Stars catches a bot and it's........my mom

[Buzz-cp]

[ QUOTE ]
...Jeff provides is that they have evidence that at one time her account was playing for 43 straight hours...

[/ QUOTE ]

Now we're getting somewhere. Did you ask them for the 43 hours of hand histories? That should be pretty damn easy to get. Then, it's easy to plug into PT and verify. Then maybe, you would be able to dig into some windows logs?

[teddyFBI]

I am going to post the latest set of emails b/t her and Stars, because a lot of people seem to assign a lot of 'credibility' weight to that. For the record, I never *refused* to post them...I just thought initially that I wanted to see how much information I could get before indiscriminately posting 3rd party emails, about which I couldn't even answer basic questions. But I will post them. After all, when Microbob says to post them, you post them.

A few initial notes

1) A lot of people are honing in on her age as conclusive evidence that multitabling is impossible. (First off, she is 55, not 57; I had been incorrect...embarassing that I didn't even know how old my mother was.) 55 (or 57 for that matter) is not senile. She is actually very very book smart (has PHD and LLM, and taught law for a few years)...just has never really had the time to learn the ins and outs of computers and the internet (as I'm sure is the case for many of our parents). Some people are pointing out the dichotomy between me having to show her how to open a hotmail account (which was 2 or 3 years ago, by the way), yet her figuring out how to open a real money Stars acct last year and fund it with her debit card (which is apparently possible in Canada, by the way). There really isn't that much of a mystery here -- she used to be tech-retarded...now she's apparently a little more adept. The multi-tabling thing caught me a bit off guard too, but she was apparently getting bored, as I think any of us would, playing just a couple 5-cent tables.

2) The only reason I regret posting about this now is because it has led some people to call my own credibility into question...some going as far as to suggest that *I* had something to do with whatever they found on *her* computer hundreds of miles away at a house I frequent once or twice a year. Yes, there are all sorts of permutations that any of us could sit down and come up with re: me somehow using a proxy connection to remotely control her computer in a different country, but I guess you'll just have to take me at my word that that simply isn't the case. I am upset that my perhaps too-eager decision to post about this has done damage to the goodwill that I had built up in the two years of my posting here, but no putting the cow back in the barn now I guess.

3) I know the alleged 'holes' in my story are frustrating to some (myself included), but they reflect only the fact that I unfortunately do not have all the answers either...this situation is 36 hours old, and I'm learning about it all by proxy...posting info as it becomes available to me.

4) Anyway, here is the last exchange that I've seen b/t Jeff and my mom. I'll acknowledge that many of the questions she asks are borderline retarded to most of us here who have been around the block, but I guess they're only reasonable from the perspective of a less sophisticated player who has been thusly accused. Apologies for the formatting / it's just a cut/paste job. The one thing, by the way, that got my spidey-senses tingling when I first read the interchange, was her description of 'poker-record-keeping' stuff (you'll see what I mean below). I immediately called and quizzed her on that, and she told me that one of them was Pokertracker (which I had told her I use), and the other one was some random chart that showed her the probabilities of making draws or something (but it's not clear whether that one involved a download of some kind or just a website). Even if something was fishy there, it still doesn't explain the 43-hour straight thing. Regardless, even though I'm sure these will raise more Q's than they answer, I paste them in their unadulterated form:

FIRST ONE FROM MY MOM:
> Jeff, did you see my last email? Imagine if someone plays 8 tables at a
> time, which I do, to avoid boredom. I guess your logs count hours per
> table and then add them up. So if I played for 51/2 hours one
> evening (maybe I did that--what a waste of time) it would show as 43
> hours. But it's only 5 elapsed hours.
>
> My only technical savvy is knowing how to switch tables fast and be ready
> to "think fast" for the next hand. I don't program, I don't consult
> poker sites (except twice, to get those "poker-record-keeping" free
> offers, which I tried to use for a few days and gave up). Is it that I
> play fast that makes you think there's a Bot? I'm telling you a mistake
> has been made. Take the opportunity to challenge your own logic. This
> is so bizarre--it will make a great story at a cocktail party.
>
> Actually, my son has written to Lee Jones to ask him to look into
> this. But I would be happy if you and I solved the mystery before
> Lee has to
> waste his time on it. I strongly encourage you to maintain this email
> correspondence and ask me anything you want, so I can clear this up, and
> maybe you will end up learning something new. I'm sure you're great at
> your job, but you are making a mistake. I don't need my account
> back--if I'm playing so much you think I'm a BOT, then that's a good
> wake-up call for me to stop wasting my time--but I am amazed enough about
> all of this to want to see it through to the end.RM

JEFF's REPLY:

Hello,

> Jeff, did you see my last email? Imagine if someone plays 8 tables at a
> time, which I do, to avoid boredom. I guess your logs count hours per
> table and then add them up.

