Perhaps why you should care about bots and cheats

[DeadMoneyDad]

I have received a number of questions on what my motives are in the bot issue. Here are my thoughts on why the affiliates and poker sites should as well as the casual players should give a $hit.

My suggestions are based on my on personal knowledge only of the limited amount of information I get from my own rake back affiliate. But even that limited amount of information gives me some idea of the accounting that goes on behind the scenes.

For example I never knew and many rake back earners don't know that FT charges a player a portion of the prize pool of any freeroll public or private. MTT's and regular rake are accounted for in two separate columns. I have a fee's charge for making a deposit. I have yet to make a withdraw but given my experience so far I'd bet there is an accounting charge for that as well.

Given the nature of the flow of information I would suspect that the amount of detail is greater for my rake back affiliate than the information they provide me.

Given all of that it seems the "poker accounting" is much more detailed than most people imagine, or it is on FT to a degree much greater than I imagined.

So if bots play something close to break-even poker and bank the rake, just given the limited information I have from my account I imagine I could spot the difference between a "casual player" and a bot almost with out effort.

Now getting in-between a truly dedicated multi-table grinder and a bot will be much trickier if the amount of rake back affiliate information is limited to only what I've personally seen. I'll admit I am a casual player. I looked into software enhanced with 24/7 data mined computerized multi-tabling grinding. I gave it serious consideration. Personally if my figures are even 1/2 way correct and my wife finds out I didn't do it I'm a dead man.

Don't take this the wrong way any multi-table grinders but I don't call that poker. I'm new to poker, but old school in my poker philosophy; if you can do it in a live event it has no place in my on-line game.

So if a number of multi-tabling software assisted data based HUD players get caught up in this mess and get their payments delayed I really don't care if it only catches one or two bots a month. The affiliates will have to make their own marketing decisions on what is best for on-line poker in general.

Personally I think the grinders are as much as a problem to the on-line industry as the bots, but currently grinding is legal. Well depending on how you read FT's T&C, but that isn't the issue.

The issue is some sort of legislation affecting on-line poker will come one day. Some time before that day their will be hearings to decide the regulatory burden placed on the industry in exchange for the licensing rights to once-again accept unrestricted "legal" US deposits. At that time the industry and the affiliates will make at least one claim that the industry is self regulating.

I'll tell you now as someone interested in that future legislation I am basing my decision on how much credibility FT and the industry really has on how it reacts to these types of issues now. Do not tell me then, how you are willing to stop whatever type of "made for TV sob story" the anti-gambling folks will trot out with some future computerized filter or highly developed security. I want to see action now.........

Or at least show a little concern for the future of on-line poker.

For you other casual players out there, who don't think this issue affects you, just consider who is ultimately going to pay for those fees, the cost of the regulatory burden, and any newly implemented filters or security!

If you think that FT or any one else in the poker "economy" is suddenly going to get charitable, you have a bad beat coming.........


D$D

[Jzo19]

lol ....why would the RB affiliates want to mess with the multi-tabling grinders AKA their top earners ..maybe the RB affiliates should delay payments to one tabling nits who suck at poker ...and dont generate much rake ...

[TheEngineer]

We all "care". We just don't all agree on the best solution. For many, caring = advocacy of a federal law to cure all that ails us. However, as the feds have caused us nothing but problems so far, I don't see them as our savior (at least not at this point).

As the industry is international, I don't understand how the feds are supposed to micromanage offshore industries. It seems like your argument plays right into the hands of the prohibitionists who claim the industry is "crooked".

It's similar to arguing against Prohibition. back in the day, while simultaneously asking for tough federal regulations on alcohol manufacturers to keep them from making poisonous beverages. True, we may or may not need federal regulations, but I don't believe we have ANY reason to ask for them prior to explicit legalization.

Bots aren't exactly a huge problem. If they get to be, the market will react for the very reasons you listed.

Perpaps you should put up a poll to guage 2p2 interest in this.

[CountingMyOuts]

Well put, Engineer.

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
We all "care". We just don't all agree on the best solution. For many, caring = advocacy of a federal law to cure all that ails us. However, as the feds have caused us nothing but problems so far, I don't see them as our savior (at least not at this point).

As the industry is international, I don't understand how the feds are supposed to micromanage offshore industries. It seems like your argument plays right into the hands of the prohibitionists who claim the industry is "crooked".

It's similar to arguing against Prohibition. back in the day, while simultaneously asking for tough federal regulations on alcohol manufacturers to keep them from making poisonous beverages. True, we may or may not need federal regulations, but I don't believe we have ANY reason to ask for them prior to explicit legalization.

Bots aren't exactly a huge problem. If they get to be, the market will react for the very reasons you listed.

Perpaps you should put up a poll to guage 2p2 interest in this.

[/ QUOTE ]


Like I said I've seen plenty of poker is self regulating and the market will correct all imbalances post even here, which is why I brought part of this issue here.

I don't know if some of you regulars realize how many people never post in any forum let alone 2+2! There are people we may need to win the final battles who are not regular posters. You guys have shown time and again how you welcome new posters! You all aren't all that nice to some of the regulars......

The ultimate burden of any regulatory mix will be determined by the past actions of the poker world. It is my firm belief that at this point in the life cycle of on-line poker that those with the most invested would be best served by over reaction to these issues rather than what I consider under reaction.

Those regulatory hears in the future that I speak about are going to happen. Some of the anti-gambling made for TV PR events you all already know of, the pastor's son who stole to support his on-line poker "habit", a number of the anti-gambling type will want to accuse on-line poker "the crack" of gambling for the sucide of their teenagers, shrew wives who are now divorced will be made over to look like librarians and the only reason their husbands left her and those 4 cute kids was his addiction to on-line poker, I'm am sure some pol can find a senior citizen or two to claim they didn't get their heart medication or cancer treatment filled because they were addicted to onlin poker having started on the dot net side.

Where is the credibility, beyond a theories of "deregualtion" and "self correcting markets", of the poker industry going to be at that point?

Me I want to standing there with case by case documented proof of every technology out there where the industry has taken steps to combat every one of these types of cases time and time WITHOUT the government's HELP to even stand a chance of winning that one.

