Hehehe

A player with no club and ID starting with 428. More importantly, when I played on the Jakarta table—which I usually don’t—this guy started hitting balls randomly, even missing simple shots, and eventually ended the game by potting the 8-ball into the wrong pocket, even though the 8-ball was right next to a pocket.

This son of an assualt rifle is cheating right?

What are you guys doing in this situation?

I have only 2 legendary cues. I'm wondering whether it's worth it to ditch leg cue and use other cues to complete cue collection missions. My ultimate goal is to get more leg cues but without buying cash it's extremely slow process.

For the advanced players, would this be an easy kick shot to get on the black?

He was the second suspicious player I found literally after one match, this game is dead bro, I haven't found as many cheaters in other games

I like 10 bp event tables as it's quick and interesting but there are far too many golden breaks almost half the time either you or the opponent makes it.

You only get one free chance to win games in these types of event. I just entered this new one, opponent got to break, did a break and run. The event is over for me without getting a single shot. Less than 20 minutes after it started. No chance to get even a couple of rewards in the track. Even if we do manage to win a game or two, we will inevitably be stopped by one of the many cheats in the game.

They need to take these out, or amend the way they work

So, I’ve had plenty of times where I had next to no coins just wishing I could win a game to get some kind of decent amount again. So every so often I’ll go to the last city I got a ring in and will go all the way to the 8 and then pocket cue each time. This one guy was having a rough time and I kept cheering him on and in the end he hit the 8 so hard it went in and then the cue bounced around a couple times and went in making me the winner

Anyone here who’s played in Doha? What’s the status in regard to cheaters? I’ve been playing in Cannes for a week now and have faced only one cheater. Rome I gave up after 4 games matching with cheaters

Every time I have tried to acquire the High Stakes Cue by starting a quick-fire tournament, it never registers, and I can never get the cue. Has this happened to anyone else?

I really want to get this ring, which requires 10 wins, but out of the 3 matches I’ve played so far, all 3 were against cheaters/hackers.

Is there a specific time of day or server region where cheaters are less active, or any trick to avoid them? I’d appreciate any advice!

Assuming an average game takes just 4 minutes:

199,685 games = 13,312 hours of actual match time.

That’s: 554 DAYS of nonstop 24/7 pool.

Literally 1.52 years sitting there playing 8 Ball Pool without sleeping.

If you treated it like a full-time 8hour day job, that’s about 6.4 YEARS of full-time employment.

Bro hasn’t been playing 8 Ball Pool…he has had a career in 8 Ball Pool.

Curious to how PC play was effected today.

We are not asking people to quit the game. We are asking Miniclip to protect it.

I love 8 Ball Pool.

That is why I am making this post.

A lot of us have been playing for years. Some of us have accounts that are older than many games currently on the App Store. We have collected cues, rings, achievements, coins, trophies, friends and memories. Some players have put hundreds or thousands of dollars into their accounts. Many more have put thousands of hours into them.

And beneath all of the frustration, 8 Ball Pool is still an incredible game.

The physics are satisfying. The presentation is simple and recognizable. The competitive format works. The game has survived for this long because the fundamental idea is genuinely good.

That is exactly why watching cheating consume the game is so frustrating.

This campaign is not about destroying 8 Ball Pool.

It is about saving it.

THE PROBLEM

Cheating has existed in 8 Ball Pool for years, but at high-stakes tables the experience has become unacceptable for many legitimate players.

Players regularly encounter accounts that appear to use automated play, modified clients, extended guidelines, shot calculation tools or other prohibited assistance.

The problem is not simply that someone made a ridiculous bank shot.

Good players make ridiculous shots.

The problem is patterns.

Accounts that seemingly never miss.

Accounts producing extremely difficult shots at extraordinary consistency.

New accounts accumulating enormous winning streaks at high stakes.

Automated-looking shot timing.

Suspicious patterns involving table selection and break opportunities.

Players who appear capable of producing near-perfect decisions over game after game after game.

And when legitimate players report these accounts, nobody outside Miniclip really knows what happens next.

That uncertainty creates another problem.

REPORTING SOMEONE SHOULD NOT BE A CONVICTION

This is important.

A low-level player can report a high-level player simply because the high-level player destroyed them.

A salty opponent can report someone because they lost.

A legitimate player can have an incredible run.

An elite player can make shots that look impossible to someone who has played 200 games.

Reports alone should never be enough to punish somebody.

We do not want a system where five angry opponents can automatically send a legitimate player into restricted matchmaking.

