Pokerhost banning players for winning

[Dan Druff]

No, you didn't misread the thread title.

Pokerhost has one-upped Bodog and Merge in their never-ending war against online poker sharks.

They are now banning winning players, for no other reason other than their success on the site.

They are not even putting up false pretenses like suspecting the player of cheating, or anything like that.

Apparently these people ARE allowed to cash out, but their accounts are being closed.

Here are some reports from 2+2, mostly from reputable players/posters:

poker host closed my account account today, classified me as a shark

saying they are going more recreational and I won too much, and didnt deposit/rake enough(being mainly mtt player abi 6.00 ) (profit 2.4k in a few months of mtt) (chuckle)

they are cashing me out, and said I could go elsewhere on the network

I tried to log in today(after playing everyday), pop up, that account was suspended, I emailed the email address that was listed with the popup.

Then rec'd a phone call phone call from an unknown number, I obv knew it was them, since I had just sent email.

A guy with poker host said he had a list of players that were classified as sharks, and weren't depositing/raking enough, but winning/cashing out, so I guess my low buy in, but winning (brag) had something to do with it,and they were trying to take the more recreational route.

I also have friends that have made more then me, that have not yet been contacted. Also, I have made more on other skins with no problem before this.

Just thought it was the least I could do, and try to help the community, wish I had the proof to show, but all it was a phone call.

I have a horse who shipped a Maximus during the last series for ~16kish. He's played less than 200 games and his account got suspended today. The guys I talk to in regards of affiliate stuff confirmed that it is because he's won to much and raked too little.

Got banned for being a shark as well. Sick the site called me a shark :P

Confirmed from my affiliate.. PH IS banning winning regs..

[10:32:03 AM] me: banning all regs now?
[10:33:14 AM] PH cashouts: some few big winners yes

I don't understand this business model one iota. Scratching my head

Here is a guy who claimed he was falsely banned for collusion, then they just said they didn't want him anymore. This was very recently, but likely before they decided to just admit they were banning winning players. Note that this is the infamous "Mark275" aka "Ashley the Grinder", so take his claims with a grain of salt.

Reading this page has life-tilted me so Ill comment. I was a former PHOST player. I Was IpoophalfGREYhalfRED. I moved there from carbon because I heard of better cashouts. Played on PHOST 2.5 months id say and raked them like 40k, my profits were over that tho, I played a bunch, was loyal told everyone to play there that I knew...

THen 1 day I get the ban, callup and told im banned and that's final decision. Ask for reason of ban and im told collusion. I ask why and what is going on, im told they'll look it over, they assure me though my $$ is safe if im innocent. They get back at me 4 days later, tell me to cashout my funds and I just received all my $$ As of last week but that I can no longer play merge. I then ask them "why cant I play" I am told"you are trouble/not a good person/annoying customer/not good for us" I found it pretty surprising and spoke back saying"well I got the bigger games to go, made you guys nice rake, played a fair game of poker otherwise you wouldn't be paying me right?" then I said I admit I was bad to some players on tables I never really got along with many of the regs there. I never thought thatd be ban worthy though, just take my chat ya know?
Then I said"its a shame that being "annoying" in your guys is sending in reports on fuqin cheats and angle shooters.

BOttom line is they got ridda me cuz I was bad for business and they "have the right to do it" I now count 7 people and just found out that merge f'd over and giving the SAME treatment to 2 of the biggest sng players on there who been paying for yrs. Sad situation. I recommend people avoid pokerhost theres too much BS with them.

I will make a thread in a month or so showing convo's and some voice recorded things I got, Im just gathering a bunch of stuff(from others too their experiences) and getting things ready. THe convo's were between me and pokerhost management/merge management and different affiliates. I got screenshots too. ITs all pretty laughable how much of a fn joke this site is. I was staying quiet for awhile and will continue to do so, but the RECENT 7 bannings for JUST BEING WINNING PLAYERS has set me over the edge. I know theres gotta be more too.

Oh yah- I lost over 150k points, rakerace $$$ and blinded out of a 1k hu sng and $500 in tourney tickets...garbage site absolutely. I cant see how anyone who plays remotely high would play there.

[Dan Druff]

This is actually worse than it looks.