I care because I know ultimately all of those costs are going to be passed on to little old me.


D$D

[TheEngineer]

We've discussed a few times, but it was before you joined. We already have a bill that addresses this. The Barney Frank bill was crafted to address each and every concern ever voiced by any anti-gaming person. It creates a highly regulated Internet gaming envirornment. The red herrings you mentioned were addressed at the June 8 hearings on Internet gaming. We won. Check it out at http://financialserv.edgeboss.net/wmedia/financialserv/hearing060807.wvx .

Conversely, we have a bill that actually allows Americans to chooses what to do in their own home...the Wexler bill. For this, we simply make the "freedom" argument (along with the "skill" one), while pointing out the amount of gaming already available. So, Congress has two bills from which to choose.

I personally don't think we should let the anti-gaming people write our bill for us. If we go with the Frank bill, it should be on our terms, IMO. I certainly don't think we should be "proactive" in advocating a bunch of regulation to mollify the anti-gamers, as they'll oppose us anyway.



[ QUOTE ]
I don't know if some of you regulars realize how many people never post in any forum let alone 2+2! There are people we may need to win the final battles who are not regular posters. You guys have shown time and again how you welcome new posters! You all aren't all that nice to some of the regulars......

[/ QUOTE ]

I think our attitude is fine. Folks can come here and say what they want, so long as they can back it up. Some folks have come here and acted shocked when their statements were challenged (I'm not referring to you). Well, our high standards are what make this the premier Internet poker legislation forum.

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
We've discussed a few times, but it was before you joined. We already have a bill that addresses this.

Well, our high standards are what make this the premier Internet poker legislation forum.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well if you don't think they learned from their past defeats and plan to make a few new move that's fine.

Pr isn't my forte, but even I can line up some pretty great made for TV PR stunts, my nighmares are the ones a real PR pro can come up with.

I am a complete minimum regulation, complete free market person. I love the line from "WallStreet"; "a fool and his money are easily seperated, they were damn lucky to ever get together in the first place!"

I think the minimal cost and minimal heart ache, required by the poker sites and the affiliates, perhaps pushed by a few of us has fantastic EV+.

Being able to show up at those future hearing with documented case histories where each and every "made for TV anti-gambing sop stories" has already been addressed in a reasonable manner by a selfless poker industry acting in the past for the best interests of poker at every step BEFORE the hearings will make our jobs at that time MUCH easier IMPO.

But if they don't do a thing in the meantime who do you think is going to pay the pass thru new cost of doing business in the form of higher rakes and even the potential for banning rake backs?????


D$D

[TheEngineer]

So, you want us all to write to Congress to demand federal regulation of Internet poker, on the grounds that they won't act in the players' best interest? You think that will help us get it explicitly legalized? Seems like a bad idea to me.

As for the non-bot issues you mentioned, I have no doubt you could put together a string of bad stories. However, you seem to fear these more than we do. Maybe you believe them. I don't know. You don't come across like someone who believes in our right to play poker, given that you're willing to give away so much before negotiations even start. The NRA didn't get where they are by consenting to every restriction demanded by gun banners, just because it would be easier. I hope we'll stay strong. We should be on offense, talking about freedoms and our rights, like the NRA.

As for bots, you realize you don't have a "right" as a customer to dictate terms and conditions to these companies, don't you? If you don't like the site, don't play on it. The free market works. Perhaps you should buy stock in your preferred site to gain a vote for what you want, or perhaps you should move abroad and start your own site, rather than trying to dictate business practices to private companies via the federal government. After all, it's that attitude that got us where we are today.

[TheEngineer]

And why do you think affiliates should be responsible for this? That's a little like saying Anheiser-Busch should be responsible for drug testing of NFL players.

[TheEngineer]

Post deleted by Berge20

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
Me I want to standing there with case by case documented proof of every technology out there where the industry has taken steps to combat every one of these types of cases time and time WITHOUT the government's HELP to even stand a chance of winning that one.

[/ QUOTE ]

Aside from your bot issue, this was all demonstrated at the 6/8 hearing.

[CountingMyOuts]

[ QUOTE ]
So, you want us all to write to Congress to demand federal regulation of Internet poker, on the grounds that they won't act in the players' best interest? You think that will help us get it explicitly legalized? Seems like a bad idea to me.

As for the non-bot issues you mentioned, I have no doubt you could put together a string of bad stories. However, you seem to fear these more than we do. Maybe you believe them. I don't know. You don't come across like someone who believes in our right to play poker, given that you're willing to give away so much before negotiations even start. The NRA didn't get where they are by consenting to every restriction demanded by gun banners, just because it would be easier. I hope we'll stay strong. We should be on offense, talking about freedoms and our rights, like the NRA.

As for bots, you realize you don't have a "right" as a customer to dictate terms and conditions to these companies, don't you? If you don't like the site, don't play on it. The free market works. Perhaps you should buy stock in your preferred site to gain a vote for what you want, or perhaps you should move abroad and start your own site, rather than trying to dictate business practices to private companies via the federal government. After all, it's that attitude that got us where we are today.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll second this.

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
So, you want us all to write to Congress to demand federal regulation of Internet poker, on the grounds that they won't act in the players' best interest? You think that will help us get it explicitly legalized? Seems like a bad idea to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Am I that unclear or are you that obtuse?

Writing congress never entered into my mind or was anywhere in my post. I applaud you and fully support your letter writing campaigns. I follow them and send in a few letters even though I think in general letter writing in the grand scheme of political power is a complete waste of time. But since it is currently the best grassroots effort the PPA is backing I'm 1,000% for it .

But nowhere in this or any thread have I suggested that Congress address this issue.

I have suggested that IF the poker industry doesn't take action it is possible and quite LIKELY that Congress WILL do it for them!

In the end every poker player will pay in the end for the short sighted greedy response from FT on these issues.


D$D

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
Am I that unclear or are you that obtuse?

[/ QUOTE ]

You're that unclear. You've said a few times that you're proposing regulation. Can you summarize what exactly it is you're proposing?

