Resolution of the Stars investigation. - Page 15

MicroBob · #**141** 04-23-2006, 03:06 AM

I really don't want Stars kicking me off if I haven't done anything wrong.

No, it wouldn't be the end of the world assuming I got my money back. But it certainly isn't how they should do business and they would get a REALLY bad reputation if they behaved in this way.

MicroBob · #**142** 04-23-2006, 03:11 AM

I don't think a bot-bounty/reward would be very practical.

They would get all kinds of e-mails about it just hoping to collect the bounty.
Plus, most people are too stupid to know one way or another anyway.

I've been accused in the chat-box of colluding about a dozen times. Every time it was with someone I didn't know at all.

I'm sure many of these people really did report my play to support as they said they were going to.
I've also been accused of 'cheating' when playing heads-up because he didn't like how I played my hands.
The guy stayed in the chat-box after I busted him to tell all the other players how I 'cheated' because I caught my draw on the river with 65s.

Encouraging people to report would just make things even more nightmarish for support to try to sort through all of it imo.
If there was a practical way to do this I would be all for it.
But the possible flaws just really stick out to me.

SleepingDragon · #**143** 04-23-2006, 03:43 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think a bot-bounty/reward would be very practical.

They would get all kinds of e-mails about it just hoping to collect the bounty.
Plus, most people are too stupid to know one way or another anyway.

I've been accused in the chat-box of colluding about a dozen times. Every time it was with someone I didn't know at all.

I'm sure many of these people really did report my play to support as they said they were going to.
...

[/ QUOTE ]
With all due respect to your 17000+ posts, did you read the part where I said "If your investigation determines they're wrong, you don't investigate any further report of bots from them."?

There may be reasons they've considered the idea I proposed and rejected it. And if so fine, I have no problem with that, my intention wasn't to push that particular idea, it was to suggest to Lee an instrument he could use to measure whether obvious ideas had been considered and if so rejected for well considered reasons.

But your specific rejection is way too quick I think. If in fact as you say "I'm sure many of these people really did report my play to support as they said they were going to.", please note that my idea would as a corollary create a mechanism for *very* quickly dealing with most of those people for once and for all - after the first report of you as a bot, any minimal implementation of the idea would instantly flag all the subsequent users reporting you as a bot as:
a) no you're wrong (insert appropriate template reply here), and
b) internal note on your file that we won't ever again listen to you complaining about this kind of thing (though of course we'll be nice about it with form letter (b) which references incident (a) )

OTOH, people who really want to claim the bounty would (I hope, and yes the idea is just off the top of my head) be discouraged from applying before they had some certainty because they'd know that if they were wrong that would mark the end of their bounty hunting. There'd be a strong incentive for them to ensure they were right before posting.

My guess (and yes it needs discussion, but please remember that I was only suggesting that this be a yardstick of an IDEA WHICH IF NOT CONSIDERED YET means a problem, NOT an idea which if you haven't done it means you are morons) is that this idea could be made into something useful. But I do understand that to be a guess. I just want Lee to realize that if the idea hasn't even been discussed then there's something wrong with the idea generation process in his group.

My personal bet is that Stars could actually improve support efficiency while doing this, but that's just me.

MicroBob · #**144** 04-23-2006, 03:52 AM

So if I suspect somebody might be a bot and I happen to be wrong (even though I had good reason to believe they were a bot) then they simply don't investigate it if I happen to run up against a real bot the very next day?

Still don't like it.

Also, I think Stars and Party and other would be reluctant to do something like this because it could be viewed as akin to admitting that there is a problem that they really don't want to publicize.

They want to tell new players who are thinking of signing-up that the site is super-duper secure and safe and that "of course there aren't any bot-problems. Nothing to worry about because they practically don't exist and we so easily catch all of the existing ones in nano-seconds anyway."

If there's info about bot-bounty-hunting on their site this could be disconcerting to potential new players and they don't want that.

That's as much a reason why the sites wouldn't do this as the practicality and usefulness of it.

SleepingDragon · #**145** 04-23-2006, 03:59 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Also, I think Stars and Party and other would be reluctant to do something like this because it could be viewed as akin to admitting that there is a problem that they really don't want to publicize.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm very much starting to wonder if you read my original post in its entirety. I won't even quote the relevant parts this time.

gasoltub · #**146** 04-23-2006, 09:01 AM

[ QUOTE ]

But your specific rejection is way too quick I think. If in fact as you say "I'm sure many of these people really did report my play to support as they said they were going to.", please note that my idea would as a corollary create a mechanism for *very* quickly dealing with most of those people for once and for all - after the first report of you as a bot, any minimal implementation of the idea would instantly flag all the subsequent users reporting you as a bot as:
a) no you're wrong (insert appropriate template reply here), and
b) internal note on your file that we won't ever again listen to you complaining about this kind of thing (though of course we'll be nice about it with form letter (b) which references incident (a) )

[/ QUOTE ]

This could unfortunately open up an opportunity for the bot users. They would open an account and play it manually for a little while, then they would file a "bot suspicion report" against that account from another account. This would be investigated and found to be false, and voila, the new account would be clear from future accusations since it was already investigated once and found innocent.
Next step, bring out the bot.

driller · #**147** 04-23-2006, 12:04 PM

I am way more worried about being accused (wrongly) of being a bot or colluding or cheating and having my funds confiscated than I am of playing against bots. I don't play much on stars, but from my dealings with party on very trivial matters, I know it would be a nightmare if something like that happened there.

Guthrie · #**148** 04-23-2006, 01:16 PM

I think Stars should send Teddy's mom to the WSOP.

She'd have a huge cheering section on the rail.

o0mr_bill0o · #**149** 04-23-2006, 01:16 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

But your specific rejection is way too quick I think. If in fact as you say "I'm sure many of these people really did report my play to support as they said they were going to.", please note that my idea would as a corollary create a mechanism for *very* quickly dealing with most of those people for once and for all - after the first report of you as a bot, any minimal implementation of the idea would instantly flag all the subsequent users reporting you as a bot as:
a) no you're wrong (insert appropriate template reply here), and
b) internal note on your file that we won't ever again listen to you complaining about this kind of thing (though of course we'll be nice about it with form letter (b) which references incident (a) )

[/ QUOTE ]

This could unfortunately open up an opportunity for the bot users. They would open an account and play it manually for a little while, then they would file a "bot suspicion report" against that account from another account. This would be investigated and found to be false, and voila, the new account would be clear from future accusations since it was already investigated once and found innocent.
Next step, bring out the bot.

[/ QUOTE ]

or they could open up accounts with bots and have an account that catches the bots, racking up the rewards in the process...

teddyFBI · #**150** 04-23-2006, 01:23 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I think Stars should send Teddy's mom to the WSOP.

She'd have a huge cheering section on the rail.

[/ QUOTE ]

WOW -- this is a great idea, but I doubt very much that they'll do this. $10,000 is still $10,000. I will say this one thing about that proposal: it would absolutely make my mom's year. She got interested in poker while she was staying here with me as I recovered from major jaw surgery last summer. I had my jaw wired shut for a month and I basically confined to my apartment, where I played an obscene amount of poker. She watched me and decided that she wanted to give it a shot herself...and has been a bit of a nanolimit addict ever since.
She's always very jealous when I tell her about tournaments I play in, and it would be such a highlight for her to get to play in the WSOP. So if you check back into this thread Lee and feel like making a mom's poker dream come true... [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]