Incorrect. We're smart enough to differentiate table-hours versus real-
time hours spent at the table. As I said, however, I'm not at liberty to
get into details. Suffice to say, we know when you sat down at your first
table, and when you got up from your last. It was 43 hours by the clock,
from the start of the session to the end.

> Is it that I play fast that makes you think there's a Bot?

Again, I am not at liberty to teach you or anyone else what needs to be
done to avoid being detected as a bot. I will say that it is not nearly
so simplistic as this. The detection methods are quite advanced, which is
exactly why we don't want them known to bot programmers. Thus, even given
the small chance you're not running a bot, we're simply not about to tell
you what we're looking at or what we found. I can only tell you that, if
you were a programmer/geek and were presented with this evidence, you, too
would believe you were a bot.

I'm headed to bed myself (its late here as well). If you've written to
Lee, then I'll doubtless be asked to prove to Lee what I've found
tomorrow.

Regards,

Jeff
PokerStars Support Supervisor

VERY LASTLY, AND ALTHOUGH THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ISSUE AT HAND, I THOUGHT I WOULD POST A SUBSEQUENT EMAIL SHE WROTE TO ME PERSONALLY, WHICH IF NOTHING ELSE IS ELOQUENTLY WRITTEN AND ILLUSTRATES WHERE HER HEAD'S AT NOW:

It is possible that Jeff wrote Lee's last email to me. Some of the words and language are the same, and there is no "independent interest" taken by Lee. As you say, why should he care? He just gave the impression of caring, which lured me in to spending more time explaining.

Here is what concerns me now the most. I have seen the dark side of the highhandedness and control exercised by the "best-reputed" poker site, outside the boundaries of any country law or recourse for complaint (no board of directors, no public shareholders, not even a telephone number to make human contact). They can confiscate your funds at will. I have actually become concerned for you about this. I urge you not to keep large amounts of money on any site. It is disturbing if your livelihood depends on faith in faceless internet communications. Even if you continue to make money at a decent rate, you should not build a career on this. I went along assuming "they are a big company, they would always act reasonably." Now I have discovered that the president of the "best-reputed" poker site turns out not to be concerned about fundamental issues of integrity. He was impervious to the most blatant evidence that his security guy probably overstepped his enthusiasm on this one. Of course 5 cent players aren't important to the company, but what should have been important to Lee was building knowledge about the strengths and fallibilities of his security systems. The power he has left in Jeff's hands to be arbitrary and pig-headed should be frightening to anyone who thinks, "if I follow the rules, then I can always work things out." Even moreso should you be concerned about their ability to push a button and poof your funds are gone. This is not just PokerStars but any of the sites.

Another angle I have on this is corporate governance breaches like Enron, etc.. There is an alarming discovery that "hey the big guys can't always be trusted." Fortunately, corporate governance principles and laws have rushed in to control their arrogant mismanagement of shareholder funds. Having just been through a course on corporate governance, I have become educated about the huge gap between our assumptions that people will act reasonably, and the facts of human nature when left unbridled by law. Without being subjected to any corporate governance, companies like PokerStars make their customers vulnerable to all the risks of manager fallibilities.

Bottom line: I am not telling you to give up Poker. But I do encourage you not to assume anything about the integrity and reasonableness of people you don't know and can't talk to. Keep the money moving out. As you have already observed, Netteller is a step up because of their public listing. Also, if Poker is going to be any part of your career, build your career on your ability to exercise leadership and intellectual strength, not on confidence in someone else's "systems" that seem to be reliable from experience. Past reliability and trustworthiness of systems does not guarantee they will be that way tomorrow or in crisis, just as surely as yesterday's huge gains in the the electronic stock market provide no guarantee of what will happen tomorrow.