[ QUOTE ]
Writing congress never entered into my mind or was anywhere in my post. I applaud you and fully support your letter writing campaigns. I follow them and send in a few letters even though I think in general letter writing in the grand scheme of political power is a complete waste of time. But since it is currently the best grassroots effort the PPA is backing I'm 1,000% for it .

[/ QUOTE ]

The letter writing is the best thing our (2p2) unfunded, relatively small, geographically disperse group can do. We've been successful far beyond our numbers. Expansion of the effort will naturally expand the advocacy beyond letters, but we'll always want to communicate regularly with Congress.

[ QUOTE ]
In the end every poker player will pay in the end for the short sighted greedy response from FT on these issues.

[/ QUOTE ]

Disagree. If FT can't meet its customers' expectations, the players will go elsewhere. FT isn't a public utility. Explicit legalization won't focus on FT...it will focus on Harrah's and MGM, as explicit legalization won't happen if it doesn't allow U.S. companies to offer services.

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
And why do you think affiliates should be responsible for this? That's a little like saying Anheiser-Busch should be responsible for drug testing of NFL players.

[/ QUOTE ]

If Auggie IV was giving pro NFL player free truck loads of beer and the public was pissed off about drunk NLF players I'd back any action including a massive letter writing campaign to AB. If that didn't work I'd lobby congress for a law to stop the parctice.

The rake back affiliates process the proceedes, there for IMPO bear some of the responsibility.

But the ultimate responsibility is with the poker sites themselves. I even post this in poker affiliate world and on my rake back site's forums. You'd be surprised at the positive responses from some smart people in the poker industry, well at least I was............


D$D

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]


[/ QUOTE ]

Please take this poll down as it is it is an insult.

D$D

[CountingMyOuts]

[ QUOTE ]
In the end every poker player will pay in the end for the short sighted greedy response from FT on these issues.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why has this "issue" affected you so deeply? If it is such a big problem, players will leave FT and the correction will take place as it should in a free market.

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In the end every poker player will pay in the end for the short sighted greedy response from FT on these issues.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why has this "issue" affected you so deeply? If it is such a big problem, players will leave FT and the correction will take place as it should in a free market.

[/ QUOTE ]

It affects all on-line poker players and will IMPO make the job of negociating the very minimum of regulatory burden on the industry by the PPA and poker players on behalf of the poker sites much more difficult.

Realistically they don't care about the regulatory burden, they will ALL pass the costs on to us in the form of higher rakes, less rakeback or changes in payout.

If FT wants my 1,000% efforts to help them make more money of which I'll never see a penny, they should IMPO step up and help us out NOW.

Sitting back and letting them pass any future costs on to us because we didn't raise a stink now would be our fault!


D$D

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


[/ QUOTE ]

Please take this poll down as it is it is an insult.

D$D

[/ QUOTE ]

I cannot....the deadline has passed.

It's not intended to be an insult at all. We do debate ideas here. Again, that's why it's the premier site.

My topic reflects my understanding of the point you were trying to make. What is your point? You just want us to "care"? Do you just want us to be "angry" with FT? We really don't know. The only thing we know is that you're upset with FT.

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Am I that unclear or are you that obtuse?

[/ QUOTE ]

You're that unclear. You've said a few times that you're proposing regulation. Can you summarize what exactly it is you're proposing?

[/ QUOTE ]

FT only distributing the seized account money in a proven bot account after 2+2'ers found the bot on their own and reported it to FT is chicken$hit, IMPO!

Given only the information I see from the report on my own rake back account I could with one data base sort seperate the casual poker players from any bots.

Give me a look at FT's daily information and I could seperate well over 50% of the multi-tabling grinders and bots with another database type sort or filter.

I don't know enough about the full "poker" accounting, but can imagine given the information in my rake back account AND an inside look at FT's security information eliminating 95% of humans from bots can't be that hard. A few phone calls and some faxed documentation or even an affiliate vouching for accounts IMPO would get us 100% of the way to a workible solution.

At the very least the time and programing cost to FT including giving every player twice what they paid out in this case is worth 100 times or more in less regulatory burden that might be imposed by my "imagined" future hearings.

I am asking FT to stop just looking at this week's or this quater's bottom line but look at the multi-year profits. Show congress, the anti-gambling nuts, and me they have the best interests of poker at heart.

Even if FT ultimately got a free pass in "my imagined" congressional hearings write it off to good will.

But don't expect me to hold my tounge when we are asked to suggest that the industry is self regulating and a free market rewards the best poker site in response to the crap the anti-gambling nuts will pull. I'll do what I'm told but hey in my mind I'm going to be saying "I told you so!"


D$D

[TomVeil]

Sorry for jumping in, but I believe what he's saying is this:

"Bots are such bad PR (To new players/inexperienced players), that sooner or later sites will outlaw them. The prudent move would be for those sites to stop the botting NOW, before government HAS to act. By doing so, they would be able to point at their OWN self-regulation, rather than looking like they are kicking and screaming into it."

I agree with this statement. The damage that botting can do to the image of online poker is HUGE. People want to be sure that they are playing against OTHER PEOPLE, not computer programs. In the long term, a site that condones bots will lose a LARGE section of the market because of the fish won't want to play there. (On a side note, I believe that any bot-friendly site should have to distinguish players as bots)

This doesn't mean that we shouldn't be pressing for things like the Wexler Bill, that addresses the concerns of the anti-gaming crowd. It means that in addition, we should be pressuring those sites to pre-empt the governmental regulations, so to show that the market CAN regulate itself, and the government doesn't NEED to keep a close eye on it.

Apologies if I'm incorrect.

[TheEngineer]

Again, what do you want from us with regards to this?

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
Sorry for jumping in, but I believe what he's saying is this:

"Bots are such bad PR (To new players/inexperienced players), that sooner or later sites will outlaw them. The prudent move would be for those sites to stop the botting NOW, before government HAS to act. By doing so, they would be able to point at their OWN self-regulation, rather than looking like they are kicking and screaming into it."