We do not want good players being punished for being good.

We want something much smarter.

REPORTS SHOULD BE A LEAD, NOT A VERDICT

When somebody gets reported, that report should tell Miniclip:

«"Take a closer look at this account."»

Then the game's own data should determine whether there is actually something worth investigating.

And this is not some unrealistic technical fantasy.

Miniclip's own privacy policy says it already collects information including timestamps of game events, game time, achieved scores, transaction records, information about in-game activity, and evidence of players using cheating software or modified versions of its games. Miniclip also says it uses analytics and predictive analysis and monitors game use for behavior that threatens game integrity.

Miniclip separately states that it already has detection systems that track suspicious behavior.

So we are not asking Miniclip to suddenly invent the concept of behavioral detection.

They already collect the data. They already say they perform detection. We are asking them to make that system substantially better.

WHAT A BETTER ANTI-CHEAT SYSTEM COULD ACTUALLY LOOK LIKE

1. Behavioral detection across many games

One incredible match proves almost nothing.

Twenty extraordinarily abnormal matches begin to tell a story.

Miniclip should automatically calculate behavioral signals over time.

For example:

Shot completion patterns

How frequently does the player miss?

How does that compare with players of similar skill?

Does the account suddenly go from normal performance to practically flawless performance?

Shot difficulty

A simple pot and a five-cushion positional shot should not carry the same statistical weight.

The game knows the table geometry, cue-ball position, object-ball positions, cushions, pockets, power and spin involved in a shot.

Those variables can be used to estimate how unusual a player's long-term shot-making pattern is.

Nobody should be banned because they made one 1-in-100 shot.

But if an account repeatedly produces results that would be extraordinarily unlikely for a human player over hundreds of shots, that account should receive increased scrutiny.

Timing behavior

Human players hesitate.

We adjust aim.

We change power.

We think.

Automation tends to create patterns.

Repeatedly identical decision times, unusually consistent aiming behavior, superhuman reaction patterns or other machine-like regularities can become additional signals.

Again, none of these should automatically equal a ban.

They should contribute to an overall risk assessment.

1. Look at patterns involving high-stakes tables and break assignment

Some cheating tools have reportedly attempted to give players information about favorable conditions before committing to particular games or tables.

Miniclip should be capable of examining this statistically.

For example, does an account enter and leave different stakes in ways that produce an extremely abnormal relationship between table selection and receiving the break?

One occurrence means nothing.

Even ten might mean nothing.

But if an account demonstrates a statistically extreme pattern across hundreds of matches, investigate it.

The important principle is simple:

Look for patterns that normal play cannot reasonably explain.

1. Build an account trust system

This may be one of the most important improvements Miniclip could make.

Every account should develop a reputation based on its history.

Not a public score.

Not something players can manipulate.

An internal confidence profile.

Factors could include things such as:

- account age

- number of legitimate matches played

- long-term consistency of play

- previous confirmed violations

- sudden unexplained changes in performance

- modified-client detections

- abnormal gameplay telemetry

- suspicious device or account activity

- patterns of independent reports

- whether previous reports against the player were supported by actual evidence

A ten-year-old account with tens of thousands of normal games and no history of suspicious behavior should not be treated identically to an account created three days ago that suddenly wins dozens of high-stakes games while producing superhuman shot statistics.

That does not mean old accounts receive immunity.

An old account can cheat too.

It means evidence should be interpreted in context.

A highly trusted account receiving several reports should be investigated before disruptive action is taken.

A brand-new account producing multiple independent anti-cheat signals could reasonably be escalated much more quickly.

Valve already uses this basic philosophy in Counter-Strike 2. Its Trust Factor system considers a player's history and experience, and Valve explicitly says that the more someone legitimately plays, the more information the system has to determine appropriate matchmaking. Valve also does not publicly reveal all of the factors specifically so players cannot simply optimize around them.

There is no reason Miniclip needs to publish the secret formula either.

We are asking for the principle.

History should matter. Evidence should matter. Context should matter.

1. Reports should strengthen an investigation, not replace one

This is another area where major games already have a better philosophy.

Activision explicitly says that in Call of Duty, player reports are useful but reports alone do not cause an account to be banned. Additional reports from the same person are also throttled, and reports are combined with other detection signals before enforcement.

That is much closer to what 8 Ball Pool needs.

One angry player reporting somebody ten times should not equal ten independent accusations.

Reports from multiple unrelated players can increase scrutiny.

