Re: NL Bots oSn Full Tilt
 

I think for a while here it worked in the 'teams' (read 'bots') favor that everyone got away from the bot theory and went on towards the team theory, but I just can't get over the numbers. Numbers don't lie, no?

Re: NL Bots oSn Full Tilt
 

[ QUOTE ]
Really? He tells us that his friend couldn't even set up a proper anti-virus program and yet there are old threads where nlnut is writing scripts of some sort.

[/ QUOTE ]

I haven't read all 1000+ posts in this thread. That definitely seems a bit off.

Re: NL Bots oSn Full Tilt
 

statistics usually lie, but these numbers are just too close together, to be anything else than computer play IMO... So if these numbers are not made up, I for my part am definitely convinced of the truth of these accusations...

Re: NL Bots on Full Tilt
 

[ QUOTE ]
He does have a lot of posts in the software portion of this site... and has a good knowledge of programming from the looks of it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which makes Nation's claim that Chuck doesn't even have the wherewithal to "load his own anti-virus software" a bit dubious.

Re: NL Bots on Full Tilt
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
chuck, i want to know why none of you guys try to improve your game. ie. why do you all play the same style, you're playing break even, if you're all sitting together playing shouldn't there be some serious discussion on how to play hands better?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not if he's just paying people to click buttons according to a script, which is the same thing as using a bot.

The excuse that everyone comes to his house to play EVERY TIME just makes zero sense unless there's something fishy going on.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't think scripts alone were even legal on the major sites. If they are they shouldn't be, too close to fully automated play. If you want to eliminate bots you need to have a zero-tolerance policy for scripts as well.

Online poker really hasn't helped itself by being so self serving. If ever an industry needed heavy regulation it's this one.

Re: NL Bots on Full Tilt
 

[ QUOTE ]


[ QUOTE ]

He does have a lot of posts in the software portion of this site... and has a good knowledge of programming from the looks of it.

[/ QUOTE ]


Nation earlier:
[ QUOTE ]
Chuck is a good guy, and to be honest, doesn't even know how to configure his virus protection; I had to do it for him.

[/ QUOTE ]

A few of nlnuts' posts would suggest otherwise:

one

two

three

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep. I wouldn't doubt they are one and the same.

Re: NL Bots oSn Full Tilt
 

[ QUOTE ]
Continuation Bet:

2997/3127 = 0.958426607
1104/1144 = 0.965034965
2757/2850 = 0.967368421
2205/2274 = 0.969656992

Bet Turn:

1151/4596 = 0.250435161
480/1801 = 0.266518601
1230/4857 = 0.253242742
961/3681 = 0.261070361

Bet River:

2497/575 = 0.230276332
961/216 = 0.224765869
2403/538 = 0.223886808
1836/411 = 0.223856209

can 3 separate humans, playing on their own, even if they play off of an identical strategy, produce these results?

seems virtually impossible. are they clones?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not only do I not believe that 3 guys could produce stats this close no matter how tight they stick to the game plan, I don't even think 1 person could produce those stats that close if they played all the hands. There is no question in my mind that a computer is making these decisions. If you can look at those stats and think to yourself "well, I guess it's possible for 3 guys to do that if they played the same strategy" you should get your head check and certainly quit poker since your ability to size up situations is way off mark

Re: NL Bots on Full Tilt
 

Wow @ the links to the scripts. Just wow.

Re: NL Bots oSn Full Tilt
 

I'm curious if anyone, especially a massive-multi-tabler, has examined their own stats as a comparison. Ideally, they would play on auto-pilot (bot-like alogrithm?) and have a large sample size at one site.

Perhaps a comparison of time periods of the same player would be useful. It'd likely be better if some stats guru designed an analysis.

Re: NL Bots oSn Full Tilt
 

I feel like I just climbed a mountain reading this entire thread. Two questions that have not been answered yet are:

1.) In what form is this "playbook" is it on a computer or something like a printout? Simple question that doesn't involve releasing any "strategy" info. The main reason I think it's been dodged is because when they answer that it's on a computer, people will dig further. Then they will find out it's not just a pdf chart, it's an actual program, which would strengthen claims of bot programs.

2.)What is Brandon's ftp name? Why is this so hard to answer? The reason I think he hasn't answered is because then the OP would be able to hone his look at stats vs him and show that he did exploit them often and they didn't adjust. If you could please, Trebek, show how much you exploited these players before they adjusted (% of hands, how much money) because if these numbers are large it would show the existence of bots. Human players that are discussing hands would adjust to a player without a decent gap in time, especially if it was costing them a good amount of money.

However, if a couple people are running a bot program it would take a little bit longer to pick out a certain player owning them with specific exploits, and the bot would either be adjusted strategy wise or the human would step in and make choices until programming is fixed.

I think eventually they realised it was too hard of work to try and program against one player, so the easiest route was avoidance.

One more point that I think people are over looking, many people have stated that creating a bot that consistently won a decent amount at NL would be tough.

Well, these "bots" aren't winning that much, the main money is coming from rakeback which is the main goal. If the program can get in a large amount of hands without losing then it's a victory, because rakeback will make them enough.

And it is enough for them not to adjust play, because programming a smarter bot would be much tougher, when they can just sit back and collect a steady rakeback income from a break even to small winning program. Hell they can make enough to just lounge around all day and occassionally putting in some work on the program, while it makes an income for them.

They figure for what little they actually have to do right now, the profit is worth it. Anyone who was busting their butt putting in several hours, with a set strategy, wouldn't be happy with a low winrate.

In this case it's all about effort vs return. Which is more likely for a human to be happy with? Low effort+Low time consumption = Ok Money OR High effort+High time consumption = Ok Money (I'm assuming even with a set strat watching 12 tables and clicking non stop for 5+ hours several times a weak would be high effort)