I agree with this statement. The damage that botting can do to the image of online poker is HUGE. People want to be sure that they are playing against OTHER PEOPLE, not computer programs. In the long term, a site that condones bots will lose a LARGE section of the market because of the fish won't want to play there. (On a side note, I believe that any bot-friendly site should have to distinguish players as bots)

This doesn't mean that we shouldn't be pressing for things like the Wexler Bill, that addresses the concerns of the anti-gaming crowd. It means that in addition, we should be pressuring those sites to pre-empt the governmental regulations, so to show that the market CAN regulate itself, and the government doesn't NEED to keep a close eye on it.

Apologies if I'm incorrect.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't like bots either, and I hope sites will police for them. I don't think anyone here disagrees with that.

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
Sorry for jumping in, but I believe what he's saying is this:


Apologies if I'm incorrect.

[/ QUOTE ]

You clearly said it better than I can!

Thank you,

D$D

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
Again, what do you want from us with regards to this?

[/ QUOTE ]

Like all grassroots groups fully participate in any concrete action you see suggested that you think is worth your time and effort.

If no one has a great idea, or one you think worth your time and effort, try to think one up........


D$D

[TomVeil]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Sorry for jumping in, but I believe what he's saying is this:


Apologies if I'm incorrect.

[/ QUOTE ]

You clearly said it better than I can!

Thank you,

D$D

[/ QUOTE ]

No problem /images/graemlins/smile.gif You guys both consistantly make good points, and it seemed like a misunderstanding /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
Those of us thinking of any regulator mix for future on-line poker and those that oppose any regulation might want to consider their response to this issue.

[/ QUOTE ]

When I read this, I interpreted this to mean you wanted regulation if you are dissatisfied with FT's final response to this issue.


[ QUOTE ]
With lisencing would come some sort of legal entity. I'm not a lawyer but seems like there would be a responsibility of the sites to run a safe and secure game. From a purely business sense free markets are self correcting but some of the swing and scams can really burn people and sometime like the Louisina Lottery scam set an industry back decades.

[/ QUOTE ]

This seems to imply that you want laws on FT to control for bots. I don't necessarily disagree that licensing should include some verification of reasonable controls to ensure an honest game, by the way.

[ QUOTE ]
Don't the sites have some legal responsibility under Tort law to provide straight games? When their security is breached or over come shouldn't their "coverage" of losses extend beyond whatever they manage to seize?

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, it sounds like you're looking for regulation, especially when you coupled this with stuff about sob stories. Sorry if I misunderstood.

IMHO, sites that don't guarantee a fair game will go out of business. It's that simple, especially if U.S.-based companies enter the market.

[TomVeil]

[ QUOTE ]
IMHO, sites that don't guarantee a fair game will go out of business. It's that simple, especially if U.S.-based companies enter the market.

[/ QUOTE ]

YES, YES, YES, and YES.

This is why we need to convince those sites to take action NOW.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
IMHO, sites that don't guarantee a fair game will go out of business. It's that simple, especially if U.S.-based companies enter the market.

[/ QUOTE ]

YES, YES, YES, and YES.

This is why we need to convince those sites to take action NOW.

[/ QUOTE ]

I couldn't agree more. I hate bots as much as anyone here. My concern was lumping this and every gaming-related sob story into a master regulatory scheme. As D$D wasn't proposing that, it's all good.

So, now that we've gone through 1,000 posts to discuss something 100% of us agree on (bots are bad), let's write to FT and tell them so (this could have been accomplished in one five sentence post /images/graemlins/wink.gif ).

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Again, what do you want from us with regards to this?

[/ QUOTE ]

Like all grassroots groups fully participate in any concrete action you see suggested that you think is worth your time and effort.

If no one has a great idea, or one you think worth your time and effort, try to think one up........


D$D

[/ QUOTE ]

Why didn't you just say so? /images/graemlins/grin.gif

I think there are only two things we can do right now (without hurting ourselves in the process). We can either write to FT, demanding action, or we can stop patronizing FT. Seems we should start with the first one. If both fail, we can clearly and concisely publicize this more within the poker community, asking them to write or leave as well.

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]

Don't let your knowledge of poker accounting get in the way of believing that you can eliminate 95% of humans from bots.

[ QUOTE ]
A few phone calls and some faxed documentation or even an affiliate vouching for accounts IMPO would get us 100% of the way to a workible solution.

[/ QUOTE ]

Affiliates vouching for accounts isn't going to get you 100% of the way there, for many, many reasons.

[/ QUOTE ]

I took enough accounting courses in University that with one or two more it could have been my fourth major. I have run quite a few profitible business and I hate to say this and don't mean it as an insult but I have likely paid more in accounting fees in my life than you make in a year.

I haven't written a computer program in many years, I learned programing on punch cards, since M$ added a third + to C++, but I'm told I can make an excel spread sheet or access data base sit up and beg.

I don't mean to be rude at all. You don't know me from Adam and the internet is fully populated with know-it-all blow hards, so your skeptism is likely fully earned.

But I don't make statements that I'm not fully prepared to back up.

Right now with what little I know and talking to a few rake back affiliates and from past conversations with poker site operators between the two I feel if they wanted to they could solve this little issue in a week with out one more utterance from me.

By the way any of you future Imagine.com poker site operators looking for a little venture capital. Between me and a few of my former clients I know where I can put my hands on a few million.


D$D

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
IMHO, sites that don't guarantee a fair game will go out of business. It's that simple, especially if U.S.-based companies enter the market.

[/ QUOTE ]

YES, YES, YES, and YES.

This is why we need to convince those sites to take action NOW.

[/ QUOTE ]


I couldn't agree more. I hate bots as much as anyone here. My concern was lumping this and every gaming-related sob story into a master regulatory scheme. As D$D wasn't proposing that, it's all good.

So, now that we've gone through 1,000 posts to discuss something 100% of us agree on (bots are bad), let's write to FT and tell them so (this could have been accomplished in one five sentence post /images/graemlins/wink.gif ).

[/ QUOTE ]


Sorry if you feel I slow played this........

Save us all the effort.

You're going to be on the PPA board.

Corner Howard Letterer and ask him to look into it.

Done deal,

D$D

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


[/ QUOTE ]

Please take this poll down as it is it is an insult.