That is the best learning from this Twilight Zone experience with PokerStars that I can pass on to you. Don't mind--it's my job as a mum. Lots of luv.

[teddyFBI]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
...Jeff provides is that they have evidence that at one time her account was playing for 43 straight hours...

[/ QUOTE ]

Now we're getting somewhere. Did you ask them for the 43 hours of hand histories? That should be pretty damn easy to get. Then, it's easy to plug into PT and verify. Then maybe, you would be able to dig into some windows logs?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep, didn't you see my last email to Lee? That's exactly what I suggested would be the 'smoking gun' that my mom (and I) would like to know about.

[Buzz-cp]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
...Jeff provides is that they have evidence that at one time her account was playing for 43 straight hours...

[/ QUOTE ]

Now we're getting somewhere. Did you ask them for the 43 hours of hand histories? That should be pretty damn easy to get. Then, it's easy to plug into PT and verify. Then maybe, you would be able to dig into some windows logs?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep, didn't you see my last email to Lee? That's exactly what I suggested would be the 'smoking gun' that my mom (and I) would like to know about.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK--got it. I skim too much...I'm anxiously awaiting your receipt, and analysis of said HHs. This has become a sort of interesting soap opera for me.

[zooey]

This thread was a blast, as good as a novel.

So now its quite simply one of three possibilities, no?

1) Stars' software screwed up so bad they mistakenly
have the _Hand Histories_ of a 43 hour session.

2) The Mom was using a bot, is busted, and is not going to
admit it. No offense, teddy, I've never met you or your Mom.

3) This is prank.

An interesting logic puzzle, as these are all low-probability events, if we didn't know a priori that one of them was true. So barring admission of a prank (moderately likely), or the release of hand histories from Stars (very unlikely), we're going to have to make our own probability assessments, I fear.

I'm at 5% 60% and 35%, respectively, but I reserve the right to adjust as this story goes on.

Best,

Zooey

[teddyFBI]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
...Jeff provides is that they have evidence that at one time her account was playing for 43 straight hours...

[/ QUOTE ]

Now we're getting somewhere. Did you ask them for the 43 hours of hand histories? That should be pretty damn easy to get. Then, it's easy to plug into PT and verify. Then maybe, you would be able to dig into some windows logs?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep, didn't you see my last email to Lee? That's exactly what I suggested would be the 'smoking gun' that my mom (and I) would like to know about.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK--got it. I skim too much...I'm anxiously awaiting your receipt, and analysis of said HHs. This has become a sort of interesting soap opera for me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Me too. Whew -- alright taking a little break from this thread. That mega-post above was my attempt at full, full, full disclosure; hopefully will appease some skeptics. The analogy to airport security stopping the old lady in a wheelchair is somewhat accurate -- I wouldn't be taking a personal interest in this if my mom weren't the last, last, last, last person who would have any culpability. If it was my brother who dabbles in online poker every now and then, I might be inclined to believe I wasn't getting the whole story from him, and take everything he told me with a grain of salt...but my mom might be one of the most forthcoming ppl I know.

[smoore]

well, that brings up another question... does your brother have access (either physical or remote) to your mother's computer?

[train.]

[ QUOTE ]
If it was my brother who dabbles in online poker every now and then

[/ QUOTE ]

the plot thickens

[teddyFBI]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If it was my brother who dabbles in online poker every now and then

[/ QUOTE ]

the plot thickens

[/ QUOTE ]

Argh -- it seems some people love soap operas. I cited my brother not as any example of *his* shadiness, but rather only to emphasize that my mom really is that 85 year old grandmother in a wheelchair at the airport...my brother is at least a young dude who, growing up in the internet age, has an *idea* about the kind of manipulation that might go on online. Mom is miles away from that (as evidenced by her rather naive questioning of Jeff re: bots).

(No, he has long since moved out of our house at home, and does not have access to her computer whatsoever).

[SamG]

[ QUOTE ]
So now its quite simply one of three possibilities, no?

[/ QUOTE ]
No. It could be someone else playing on her account through a backdoor/trojan.

Teddy, for the record, I believe you.