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

[bwana devil]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
BTW, have you shown your mom this thread yet? She'd probably get a kick out of it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, impress your mum with the quality of the company you keep by introducing her to the zoo.

Go on, I dare ya!

[/ QUOTE ]

not sure your mom's marital status, but if single, this thread appears better than myspace for a hookup for your mom.

bwana

[frommagio]

Let's step back a moment and think. Suppose this happened at Party - how would they handle it?

Mike O'Malley, what do you think about that? When you finish putting together your answers to the upgrade thread, how about if you check that out for the group here?

Thanks Mike! Appreciate the interest!

[Robo1661]

Okay, I'm outing myself, I'm the seer . Teddy is the ww, jeff is the bot. You're just gonna have to trust me. Angel I'm asking for you protection tonight.

[NCAces]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't know, in the few email clips you did post, his tone was very arrogant and cocky.

[/ QUOTE ]

Was this guy based on Jeff from Pokerstars?

"Best. Bot thread. Ever."

[/ QUOTE ]

Nah, that's not Jeff. Jeff has to be:



or



NCAces

[grinin]

[ QUOTE ]
Haven't read all the pages here so I don't know if this theory has been advanced, but if Mom is 6 tabling with only one table visible and only acting when a table pops up isn't this how a bot would act, totally reactive, never proactive. I think this pattern alone would get you labled as a bot no?


[/ QUOTE ]
Agreed, when this was mentioned, I felt that it could easily be mistaken as the functioning of a rudimentary bot. Especially since it is nanolimits and the woman is intelligent enough to play mechanically.

The problem is there are many players here, that also play very mechanically, albeit at much higher limits. Why would the great "bot detection" features not give a false positive for these players? If one of the big clues is what it appears to be, then bot detection has a long way to go. (This is kinda why I didn't point this out earlier)

[grinin]

I am debating as to whether or not to ask the mods to remove my post and the ones earlier. Simply so as not to give bot makers any hints.

[Gobgogbog]

[ QUOTE ]
I am debating as to whether or not to ask the mods to remove my post and the ones earlier. Simply so as not to give bot makers any hints.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you're safe, considering you haven't actually posted anything that would be of value to any bot maker

[Edder11]

Posting under a new name.

For the conspiracy theorists out there has any considered that Teddy has pushed this so much due to the fact that his bot was caught and they did not give him satisfactory evidence. PokerStars do not want their hunting techniques to become common knowledge as mentioned in one of the emails but clearly all his mum needs to do is request hand histories for these alleged sessions(not that hard to do) to make it pretty clear PS did not make a mistake. Sure if posted someone would look at them.

By doing this they will have to go into more detail eventually which will be made common knowledge and as such people who employ bots will know not to make certain errors in future.......

[MattSuspect]

you're an idiot

[train.]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Haven't read all the pages here so I don't know if this theory has been advanced, but if Mom is 6 tabling with only one table visible and only acting when a table pops up isn't this how a bot would act, totally reactive, never proactive. I think this pattern alone would get you labled as a bot no?


[/ QUOTE ]
Agreed, when this was mentioned, I felt that it could easily be mistaken as the functioning of a rudimentary bot. Especially since it is nanolimits and the woman is intelligent enough to play mechanically.

The problem is there are many players here, that also play very mechanically, albeit at much higher limits. Why would the great "bot detection" features not give a false positive for these players? If one of the big clues is what it appears to be, then bot detection has a long way to go. (This is kinda why I didn't point this out earlier)

[/ QUOTE ]

Wasn't this the smoking gun that triggered a look at RaiNKhAN ? IIRC he wasn't cleared until he sent in a video of himself 27 tableing or some such.

(Chill out Mike. Your response was a bit harsh.)

*

Edit/MH: Yeah; sorry about that. It irritated me that he hadn't even read the thread before making a comment that might have been made five times before.