D$D

[/ QUOTE ]

I still don't see where it's an insult, as it was intended to be fairly worded.

I PMed Berge20 with a request to delete it.

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


[/ QUOTE ]

Please take this poll down as it is it is an insult.

D$D

[/ QUOTE ]

I still don't see where it's an insult, as it was intended to be fairly worded.

I PMed Berge20 with a request to delete it.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's fine we got to the end without it...

Thank you,

D$D

[Tuff_Fish]

[ QUOTE ]


I am asking FT to stop just looking at this week's or this quater's bottom line but look at the multi-year profits.......
.
.


[/ QUOTE ]

FT, PokerStars, et al are only looking at the short term bottom line because they are aware that they stand an excellent chance of not being here in a year or so.

Does anyone know if either of them have tried for a UK license or not. I can't imagine them getting one with their present business practices. If most non US players gravitate to the licensed UK sites, FT et al will only have the US nit grinders left. If, somehow US players are allowed onto UK sites (WTO etc) FT has...... nothing.

Just my own humble opinion.

Tuff

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


I am asking FT to stop just looking at this week's or this quater's bottom line but look at the multi-year profits.......
.
.


[/ QUOTE ]

FT, PokerStars, et al are only looking at the short term bottom line because they are aware that they stand an excellent chance of not being here in a year or so.

Does anyone know if either of them have tried for a UK license or not. I can't imagine them getting one with their present business practices. If most non US players gravitate to the licensed UK sites, FT et al will only have the US nit grinders left. If, somehow US players are allowed onto UK sites (WTO etc) FT has...... nothing.

Just my own humble opinion.

Tuff

[/ QUOTE ]

Well with FT perhaps we have the best chance of change, they have the most to loose and perhaps with a good corporate image gain an advantage...

Just a thought,

D$D

[RIIT]

[ QUOTE ]
I have received a number of questions on what my motives are in the bot issue. Here are my thoughts on why the affiliates and poker sites should as well as the casual players should give a $hit.

My suggestions are based on my on personal knowledge only of the limited amount of information I get from my own rake back affiliate. But even that limited amount of information gives me some idea of the accounting that goes on behind the scenes.

For example I never knew and many rake back earners don't know that FT charges a player a portion of the prize pool of any freeroll public or private. MTT's and regular rake are accounted for in two separate columns. I have a fee's charge for making a deposit. I have yet to make a withdraw but given my experience so far I'd bet there is an accounting charge for that as well.

Given the nature of the flow of information I would suspect that the amount of detail is greater for my rake back affiliate than the information they provide me.

Given all of that it seems the "poker accounting" is much more detailed than most people imagine, or it is on FT to a degree much greater than I imagined.

So if bots play something close to break-even poker and bank the rake, just given the limited information I have from my account I imagine I could spot the difference between a "casual player" and a bot almost with out effort.

Now getting in-between a truly dedicated multi-table grinder and a bot will be much trickier if the amount of rake back affiliate information is limited to only what I've personally seen. I'll admit I am a casual player. I looked into software enhanced with 24/7 data mined computerized multi-tabling grinding. I gave it serious consideration. Personally if my figures are even 1/2 way correct and my wife finds out I didn't do it I'm a dead man.

Don't take this the wrong way any multi-table grinders but I don't call that poker. I'm new to poker, but old school in my poker philosophy; if you can do it in a live event it has no place in my on-line game.

So if a number of multi-tabling software assisted data based HUD players get caught up in this mess and get their payments delayed I really don't care if it only catches one or two bots a month. The affiliates will have to make their own marketing decisions on what is best for on-line poker in general.

Personally I think the grinders are as much as a problem to the on-line industry as the bots, but currently grinding is legal. Well depending on how you read FT's T&C, but that isn't the issue.

The issue is some sort of legislation affecting on-line poker will come one day. Some time before that day their will be hearings to decide the regulatory burden placed on the industry in exchange for the licensing rights to once-again accept unrestricted "legal" US deposits. At that time the industry and the affiliates will make at least one claim that the industry is self regulating.

I'll tell you now as someone interested in that future legislation I am basing my decision on how much credibility FT and the industry really has on how it reacts to these types of issues now. Do not tell me then, how you are willing to stop whatever type of "made for TV sob story" the anti-gambling folks will trot out with some future computerized filter or highly developed security. I want to see action now.........

Or at least show a little concern for the future of on-line poker.

For you other casual players out there, who don't think this issue affects you, just consider who is ultimately going to pay for those fees, the cost of the regulatory burden, and any newly implemented filters or security!

If you think that FT or any one else in the poker "economy" is suddenly going to get charitable, you have a bad beat coming.........


D$D

[/ QUOTE ]

D&D,

The "natural" and "normal" characteristics of the internet poker environment are:

a) computers outnumber humans 2 to 1 (or more)
b) opponents are not physically visible to one another
c) sites cannot prove that they are not hinting any players

The desire for anybody to want to face human only opponents is understandable and it is very doable within the live game. But this desire goes against the natural environment of the internet. The bottom line is that the internet very much "favors" the computer assisted player and the teaming player and quite naturally so.

The acceptable rules for internet poker should have natural harmony for the environment in which it lives. And every human player that wants a definition of online poker that is contrary to the natural internet environment should be marginalized in everyway possible because that backward mindset is one of the greatest obstacles to progress.

RIIT

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]




The "natural" and "normal" characteristics of the internet poker environment are:

a) computers outnumber humans 2 to 1 (or more)

[/ QUOTE ]

Footnote this please.

[ QUOTE ]
b) opponents are not physically visible to one another

[/ QUOTE ]

A given.


[ QUOTE ]
c) sites cannot prove that they are not hinting any players

[/ QUOTE ]

Please define, "hinting". I understand "hinting (or, more accurately, instructing) a font is a method of defining exactly which pixels are turned on in order to create the best possible character bitmap shape at small sizes and low resolutions."

Just let me know exactly how you mean this reference.

[ QUOTE ]
The desire for anybody to want to face human only opponents is understandable and it is very doable within the live game. But this desire goes against the natural environment of the internet. The bottom line is that the internet very much "favors" the computer assisted player and the teaming player and quite naturally so.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you mean a gambler will always look for any edge he or she can gain, I fully agree.

