didelisgenys2 wrote:Wrong, you were last to the party with PokerStars OS X support, and you screwed your early adopters who play Omaha by not allowing them to port the license when you finally got around to releasing Omaha. This was after you mislead people about Omaha support in PT3 for OS X. Come on...
Sorry, but you must be confusing us with a different application, your description matches complaints we would read from users about a different product designed for OSX, not PokerTracker. We were first to release PokerStars for OSX, and Omaha was fully available (and still is) in PokerTracker 3.
didelisgenys2 wrote:Sorry, your arrogance hopefully leads to your closure, and missing out on the great deal of money a lot of us have already made with bitcoin.
In order to be considered for support by PokerTracker licensed poker sites are licensed and regulated, they must request and authorize our support - something that Seals With Clubs owners have never done. (I just saw one of the owners last month in Las Vegas - not a word was mentioned about this topic). I attempted to find SWC's license to determine if they could met just the first requirement, there are no regulatory boars mentioned on the SWC home page or even the FAQ even though this is a standard requirement when a gaming network holds a license to operate to verify the regulatory body for player protections. Although this list could be fairly debated, the license regulators that are generally considered when a trusted list is provided include the Gibraltar Regulatory Authority, Lotteries and Gaming Authority of Malta, Alderney, Isle of Man, and Kahnawake Gaming Commission. Additionally there is a long list of regional regulators such as the States of Nevada and New Jersey, France, Italy, Spain, England (coming in 2014), and many others - SWC does not appear to hold a license with any of these gaming regulatory bodies, without a license players have no recourse or protection (again, I accept that "protection" is certainly debatable as well, but a license with an accepted gaming regulator is still a minimum requirement nonetheless).
Additionally I should reiterate once again that there are no credible poker networks that are licensed by one of the big gaming license regulators that supports Bitcoin, we would certainly consider adding bitcoin currency support for any existing supported network that decided to add this feature. We support the majority of major poker networks, but we do not support every poker network... there are larger networks than SWC that would gain priority if this was under consideration. Bitcoin is NOT the issue here, its SWC itself that has to pass muster, but they have not passed the most basic "smell test" to be considered for support.
Also, HEM supports it already, although you have to know what you are doing
HEM does not support SWC, this is untrue. A quote from their website dated 10/24 - "It will not be supported at this point in time.".
PJs Ronin wrote:Lot of one shot posters... anyone done an IP check?
I am friends with a rather famous bitcoin "talking head", he told me that boitcoin supporters are telling non-poker players to come here to request support in the guise of helping bitcoin. Thats a pointless effort though, bitcoin itself is not the factor here, we have no issues with the concept of a cryptocurrency. It is the poker site which just happens to use bitcoin that is the problem in this situation, if they accepted USD instead of bitcoin all of the same issues would remain.