It may not just be the desire to make their games more pleasant for recreational players.

It might actually be a way to cover up financial problems.

Pokerhost has made it clear that they hate players who essentially take from the site and don't give. That is, they hate the ones that show up, deposit very little, run it up huge, and take money off the site. This is terrible for a poker room from a business standpoint, as that money leaves the site and never gets raked again.

In a perfect world for a poker site, nobody would win enough to cash out, but instead would consistently trade money back and forth through normal variance, with all of that money eventually vanishing due to rake. Then new money would routinely be deposited to replace it.

In short, online poker sites HATE cashouts, except the ones of the variety where a fish temporarily runs hot, and wants to cash out so he can feel good about "winning". But they hate regulars who cash out, because it yanks money out of their site's economy.

Of course, that's part of running a poker site, as it's impossible for everyone to be of the same skill level.

Pokerhost may very well be trying to bring the number of large cashouts down to zero, allowing themselves to operate with almost zero cash on hand regarding player deposits.

This is very disturbing.

[Dan Druff]

Oh, and in case you're wondering, Pokerhost is part of the Merge Network.

[BeerAndPoker]

It's the cost of running an online poker site to cater to all players. The fact is not everyone is going to bring in a huge amount of rake and the site needs to realize that some players generate a ton while others don't but you can't cherry pick your players.

What about the luck sack who puts a few hundred on and immediately registers for a mtt and binks it? This player decides to cashout everything. You can bet sites hate this but again it's what they signed up for by having an online site.

I'm not saying I like this idea I'm about to mention since I think a player should be able to play whatever stakes they want with their money but a site would be better off limiting newer players from being able to play at certain levels until they earn enough money to have something like 10-15 buyins (based on NL) to play them. These newer players would grind the lower limits paying their part in rake instead of jumping right into a bigger game with one or two bullets to lose it to the shark.

Now again I don't really believe what I said above but I could see how it would benefit a site better to implement such a thing, however, why should the sharks have to suffer from the newbies bankroll mistakes?

[Dan Druff]

This whole thing actually makes little sense, now that I think about it.

They're a skin on Merge, so why should they care if their players are pummeling fish on other skins?

These grinders actually make a lot of money for skins (due to the high rake), even if the somewhat decimate the player pool of the network overall.

So unless Pokerhost is secretly owned by Carbon or something, I have to imagine this is a way for them to keep less cash on hand.

[Crowe Diddly]

They appear to see winning players as their competitors in the game of fleece the player pool.

I had no idea PH was US-facing, btw. Not that I'd be depositing now anyway, but still.

[VegasJim]

Yea what is being said is 100% true. I was mark275,ashleythegrinder,ipoophalfgreyhalfred affiliate. Once he gives me the OK, I will release conversations that are mind blowing and couple phone recordings (quality is pretty shitty though). I wish the first 5 calls were recorded, but the last few still have evidence of how big of scum bags they are.

Ill talk to him and see if he would like to call up on radio and we can tell the story.

[Dan Druff]

They have also killed player-to-player transfers, "in order to comply with the new established network rules to create a recreational environment", according to a Pokerhost rep.



Bad news.

Killing player-to-player transfers only accomplishes two things:

1) Forces more deposits onto the site (bad sign for their liquidity?)

2) Makes it more difficult for grinders to quickly get money on the site


Other Merge skins, such as Carbon and Aced, haven't had player-to-player transfers for a long time.

[BeerAndPoker]

BUMP

http://pokerfuse.com/news/poker-room...players-28-04/

Now that they have moved to the Equity Poker Network, Pokerhost is back at it again shutting down winners accounts claiming the "small but growing network" can't handle it.

[Jayjami]

Banning players for winning is bs, but not surprising. When a few players crush the game, that means other people have lost their bankrolls and can no longer play. The goal of any poker room is to keep the games going for as long as possible. More hands mean more rake. They want to milk the cow, not bleed it to death.

This is why before the TV boom, card rooms absolutely refused to spread no-limit hold'em. Players went broke too fast. You could find a few pot limit games. Some of them, like the $25/25 blind summer weekend game at Harvey's Lake Tahoe, were huge and attracted the best players on the west coast. BTW, you never saw any of the "celebrity" poker players show up to play in that game.