[ QUOTE ]
The acceptable rules for internet poker should have natural harmony for the environment in which it lives. And every human player that wants a definition of online poker that is contrary to the natural internet environment should be marginalized in everyway possible because that backward mindset is one of the greatest obstacles to progress.

[/ QUOTE ]

This seems like a mix of Plato and Maslow.

While I'd love to endlessly discuss philisophy with you this just isn't the place.

My bottom line is what is best, IMO, for the future of on-line poker. Yes the "camel's nose" or more is already in the tent. I get that. But if those of us want to live in the tent and have more "new" friends visit we just might have to b.tch slap that nose to keep the tent livable. I'm even willing to kill the stinky beast and find another mode of transportation.

Computer assistance (CA) in general terms, for me encompases all forms of assistance that is beyond what is allowed in a live poker room, from handheld odds calculators to the most sophisticalted sci-fi nighmare you or I can imagine.

The current level of CA is getting to the point where it just might ruin the game as most of us know it. Continuing down the current path will totally destroy the game long before we ever get a decent bill out of Congress IMPO.

Computing power doubles and drops in total costs something like every eighteen months. Internet communication is a world most people are both awed with and completely scared of due to the ever increasing "gee wiz" uses that pop up everyday.

Right now with a minimal effort and cost with my limited knowledge, programing skills, and even poker skills I could set up the following; a HU that puts any player of any length of time on a very small range of hands based on every hand they have ever played under that user name. This would not be an average player's range of hands but based on position, bet size, lenght of time in the player's current session, and a number of factors that I shudder to mention readily availible if just to keep these CA sharks from implementating. I don't even have to wait the former wait time of data mining any level for six months, I can lease a complete data base right now.

Given current T&C as long as I had a human hand doing some of the clicking and enough "stakers" willing to provide human ID's to back up the accounts I could have a bot farm up and running in less than a week. I could play as many hands at as many tables at any level I wanted and completly pass any poker site's security with out a problem.

I'd also be willing to bet $1,000.00 to a single cent there are such operations currently up an running.

If I wanted to totally violate both the spirit and letter of the T&C's I'd set up a back side communications net and use prop player bots to increase my odds calculations.

But what the hell is it worth in karma?

I've run the numbers and evaluated the risk reward including the ever increasing need to out "invent" the other bots farmers. If I was a different person I would have done it six months ago.

There is a funny photoshop pic of 8 robots sitting around an on-line poker table with one "live" player, entitled the on-line poker game in 200X, add your own year. My number is less than 10.

That is unless those of us who play "casually" don't do something. Given the current poker economy there is not one voice that isn't out there looking to cash in the most they can today and F! the consequences. From greedy self interested poker sites down to the greedy self interested average player.

There are plenty of things that are completely natural and the end result is something like cancer or aids that thrives on an organism up and until it destroys the host.

Some of the self destructive natural things can be stopped some can only be slowed down others are doomed to extinction.

I know what I think of the current un-checked evolution of on-line poker's end result is and I don't like the picture.

If you are in the CA camp and figure you can jump to another host and are unconcerned about the surival of the specises that too would be natural.

Me I can always find a live game and enjoy it more so ultimately I don't have nor will I ever have anything invested in the CA game.


D$D

[yahboohoo]

Stop the bots. Industry should self-police this issue, not the Feds, who really have zero reason to. It's not illegal, just not what poker is about.

As far as 'grinders' go, I have no idea on earth what D$D is talking about here. If you want to play 8 tables waiting for top set, that's your thing.

[RIIT]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]




The "natural" and "normal" characteristics of the internet poker environment are:

a) computers outnumber humans 2 to 1 (or more)

[/ QUOTE ]

Footnote this please.

[ QUOTE ]
b) opponents are not physically visible to one another

[/ QUOTE ]

A given.


[ QUOTE ]
c) sites cannot prove that they are not hinting any players

[/ QUOTE ]

Please define, "hinting". I understand "hinting (or, more accurately, instructing) a font is a method of defining exactly which pixels are turned on in order to create the best possible character bitmap shape at small sizes and low resolutions."

Just let me know exactly how you mean this reference.

[ QUOTE ]
The desire for anybody to want to face human only opponents is understandable and it is very doable within the live game. But this desire goes against the natural environment of the internet. The bottom line is that the internet very much "favors" the computer assisted player and the teaming player and quite naturally so.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you mean a gambler will always look for any edge he or she can gain, I fully agree.

[ QUOTE ]
The acceptable rules for internet poker should have natural harmony for the environment in which it lives. And every human player that wants a definition of online poker that is contrary to the natural internet environment should be marginalized in everyway possible because that backward mindset is one of the greatest obstacles to progress.

[/ QUOTE ]

This seems like a mix of Plato and Maslow.

While I'd love to endlessly discuss philisophy with you this just isn't the place.

My bottom line is what is best, IMO, for the future of on-line poker. Yes the "camel's nose" or more is already in the tent. I get that. But if those of us want to live in the tent and have more "new" friends visit we just might have to b.tch slap that nose to keep the tent livable. I'm even willing to kill the stinky beast and find another mode of transportation.

Computer assistance (CA) in general terms, for me encompases all forms of assistance that is beyond what is allowed in a live poker room, from handheld odds calculators to the most sophisticalted sci-fi nighmare you or I can imagine.

The current level of CA is getting to the point where it just might ruin the game as most of us know it. Continuing down the current path will totally destroy the game long before we ever get a decent bill out of Congress IMPO.

Computing power doubles and drops in total costs something like every eighteen months. Internet communication is a world most people are both awed with and completely scared of due to the ever increasing "gee wiz" uses that pop up everyday.

Right now with a minimal effort and cost with my limited knowledge, programing skills, and even poker skills I could set up the following; a HU that puts any player of any length of time on a very small range of hands based on every hand they have ever played under that user name. This would not be an average player's range of hands but based on position, bet size, lenght of time in the player's current session, and a number of factors that I shudder to mention readily availible if just to keep these CA sharks from implementating. I don't even have to wait the former wait time of data mining any level for six months, I can lease a complete data base right now.

