- Strongly debating quitting

This downswing has reached a point of being completely ridiculous. 7 times this session (45 games) did I get to heads-up with a substantial lead. In all 7 I lost 2 flips or was dominating and then took 2nd. At the 38s that's a loss of almost 450 dollars for those 7 - even if I only won 4/7 that's still 250 dollars more than what I won. I honestly feel like my push/fold has improved exponentially these last few days, too.

Example:
PokerStars Game #22132584470: Tournament #121207819, $35+$3 Hold'em No Limit - Level IX (300/600) - 2008/11/17 19:30:40 ET
Table '121207819 1' 9-max Seat #5 is the button
Seat 4: arturopr (2187 in chips)
Seat 5: wc kid (4135 in chips)
Seat 8: superfamous (3392 in chips)
Seat 9: fattymcbones (3786 in chips)
arturopr: posts the ante 50
wc kid: posts the ante 50
superfamous: posts the ante 50
fattymcbones: posts the ante 50
superfamous: posts small blind 300
fattymcbones: posts big blind 600
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to fattymcbones [Js Kc]
arturopr: folds
wc kid: folds
superfamous: raises 2742 to 3342 and is all-in
fattymcbones: calls 2742
*** FLOP *** [9c 5c Kh]
*** TURN *** [9c 5c Kh] [Ad]
*** RIVER *** [9c 5c Kh Ad] [5h]
*** SHOW DOWN ***
superfamous: shows [5s 9h] (a full house, Fives full of Nines)
fattymcbones: shows [Js Kc] (two pair, Kings and Fives)
superfamous collected 6884 from pot
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot 6884 | Rake 0
Board [9c 5c Kh Ad 5h]
Seat 4: arturopr folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 5: wc kid (button) folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 8: superfamous (small blind) showed [5s 9h] and won (6884) with a full house, Fives full of Nines
Seat 9: fattymcbones (big blind) showed [Js Kc] and lost with two pair, Kings and Fives

This is a spot I wouldn't have called a week ago. Noticing the shortstack and the note I had on superfamous (knowing 100% of hands would be shoved by him) this was a no-brainer call. He told me in the chatbox when I typed "obv" that I made a very poor call considering the shorties stack. Wrong. In sngwiz, this says I can call down to K9o (26%) and it's still profitable against his any two cards.

This genuinely might be variance, but I'm feeling more and more like I pissed off pokerstars. Yeah, that's probably a stupid thing to say, but they did have the software installed to see which internet sites we visited last week (i.e. sharkscope) so it is absolutely possible for them (even if it is completely unlikely) to pinpoint a single player on their site that continues to use that site and punish them accordingly.