Fifteen years ago, the only no-limit game in California was at the Player's Club in Ventura. It was only spread on Wednesday and Saturdays and the room closed at 2 am. Card rooms only relented because the players demanded it. Even then, they capped the buy-in so people wouldn't go broke in one hand.

[Dan Druff]

Banning players for winning is bs, but not surprising. When a few players crush the game, that means other people have lost their bankrolls and can no longer play. The goal of any poker room is to keep the games going for as long as possible. More hands mean more rake. They want to milk the cow, not bleed it to death.

This is why before the TV boom, card rooms absolutely refused to spread no-limit hold'em. Players went broke too fast. You could find a few pot limit games. Some of them, like the $25/25 blind summer weekend game at Harvey's Lake Tahoe, were huge and attracted the best players on the west coast. BTW, you never saw any of the "celebrity" poker players show up to play in that game.

Fifteen years ago, the only no-limit game in California was at the Player's Club in Ventura. It was only spread on Wednesday and Saturdays and the room closed at 2 am. Card rooms only relented because the players demanded it. Even then, they capped the buy-in so people wouldn't go broke in one hand.

This is all correct, but I should point out that NL holdem just wasn't popular as a cash game then. It only gained popularity after the 2003 poker boom, and at that point they had to spread it.

That Ventura card room is a dump, btw.

[Jayjami]

[QUOTE=Dan Druff;239426]

This is all correct, but I should point out that NL holdem just wasn't popular as a cash game then. It only gained popularity after the 2003 poker boom, and at that point they had to spread it.

That Ventura card room is a dump, btw.

Yes, it was a total dump. They have now moved to a new location by the auto mall. I haven't been there, but I hear it is nice and has decent games.

[TheXFactor]

Do you know what other casino company also bans you for winning?

Caesars Entertainment.

Druff must be an overall loser at Caesars properties.
Because if he was a $100K or more ahead, he would be banned for life for winning.

Of course, this would not include live poker winnings or sports betting.

All other games, video poker, slots, baccarat, craps, blackjack, etc., they are mathematically certain you will be a loser.

If Caesars casinos can't make a profit off you, fuck you, it's time to ban your ass.

[Jayjami]

Do you know what other casino company also bans you for winning?

Caesars Entertainment

Actually you have it totally wrong. Unless you are card counting or cheating, casinos don't give a rat's ass if you win or lose. All they want is action. More action means more profit. It is a mathematical certainty. If you win, they last thing they want to do is chase you away into the arms of one of their competitors. Then they would never get their money back.

The exception is sports betting. If you are a wiseguy (and there are very few of them), they won't take your bets. I suggest you read Michael Konik's excellent book "The Smart Money". It is a real eye opener on the sports betting world.

[JimmyG_415]

Do you know what other casino company also bans you for winning?

Caesars Entertainment

Actually you have it totally wrong. Casinos don't give a rat's ass if you win or lose. All they want is action. More action means more profit. It is a mathematical certainty. If you win, they last thing they want to do is chase you away into the arms of one of their competitors. Then they would never get their money back.

The exception is sports betting. If you are a wiseguy (and there are very few of them), they won't take your bets. I suggest you read Michael Konik's excellent book "The Smart Money". It is a real eye opener on the sports betting world.

I read that,
Who was he running for? He doesn't say, but it seems like Billy Walters, now that I've read and heard about him.
I'd never heard of BW when I read the book.

[Jayjami]

I read that,
Who was he running for? He doesn't say, but it seems like Billy Walters, now that I've read and heard about him.
I'd never heard of BW when I read the book.

My understanding is that it was Rick Matthews of the Brain Trust, but I have no first hand knowledge, just what I have read. Never been into sports betting. I can give a 10 percent edge to the house in a poker tournament and show a little profit now and then. I'm smart enough to beat a few poker players, but not the best linemakers in the world!

[haleylh]

I'm thinking that this is as much a PokerHost problem as much as it is Merge or Equity, in that PokerHost's player base is overloaded with players that on average are significantly better than those found on other skins. No one wants to talk about it, and I have contacts both at PH and EPN, but I think part of why PH was walled off (segregated) at Merge is the same reason EPN really doesn't want their players.