Given current T&C as long as I had a human hand doing some of the clicking and enough "stakers" willing to provide human ID's to back up the accounts I could have a bot farm up and running in less than a week. I could play as many hands at as many tables at any level I wanted and completly pass any poker site's security with out a problem.

I'd also be willing to bet $1,000.00 to a single cent there are such operations currently up an running.

If I wanted to totally violate both the spirit and letter of the T&C's I'd set up a back side communications net and use prop player bots to increase my odds calculations.

But what the hell is it worth in karma?

I've run the numbers and evaluated the risk reward including the ever increasing need to out "invent" the other bots farmers. If I was a different person I would have done it six months ago.

There is a funny photoshop pic of 8 robots sitting around an on-line poker table with one "live" player, entitled the on-line poker game in 200X, add your own year. My number is less than 10.

That is unless those of us who play "casually" don't do something. Given the current poker economy there is not one voice that isn't out there looking to cash in the most they can today and F! the consequences. From greedy self interested poker sites down to the greedy self interested average player.

There are plenty of things that are completely natural and the end result is something like cancer or aids that thrives on an organism up and until it destroys the host.

Some of the self destructive natural things can be stopped some can only be slowed down others are doomed to extinction.

I know what I think of the current un-checked evolution of on-line poker's end result is and I don't like the picture.

If you are in the CA camp and figure you can jump to another host and are unconcerned about the surival of the specises that too would be natural.

Me I can always find a live game and enjoy it more so ultimately I don't have nor will I ever have anything invested in the CA game.


D$D

[/ QUOTE ]

Hinting occurs when a poker server sends privileged ev+ information to one or more players before during or after a poker hand or hands. This can range all the way from profile stats for the previous X hands to complete god level info for the current hand.

There is no "bad karma" for disobeying the "immoral" discriminatory sections of online poker t&c's - no more so than Rosa Parks' actions when she refused to sit at the back of the bus. You embrace the current typical online site TOS and as such you see violators as immoral and worthy of some kind of karmic consequence. I, OTOH, see the current typical online TOS as discriminatory and very wrong and so violating this type of TOS is a "moral imperative". If you're a "whites only" type of guy then I can understand your views.

In an internet environment, the computer assisted player is very normal and natural. There is not an adjective to correctly describe the mindset that expects these types of players to not exist within online poker - the best word I can think of is "backward".

RIIT

[sethypooh21]

[ QUOTE ]
In an internet environment, the computer assisted player is very normal and natural. There is not an adjective to correctly describe the mindset that expects these types of players to not exist within online poker - the best word I can think of is "backward".

[/ QUOTE ]

Word.

Also, I *Strongly* dispute D$D's claim that he can very easily segregate the bots from the multi-tabling grinder, and he's completely delusional if he thinks any site will blithely live with any significant 'false positive' in bot detection that catches a lot of these high MGR players.

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
"backward".

RIIT

[/ QUOTE ]

Congrat on your 100th post.

Good luck with your life.

D$D

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In an internet environment, the computer assisted player is very normal and natural. There is not an adjective to correctly describe the mindset that expects these types of players to not exist within online poker - the best word I can think of is "backward".

[/ QUOTE ]

Word.

Also, I *Strongly* dispute D$D's claim that he can very easily segregate the bots from the multi-tabling grinder, and he's completely delusional if he thinks any site will blithely live with any significant 'false positive' in bot detection that catches a lot of these high MGR players.

[/ QUOTE ]


OK you disagree, that's fine.

At least you didn't doubt that there was a problem or that I was actually seeing a problem.

But I'll tell you I spoken to a number of rakeback affiliates and the job isn't near as hard as I thought it was a week ago.


D$D

[sethypooh21]

[ QUOTE ]


At least you didn't doubt that there was a problem or that I was actually seeing a problem.


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't doubt that there are bots and that this represents a problem. I have doubts as to the magnitude of the problem, and further the proper method of dealing with bots is highly dependent on their prevalence.

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


At least you didn't doubt that there was a problem or that I was actually seeing a problem.


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't doubt that there are bots and that this represents a problem. I have doubts as to the magnitude of the problem, and further the proper method of dealing with bots is highly dependent on their prevalence.

[/ QUOTE ]

With that logic I guess you'd agree the responsibility for finding, stopping, and preventing them is almost the sole job of the poker sites.

Would you further agree that if 2+2'ers found the bot, reported it to FT, and pushed FT to a decision to the point where FT got off it's ass and actually paid out damamges that perhaps Mason should get a collective bounty check in our names? I know $70,000.00 wouldn't mean much to Mason but it would send the right message to the current bot farmers and all the aspiring bot farmers out there.


D$D<--Mason really hates me!

[sethypooh21]

I have no earthly idea what the hell you're talking about now.

[CountingMyOuts]

[ QUOTE ]
I have no earthly idea what the hell you're talking about now.

[/ QUOTE ]

The bottom line is that he wants to have affiliates become part of the bot monitoring process, even though affiliates do not have the tools or data available to do it with 100% certainty (and he admits they do not). In his solution, if that means high volume multi-tabling players are sacrificed to meet his ends and some bots are caught in the process, he is fine with that.

He has had his idea slapped down by some of the biggest and successful affiliates around, like Jeremy Enke over at Poker Affiliate World. However, that hasn't stopped him from continuing to tilt at windmills.

[RIIT]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In an internet environment, the computer assisted player is very normal and natural. There is not an adjective to correctly describe the mindset that expects these types of players to not exist within online poker - the best word I can think of is "backward".

[/ QUOTE ]

Word.

Also, I *Strongly* dispute D$D's claim that he can very easily segregate the bots from the multi-tabling grinder, and he's completely delusional if he thinks any site will blithely live with any significant 'false positive' in bot detection that catches a lot of these high MGR players.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sethy',

Yes I agree. False positives are very bad. It's much better for a site to focus on their own honesty insofar as shuffling and privacy are concerned and then just get the hell out of the way and let the players do what is natural within the internet environment.

