personal mails publicly.
Here a preview, if you have very good eyes you could have a clue. Like I said Im done posting smart messages to you guys, Ill be trolling like you do.

 

[MK_]

If he's just in the lobby watching tables waiting for 'x' player to sit down to sit him then yes that is against the rules.
Playing or sitting while waiting at tables and then seeing 'x' player sit down and playing against them is not against the rules.

Again targeting is defined in Coin Pokers rules and by their definition he is not targeting (As told in the story). Although he's keeping an eye out for specific players the fact that he is playing everyone gives him that right.

Special shoutout to "AboveAverage", who literally ends his session as soon as I start chasing him 😂.

...in his own words he's chasing specific players, that's the very definition of targeting,

the fact that he's playing everyone is not a fact.... we don't actually know who he's playing,

the poker site knows and they disagree👍

 

[S3mper]

Special shoutout to "AboveAverage", who literally ends his session as soon as I start chasing him 😂.

...in his own words he's chasing specific players, that's the very definition of targeting,

The definition of targeting in general is not the same as the rules of targeting. CP has no rules about chasing and such a rule wouldn't even make sense because the rules state that if a player is sitting at a table they are expected to play whoever sits. If a player doesn't like this they don't get to start HU tables. Above Average is the one breaking the rules in this story not OP. I say this down below but I'll say it up here too. This assumes OP's story is accurate.

the fact that he's playing everyone is not a fact.... we don't actually know who he's playing,

Sure. I'm only basing my opinion on the story. It's not a hardline stance where I'm knocking down CP's door as I don't have the evidence.

the poker site knows and they disagree👍

Possible that the evidence contradicts OP and this is why they disagree but it's also possible they are wrong. Either way my stance is OP isn't bum hunting based on the story I read but could be if he's not doing as he says.

 

[S3mper]

We might just have to agree to disagree at this point as I've run out of things I can say where I wouldn't just be repeating myself. But if OP is telling the truth and Coin Poker reverses their decision you owe me $5 lol

 

[MK_]

We might just have to agree to disagree at this point as I've run out of things I can say where I wouldn't just be repeating myself. But if OP is telling te truth and Coin Poker reverses their decision you owe me $5 lol

... alrighty😎👍

 

[S3mper]

@S3mper you are losing your time arguing with those guys, they just want to be contrary just for the sake of it, regardless of logic...
Now that they dont have any more ideas to argue, they are just saying the original post is a liar

Btw, im not very comfortable with the idea of sharing personal mails publicly.
Here a preview, if you have very good eyes you could have a clue. Like I said Im done posting smart messages to you guys, Ill be trolling like you do.

View attachment 392309

That's not readable but if you do redo these make sure to black out the email addresses and stuff

But let us know if they reverse so I can collect my $5

 

[Sunz of Beaches]

@S3mper you are losing your time arguing with those guys, they just want to be contrary just for the sake of it, regardless of logic...
Now that they dont have any more ideas to argue, they are just saying the original post is a liar

Btw, im not very comfortable with the idea of sharing personal mails publicly.
Here a preview, if you have very good eyes you could have a clue. Like I said Im done posting smart messages to you guys, Ill be trolling like you do.

View attachment 392309

Its not that anyone here really cares and waited for those emails lol 😅

wont even bother to zoom in 🥱

U can btw always grey out personal information or just copy the text if u scared to share. Total rocket science that is 🚀

 

[13Meow37]

Sharing private emails would be unethical.
I’ve already exposed enough about CoinPoker across multiple forums, and now even on their Discord.
Publishing private correspondence just to entertain a few trolls here would be a step too far.

To be honest, @S3mper , I highly doubt they’ll reverse their ruling.
They seem to be just as clueless as some of the characters posting in this thread.

Yes, I chase AboveAverage, SickOstrish, and a few other bumhunters who refuse to play me, while I’m here giving action to anyone who sits my tables (regs or fishes). At least AboveAverage got a normal reaction: he just leave the tables and dont block the action. He also doesnt send crying mails to the support. My problem starts when the security team allows them to avoid competition and play only negative IQ players.

I don’t ONLY chase those bumhunters, I also play anyone who sit my tables (repeating again and again for you)

Chasing bumhunters just helps pass the time while waiting for real action.

And here’s why I do it:
1) Because I want a fairer game. Top regs chase me across all my tables, and I play them. That’s how competition works. So if those weak asses refuse the competition they can try to play when Im not there.
2) By sitting these bumhunters, I deny them easy access to recreationals, which means those recs are more likely to end up sitting regs who are actually ethical… maybe even me, if I’m lucky.

Now, if your next brilliant take is that I only open the lobby to stalk three guys (who doesnt play a single hand) and chase them even when they go to the toilet, go ahead.
I wouldn’t even try to come up with a “smart” response to that level of argument.

Anyway… carry on.
You're clowns.
(With the utmost respect, of course.)