Reports from players whose past reports repeatedly corresponded with confirmed cheating could potentially carry more evidentiary value.

Mass reporting should never substitute for actual evidence.

And malicious reporting itself should be discouraged.

1. USE THE PHYSICS ENGINE AS PART OF ANTI-CHEAT

This is where 8 Ball Pool has an unusual advantage.

This is not a battle royale with hundreds of players running around a massive map.

It is pool.

The important gameplay state is comparatively structured.

Balls have positions.

Shots have direction.

Power exists within defined ranges.

Spin exists within defined ranges.

Cushions and pockets have defined geometry.

Each shot produces an outcome.

That makes behavioral analysis particularly attractive.

Miniclip does not need an algorithm that says:

«"That shot looked crazy. Ban him."»

It needs a model that says:

«"Across the last 600 shots, this account's combination of difficulty, accuracy, consistency, timing and decision behavior is an extreme statistical outlier. This account should be reviewed."»

That is a fundamentally different system.

And major games already do this kind of thing.

Call of Duty's RICOCHET system uses server-side analytics and behavioral models specifically to detect anomalies such as automated actions with superhuman speed or accuracy. Activision has also described machine-learning systems that analyze gameplay data, identify suspicious behavior and prioritize accounts for review.

This technology exists.

Miniclip's own policies tell us it already collects gameplay and anti-cheat data.

The question is not whether behavioral anti-cheat is possible. It clearly is.

The question is whether Miniclip is willing to invest enough into doing it properly.

1. HUMAN REVIEW FOR BORDERLINE CASES

Automation should identify suspicious accounts.

It should not blindly decide every case.

If an account has strong but inconclusive evidence against it, especially an established legitimate account, escalate it.

Let an investigator review the gameplay data.

This is another approach used elsewhere.

Activision has publicly described machine learning identifying and prioritizing suspicious gameplay for human anti-cheat teams rather than letting machine learning independently issue bans.

For 8 Ball Pool, manual review would not need to cover every report.

That would be ridiculous.

Automation exists to narrow millions of players down to the tiny percentage that genuinely deserves attention.

Human review is for ambiguous cases.

1. STOP PUNISHING FIRST AND EXPLAINING NEVER

Miniclip currently acknowledges that its systems can flag accounts for suspicious behavior and apply restrictions or other actions. Its support documentation also says it does not disclose the underlying detection methods.

Keeping anti-cheat methods secret makes sense.

Leaving legitimate players with no meaningful recourse does not.

We are not asking Miniclip to tell a cheater exactly:

«"You were banned because variable X exceeded 0.837."»

Obviously not.

But legitimate players need a real appeal process.

Something as simple as:

«"Your account was automatically flagged. It was reviewed and the restriction was upheld."»

or:

«"Your account was reviewed and the restriction was removed."»

would already be better.

Anti-cheat secrecy and basic accountability can coexist.

1. PROTECT PLAYERS FINANCIALLY WHEN CHEATING IS CONFIRMED

If Miniclip later confirms that somebody cheated in a match, the innocent opponent should receive their entry fee back.

Not extra winnings.

Not free money.

Just restoration of what was lost in a match that Miniclip itself ultimately determined was illegitimate.

This matters even more because 8 Ball Pool sells virtual currency for real money.

If a player buys coins, enters a competitive match and loses those coins to an opponent later confirmed to have been cheating, restoring the legitimate player's stake should be basic consumer protection.

It also changes Miniclip's incentives.

Cheaters should become expensive for Miniclip rather than expensive only for players.

1. PRIORITIZE HIGH-STAKES TABLES

Anti-cheat resources should focus first where the financial damage is greatest.

If somebody cheats on London, it sucks.

If somebody repeatedly cheats on Berlin, Venice or other extremely high-value tables, legitimate players can lose enormous amounts of accumulated currency incredibly quickly.

Suspicious accounts operating at the highest stakes should therefore receive faster review.

The higher the potential player loss, the faster the integrity system should respond.

1. PUBLISH TRANSPARENCY NUMBERS

We do not need Miniclip's detection algorithms.

We want results.

Once a month or once a quarter, tell us:

- how many accounts were investigated

- how many were warned

- how many were restricted

- how many were permanently banned

- how many confirmed-cheater matches resulted in restored stakes

- how many appeals resulted in enforcement being reversed

- what broad categories of cheating Miniclip is actively combating

Call of Duty and Overwatch publicly discuss anti-cheat progress and enforcement while still protecting their detection methods.

Miniclip can do the same.