RIIT

[RIIT]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


At least you didn't doubt that there was a problem or that I was actually seeing a problem.


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't doubt that there are bots and that this represents a problem. I have doubts as to the magnitude of the problem, and further the proper method of dealing with bots is highly dependent on their prevalence.

[/ QUOTE ]

It would be better for sites to implement a tagging policy and let players decide for themselves instead deciding in advance for players.

If a site makes an accusation of "bot" and steals the player bankroll then that is technically an opportunity lost for others to try and win that money - the site has essentially raked the entire balance - sites like anti-botting policy because it represents free money any time they want to make an accusation. It's ok for somebody to want to not play against bots; but they should want the botters money to stay in play instead of having the site rake it away where it can never be won by others.

It would be less evil for site to tag players with symbolic icons and then let other players decide for themselves whether or not they want to sit and play at the same table.

I want an online world where there are less ways to move money from players pockets to the sites pockets. There is something highly grotesque about a site stealing an account balance.

RIIT

[RIIT]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


At least you didn't doubt that there was a problem or that I was actually seeing a problem.


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't doubt that there are bots and that this represents a problem. I have doubts as to the magnitude of the problem, and further the proper method of dealing with bots is highly dependent on their prevalence.

[/ QUOTE ]

With that logic I guess you'd agree the responsibility for finding, stopping, and preventing them is almost the sole job of the poker sites.

Would you further agree that if 2+2'ers found the bot, reported it to FT, and pushed FT to a decision to the point where FT got off it's ass and actually paid out damamges that perhaps Mason should get a collective bounty check in our names? I know $70,000.00 wouldn't mean much to Mason but it would send the right message to the current bot farmers and all the aspiring bot farmers out there.


D$D<--Mason really hates me!

[/ QUOTE ]

There is nothing wrong with an online player wanting to know the nature of their opponents.

There is something very wrong with the mindset that expects there to be no computer assisted players in an online environment.

There is something very wrong with the site mindset that seeks to steal account balances as punishment for botting instead of just simply tagging the account as such and let the players decide. Nobody is harmed if a player has a botters icon tag. If it's true that 100% of players don't want to play against the botter then no harm no foul - the botter gets zero action at the site. Keep in mind that this is less attractive to a site than current policies which essentially give them the right to steal by simply accusing anybody at anytime.

RIIT

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I have no earthly idea what the hell you're talking about now.

[/ QUOTE ]

The bottom line is that he wants to have affiliates become part of the bot monitoring process, even though affiliates do not have the tools or data available to do it with 100% certainty (and he admits they do not). In his solution, if that means high volume multi-tabling players are sacrificed to meet his ends and some bots are caught in the process, he is fine with that.

He has had his idea slapped down by some of the biggest and successful affiliates around, like Jeremy Enke over at Poker Affiliate World. However, that hasn't stopped him from continuing to tilt at windmills.

[/ QUOTE ]

Guess you missed part of the conversation.

Currently affiliates are liable for any and all charge backs at almost anytime. Any information they receive is generated by the poker site.

Hence the affiliates are totally off the hook and as a matter of fact spend a good deal of their "convention" time discussing security and the best interests of keeping poker alive time!


Thanks for playing,



D$D

[indianaV8]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Am I that unclear or are you that obtuse?

[/ QUOTE ]

You're that unclear. You've said a few times that you're proposing regulation. Can you summarize what exactly it is you're proposing?

[/ QUOTE ]

FT only distributing the seized account money in a proven bot account after 2+2'ers found the bot on their own and reported it to FT is chicken$hit, IMPO!

Given only the information I see from the report on my own rake back account I could with one data base sort seperate the casual poker players from any bots.

Give me a look at FT's daily information and I could seperate well over 50% of the multi-tabling grinders and bots with another database type sort or filter.

I don't know enough about the full "poker" accounting, but can imagine given the information in my rake back account AND an inside look at FT's security information eliminating 95% of humans from bots can't be that hard. A few phone calls and some faxed documentation or even an affiliate vouching for accounts IMPO would get us 100% of the way to a workible solution.

At the very least the time and programing cost to FT including giving every player twice what they paid out in this case is worth 100 times or more in less regulatory burden that might be imposed by my "imagined" future hearings.

I am asking FT to stop just looking at this week's or this quater's bottom line but look at the multi-year profits. Show congress, the anti-gambling nuts, and me they have the best interests of poker at heart.

Even if FT ultimately got a free pass in "my imagined" congressional hearings write it off to good will.

But don't expect me to hold my tounge when we are asked to suggest that the industry is self regulating and a free market rewards the best poker site in response to the crap the anti-gambling nuts will pull. I'll do what I'm told but hey in my mind I'm going to be saying "I told you so!"


D$D

[/ QUOTE ]

Why should bots be reported at all?

[Taylor Caby]

D$D,
This seems downright silly. I'm all for eradicating bots, but doing something that is going to severely inconvenience the affiliates' best customers is not good for business and will never be implemented.

This would be like putting the burden of policing credit card fraud on store owners. Yeah, the store owners are liable in certain chargeback situations (fraud, unhappy customers, etc.,) but it isn't their job to police the situation. This would be like asking them to submit a list each month of "suspicious individuals" and have their credit cards frozen until an investigation takes place. Just seems pretty silly when you think about it.

I understand where you are coming from, but you need to take a step back and think about all of the implications your plan would cause.

tc

[frommagio]

[ QUOTE ]


I'll second this.

[/ QUOTE ]

Have you achieved 235 posts with one-liners cheering TheEngineer? There are certainly worse ways to go about it, but come on man - he doesn't need it, so why waste the space?

Do you have any original thoughts you'd like to share with us?!?!??

[CountingMyOuts]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


I'll second this.

[/ QUOTE ]

Have you achieved 235 posts with one-liners cheering TheEngineer? There are certainly worse ways to go about it, but come on man - he doesn't need it, so why waste the space?

Do you have any original thoughts you'd like to share with us?!?!??

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I have not achieved 235 posts with one-liners cheering TheEngineer. Of course, you would have known that had you done a little research on my post history rather than waste some space with your petty post.