 

[13Meow37]

And to be totally honest, if LinusLove or any monster sat me on my most expensive table, yeah: that’s a situation where I’d probably avoid playing.
But I’d just leave and give them all the space they want. I wouldn’t sit out. I wouldn’t cry to support.

Do you see the difference with Ostrish now? Or are you still blind on purpose?

 

[MK_]

And to be totally honest, if LinusLove or any monster sat me on my most expensive table, yeah: that’s a situation where I’d probably avoid playing.
But I’d just leave and give them all the space they want. I wouldn’t sit out. I wouldn’t cry to support.

Do you see the difference with Ostrish now? Or are you still blind on purpose?

yeah now i get it......, when someone doesn't want to play you that's bumhunting

.... but when you don't want to play them it's not bumhunting, now if I could only figure out why

you feel the need to police the poker site instead of just playing your own game but you do you bro🤔👍

 

[MK_]

... I'm not arguing at all, .... I just don't agree with your premise, it happens, you'll survive👍

 

[fundiver199]

yeah now i get it......, when someone doesn't want to play you that's bumhunting

Avoiding certain players is not bumhunting. Its just table selection, which has always been a natural part of cash games. In live poker most high stakes games are private invite only games, even if they are held in a casino. And this is because, people obviously like to decide, who they play against. If sites want to prevent excessive table selection, then they can make a play requirement, as both GG Poker and PokerStars have done (10 hands). However if you are "chasing someone", as OP admit he does, then you are bumhunting. If you chase a lion, you are hunting it. If you try to escape a lion, you are not hunting it. But apparently this is to complicated for OP to understand

 

[S3mper]

I just don't agree that's bum hunting. Or at the very least it's a different type of bum hunting then what is the egregious form of bum hunting to truly be bum hunting you need to be actively avoiding ever playing VS stronger players trying hard to play with bums is not bum hunting. True Bum Hunters have outrageous win-rates.

That said the more I thought about it the more I'm against chasing players, they should be allowed to play and somewhat selectively choose who they don't play and chasing them around doesn't allow them the ability to play. And if one is abusing this by only playing the fish and is NEVER reg battling report them. Though Coin Pokers rules don't allow this I think some flexibility from the site and players is understandable.

 

[WrongUsername]

they right u are wrong move on.

 

[primrose]

Most of this thread seems to be fundiver saying

the rules say bumhunting=X, you did X ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

and you responding

it's different because [reasons that your action was in response to something worse] and [motivation for why you did it] and [clarification of you only doing it in specific cases] and [other facts about your behavior that make you more virtuous than fundiver's description suggests]

and then fundiver repeating

ok but this doesn't really change that bumhunting=X and you did X

and then you repeating something like the above, and then loop

I feel like I've seen this pattern a bunch, where someone is just stuck on the moral case and any argument that doesn't engage with the moral case doesn't get through to them. But the rules aren't like this moral arbiter that will bend if you can provide sufficient evidence that you're more virtuous than the person you're fighting with; they're much more a set of laws that will be enforced regardless of whether they're fair, or even make sense. The moral case just isn't relevant here. It can both be true that your behavior is more virtuous and the other guy was behaving in an immoral way, and that you've broken the literal rules and the site acted consistently by enforcing the rules.

 

[fundiver199]

This problem can only be solved by implementing anonymous tables or giving the opportunity to the players to change their nickname regulary.

Both of those are terrible ideas, that create a whole array of other problems, especially anonymous tables. The behaviour, which you exprienced on CoinPoker, can easily be prevented by a simple "play requirement", which both GG Poker and PokerStars now have. If someone sit at a cash table on those sites but then stand up again without playing 10 hands (unless the table is empty of course), they are prevented from joining new tables for a certain amount of time.

For the record I dont like at all, that sites have policies about "bum hunting", because its so subjective, what that even mean, and sites mix the term up with table selection, which is a natural part of cash games. But if you choose to play on a site, that has such a policy, it should not come as a surprice, that they enforce it, when someone complain about you following them from table to table. Which by the way it is just common sense to not do, even if a site dont have specific rules about it. Its basically the same as continuing to hit on a woman, even though the have repeatedly made it clear to you, she is not interested.

 

[S3mper]

CoinPoker, can easily be prevented by a simple "play requirement", which both GG Poker and PokerStars now have. If someone sit at a cash table on those sites but then stand up again without playing 10 hands (unless the table is empty of course), they are prevented from joining new tables for a certain amount of time.

I think they should go the complete opposite way, once someone sits, they are playing HU4Rollz or 20,000 hands and once the hand limit is reached the person losing gets to decide if they go for another 20,000. And of course they can have a buy-out clause.

As they say, "If you can't take the heat, go to the 7-max tables."

 

[neverbluff0799]

"Disclaimer: This is meant as a joke, don’t take it personally