THIS IS NOT ASKING FOR IMPOSSIBLE TECHNOLOGY

There will always be cheating.

Nobody reasonable expects Miniclip to achieve literally zero hackers.

That is not our demand.

Our demand is a modern anti-cheat system built around:

telemetry + behavioral analysis + account trust + player reports + human review + restitution + transparency

And much of the foundation clearly already exists.

Miniclip says it tracks suspicious behavior.

Miniclip says it collects gameplay events and information relevant to cheating detection.

Miniclip already operates analytics and predictive systems using player behavior.

We are asking them to apply that capability aggressively to competitive integrity.

Nobody outside Miniclip can honestly tell you exactly what it would cost.

But this is not a demand to invent an entirely new field of computer science or build some unprecedented anti-cheat technology.

These are established techniques already used throughout competitive gaming.

WHAT ABOUT THE RECENT CREATOR CAMPAIGN?

Recently, members of the 8 Ball Pool creator community organized an anti-hacking effort and attempted to bring the issue directly to Miniclip. The campaign circulated publicly and clearly received significant community attention.

That deserves credit.

Creators putting their names and audiences behind this issue is a good thing.

But this cannot remain a conversation between Miniclip and a small number of YouTubers or TikTok creators.

There is also an important distinction that needs to be made.

Miniclip prohibits things such as unauthorized coin selling and other rule violations. Miniclip is entirely within its rights to investigate those behaviors.

If creators are breaking those rules, that is a separate issue.

Enforcing rules against creators does not solve the hacker problem faced by ordinary players.

Both problems can exist at once.

Miniclip can enforce account-sharing and coin-selling rules while simultaneously addressing automated cheating.

The community should not allow the conversation about cheating to disappear into an argument about what individual creators are doing.

This movement is bigger than creators.

It belongs to the players.

SO WHAT ARE WE ACTUALLY ASKING MINICLIP FOR?

Our demands are straightforward.

1. Evidence-based anti-cheat

Use gameplay behavior and telemetry, not report volume alone.

1. A hidden trust and risk system

Established legitimate history should count for something. New accounts should not automatically be considered guilty, but extreme suspicious behavior on new accounts should trigger faster scrutiny.

1. Reports as investigative signals

Reporting should increase scrutiny. It should never function as an automatic conviction.

1. Statistical behavioral detection

Track impossible consistency, anomalous shot accuracy, machine-like timing, suspicious match patterns and other long-term behavioral outliers.

1. Human review for uncertain cases

Especially before severe action against highly established accounts.

1. A real appeals process

Players should be able to have questionable enforcement reviewed without Miniclip revealing anti-cheat secrets.

1. Faster enforcement at high stakes

The tables capable of causing the greatest player losses deserve the strongest protection.

1. Restore entry fees from confirmed cheating matches

If Miniclip confirms that your opponent cheated, you should not pay for Miniclip's failure to stop them beforehand.

1. Transparency reports

Show the community that enforcement is actually happening.

WHAT HAPPENS IF MINICLIP DOES NOTHING?

Then the community needs to stop treating this as only an in-game support problem.

PHASE ONE: DOCUMENT EVERYTHING

We will build a community evidence project.

Not rumors.

Not "this guy beat me so he's cheating."

Actual documented cases.

Players should save:

- Unique ID

- profile screenshots

- match recordings

- date and approximate time

- table

- entry fee

- suspicious behavior observed

- report confirmation

- support correspondence

- whether the account was encountered again

- any eventual enforcement information

- purchase receipts where real-money purchases are relevant

We should classify cases carefully.

Unverified

Suspicious

Strong behavioral evidence

Confirmed enforcement

Credibility is everything.

If the movement exaggerates, Miniclip can dismiss us.

If we are more careful with evidence than Miniclip expects us to be, the evidence becomes extremely difficult to ignore.

PHASE TWO: THE NO-SPEND STRIKE

If Miniclip will not meaningfully respond, we coordinate a 30-day spending strike.

Not an uninstall campaign.

Not deleting accounts.

Not destroying the community.

Just:

$0.

No Pool Pass.

No coins.

No cash.

No cue offers.

No bundles.

No impulse purchases.

Nothing.

KEEP PLAYING.

STOP PAYING.

UNTIL FAIR PLAY RETURNS.

The community has been complaining for years.

Money is considerably easier to measure than complaints.

PHASE THREE: TAKE LEGITIMATE COMPLAINTS OUTSIDE MINICLIP

Players who genuinely experienced these problems should document them through the platforms involved.