Since EPN has a "shark tax" designed to penalize sites whose players benefit that site at the expense of other skins, it falls to PokerHost itself to try to fix the "problem," and they're doing it in a direct but clumsy way.

[Dan Druff]

I'm thinking that this is as much a PokerHost problem as much as it is Merge or Equity, in that PokerHost's player base is overloaded with players that on average are significantly better than those found on other skins. No one wants to talk about it, and I have contacts both at PH and EPN, but I think part of why PH was walled off (segregated) at Merge is the same reason EPN really doesn't want their players.

Since EPN has a "shark tax" designed to penalize sites whose players benefit that site at the expense of other skins, it falls to PokerHost itself to try to fix the "problem," and they're doing it in a direct but clumsy way.

I agree -- at least with the Equity part. I made that point on radio this week.

The shark tax is terrible, as it is arbitrarily punishing skins for having successful players. There is no magical way to market to recreational players.

The only reliable way you can increase your percentage of recreational players is throwing off the pro ones, and that's exactly what Pokerhost is doing.

Terrible way to run a poker network.

Truth be told, I thought this whole "non-profit network" concept was flawed from the start, including how they allow sites to poach one another's players. The poaching situation nearly brought the Merge network down.

[haleylh]

I'm thinking that this is as much a PokerHost problem as much as it is Merge or Equity, in that PokerHost's player base is overloaded with players that on average are significantly better than those found on other skins. No one wants to talk about it, and I have contacts both at PH and EPN, but I think part of why PH was walled off (segregated) at Merge is the same reason EPN really doesn't want their players.

Since EPN has a "shark tax" designed to penalize sites whose players benefit that site at the expense of other skins, it falls to PokerHost itself to try to fix the "problem," and they're doing it in a direct but clumsy way.

I agree -- at least with the Equity part. I made that point on radio this week.

The shark tax is terrible, as it is arbitrarily punishing skins for having successful players. There is no magical way to market to recreational players.

The only reliable way you can increase your percentage of recreational players is throwing off the pro ones, and that's exactly what Pokerhost is doing.

Terrible way to run a poker network.

Truth be told, I thought this whole "non-profit network" concept was flawed from the start, including how they allow sites to poach one another's players. The poaching situation nearly brought the Merge network down.

Actually, what's flawed is the rakeback model, because increased competition means ever-thinner slices of a shrinking pie. That's how Lock got started, you know, promising the world to players and stealing them from other sites. I'm not calling PokerHost another Lock, but regarding over-high rakeback, when you are essentially vulturing other sites' players as your business model, you aren't growing the poker economy.

I don't know where the boundary is, but I think history has shown us that anything over 25%, maybe 30%, is unsustainable as a long-term model. And before anyone bitches, My RB was yanked from my Merge account, too, last year.

[Dan Druff]

I agree -- at least with the Equity part. I made that point on radio this week.

The shark tax is terrible, as it is arbitrarily punishing skins for having successful players. There is no magical way to market to recreational players.

The only reliable way you can increase your percentage of recreational players is throwing off the pro ones, and that's exactly what Pokerhost is doing.

Terrible way to run a poker network.

Truth be told, I thought this whole "non-profit network" concept was flawed from the start, including how they allow sites to poach one another's players. The poaching situation nearly brought the Merge network down.

Actually, what's flawed is the rakeback model, because increased competition means ever-thinner slices of a shrinking pie. That's how Lock got started, you know, promising the world to players and stealing them from other sites. I'm not calling PokerHost another Lock, but regarding over-high rakeback, when you are essentially vulturing other sites' players as your business model, you aren't growing the poker economy.

I don't know where the boundary is, but I think history has shown us that anything over 25%, maybe 30%, is unsustainable as a long-term model. And before anyone bitches, My RB was yanked from my Merge account, too, last year.

Oh, I agree. I said back in November that the "give whatever rakeback you want" model was terrible, exactly for this reason.

If you're going to have skins on your network, you need to tightly control rakeback and crack down on secret rakeback deals, or you will have another Merge fiasco. Indeed, Lock almost ruined the Merge network with their poaching, and then Black Chip did the same after Lock was gone.

On top of that, the shark tax is a terrible concept, for reasons already explained.