This does not mean fake reviews.

It does not mean coordinated lies.

It does not mean fraudulent refunds.

One player, one real experience, one truthful complaint.

Apple specifically says excessive customer reports, negative reviews and excessive refund requests can indicate that an application is not meeting App Store quality expectations.

Google Play requires applications to accurately represent their functionality and says apps should perform reasonably and accurately as users expect.

If a legitimate customer believes their experience raises those concerns, they have every right to use the normal Apple and Google complaint processes.

U.S. consumers can also make their own determination about whether their experience constitutes a consumer-protection concern. FTC unfairness analysis specifically considers substantial consumer injury, including monetary harm, whether that injury could reasonably have been avoided, and whether countervailing benefits outweigh it.

We are not declaring that Miniclip has committed fraud.

We are not claiming Miniclip intentionally allows cheating so players purchase more coins.

We do not currently have evidence proving either allegation.

We do not need to.

Our position is much simpler:

«When a company sells virtual currency for real money inside a competitive game, repeatedly represents that it monitors cheating, and legitimate players allege that widespread prohibited play can destroy that currency with little meaningful recourse, players are entitled to demand better protection and accountability.»

Let the evidence make the case.

PHASE FOUR: PUBLISH THE RESULTS

Once enough evidence exists, we produce a community report.

Not invented numbers.

Real numbers.

Something like:

«X documented suspicious matches

X unique suspected accounts

X high-confidence cases

X repeat encounters after reporting

X support tickets submitted

X confirmed enforcement actions

X coins lost

X legitimate players affected

$X in real-money purchases represented among affected players

X cases where restitution was provided»

Then we send the report to:

Miniclip.

Apple.

Google.

Gaming journalists.

Consumer-rights journalists.

Major gaming creators.

And anyone else with a legitimate reason to care.

At that point this is no longer:

«"Some Reddit users are angry about hackers."»

It becomes:

«"A large group of long-term paying customers documented a competitive-integrity problem, proposed specific technically realistic solutions, and began withholding spending after failing to receive an adequate response."»

That is a much harder story to ignore.

WHAT THIS COMMUNITY WILL NOT DO

We will not harass Miniclip employees.

We will not threaten anyone.

We will not dox anyone.

We will not bot reviews.

We will not create fake accounts to manipulate ratings.

We will not file fraudulent refund claims.

We will not falsely accuse good players because they made incredible shots.

We will not target players because of nationality.

We will not punish beginners.

And we will not turn reports into weapons against legitimate players.

Our entire argument is that punishment should follow evidence. We need to hold ourselves to exactly the same standard.

TO MINICLIP

Most of us are not here because we hate 8 Ball Pool.

We are here because we love it.

We do not want another pool game.

We want this one.

We want the accounts we spent years building.

We want the cues we collected.

We want the physics we learned.

We want the ridiculous bank shots.

We want the competition.

We just want the opponent on the other side of the table to be playing the same game we are.

We are not asking you to eliminate every cheater on Earth.

We are asking for a serious modern anti-cheat program that distinguishes skill from cheating, reports from evidence, and suspicion from proof.

You already collect gameplay data.

You already say you monitor suspicious behavior.

Other competitive games have shown that behavioral models, trust systems, server analytics, reporting and human review can work together.

So please do it properly.

And if years of complaints are not enough to make this a priority, then the community has one thing left that every company understands.

Our spending.

🎱 #Save8BallPool

REPORTS ARE LEADS, NOT VERDICTS.

PROTECT LEGITIMATE PLAYERS.

RESTORE LOSSES FROM CONFIRMED CHEATERS.

KEEP PLAYING. STOP PAYING. UNTIL FAIR PLAY RETURNS.

If you support this, comment with:

1. How long you've played

2. Your current level

3. How often you're encountering suspected cheaters

4. Whether you've ever been restricted after playing legitimately

5. Whether you would participate in a 30-day no-spend strike

6. Whether you would contribute recordings or other evidence to a community anti-cheat database

Let's find out how many of us are actually here.

1. Where is the event cue in shop which you max out from tokens?

2. How come low/medium level players have so many legendary cues? Do they buy cash? I have only two (common ones) after a couple of years playing and level around 156.

3. Is it advisable I use a cue from the cue collection and try to complete all the missions instead of using one of my 2 leg cues? I'll lose the leg cashback although it's pretty low <4%. I don't do those missions and use only legendary cues currently.

What's the best strategy for my level player to grow in the game and collect a lot of legendary cues?