Re: Official Full Tilt Poker Response to Bot Thread
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If I paid you to sit there and do what the software told you to do, could you do it? (Ignore, would you, for purposes of the question)

fwiw, over time I would expect misclicks to be minimized.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well they werent being paid to sit there and make clicks; at least that is what we are being told. They are playing with their own money on their own accounts. A little different IMHO.

I'm not talking misclicks. I'm talking about where they have the nut flush and the river pairs board. Opponent pushes all-in. Strategically their rules say to fold. But they have a gut feeling and really think the guy is full of it so they decide to call. Do really think they NEVER do this because they follow the rule set 100%? IMHO, it seems rather hard to believe.

[/ QUOTE ]

AP10, while they were indeed not being paid an hourly to click, it was not far off.

The scenario suggested was that all wins/losses/rakeback across all accounts was pooled and profits distributed equally to reduce the effect of variance on the individual incomes.

The moniker of "sweatshop" stereotypes a scenario with one slavedriver reaping the profits while the workers toil for a minimum wage - this is not the suggested case here, although given the quantity of OMG BOT! OMG SWEATSHOP! posts it is easy to have missed this detail.

Given this - going with a "gut feeling and really think the guy is full of it" read - great if successful, but if not - face the wrath of the other grinders following "the system" for costing them all $$ by deviating of his own accord.

Now obviously this is a weird situation to imagine... but if you were a losing player, recruited by/joined a so called "sweatshop" and were suddenly banking a steady earn from minimal winrate + decent RB, surely you can understand why a drone would think "OMG this LAG is so FOS, no way he has a boat!!! but "system" says fold, I fold, ho-hum, on to the next hand"

Thoughts?

dave.

[/ QUOTE ]

It all just seems too hard to believe. I'm a winning medium & high stakes player and I've been told by opponents that I am the most disciplined player they've ever played against. Even still, on occasion I mess up and make a bad call even though my mind/system/past experience tells me to fold.

Remember, this is only one hard to believe aspect of the entire story. A lot of the other things are rather hard to believe as well IMHO. Adding them all together leads me to only one conclusion.

Ok, you cant prove it completely. I think there is enough substance here that they should at minimum be banned from the site. Let them keep their money and tell them to move on and learn from this and modify the T&C to not allow this "sweat shop" type of setup.

Regardless if you think they are guilty or innocent; I think we can all agree that Full Tilt dropped the ball on this....big time!

Re: Official Full Tilt Poker Response to Bot Thread
 

[ QUOTE ]

It all just seems too hard to believe.


[/ QUOTE ]

Oh it's a stretch, but but not outside the realms of possibility, for example:

[ QUOTE ]

I'm a winning medium & high stakes player and I've been told by opponents that I am the most disciplined player they've ever played against. Even still, on occasion I mess up and make a bad call even though my mind/system/past experience tells me to fold.


[/ QUOTE ]

Imagine if you were NOT - like maybe 0_drunkenboxer seems to have been prior to the "sweatshop"

You are a losing player, someone offers you a detailed, street-by-street "system" to eek out a minimal winrate, collect gobs of rakeback, with the reduced varience of combined bankroll - wouldn't you follow the "system" to the absolute letter?

[ QUOTE ]

A lot of the other things are rather hard to believe as well IMHO.


[/ QUOTE ]

Remind me... the only one I remember was the disbelief of nlnut unable to sort out antivirus, but able to fix AHK - I didn't argue about that at the time since there was ~300+ posts since, but I don't go for that - I repair Windows for a R/L job - I have encountered boffins who can code ASM but can't adequately protect themselves from simple malware.

If you ignore the ridiculous posts by his co-hort and only pay attention to those of nlnut, there is very little inconsistency.

[ QUOTE ]

Ok, you cant prove it completely.


[/ QUOTE ]

IMO a site must be able to - it is really not hard to detect activities of a real bot - it will make mistakes (not TOP mistakes, but detection mistakes) if it is playing 12 tables. Like acting on 4 tables simultaneously, or the obvious playing of obscene hours.


Consider this: if the "sweatshop" is indeed fully automated bots - would it not make more sense to run one for six hours - break for a little - get new IP - run another account for 6 hours, rinse, repeat?

[ QUOTE ]

I think there is enough substance here that they should at minimum be banned from the site.


[/ QUOTE ]

But there is at the end of it nothing here other than similar stats? they are not colluding - which is of course ban worthy - what is wrong with being a "human-bot"?

[ QUOTE ]

Let them keep their money


[/ QUOTE ]

If there is enough to justifiably ban them, there should also be enough to justifiably take their funds as the proceeds of illegal play, no?


[ QUOTE ]

modify the T&C to not allow this "sweat shop" type of setup.


[/ QUOTE ]

At the end of the day, what is actually wrong with a "sweatshop" such as this one is purported to be?

I agree it is a bit of a weird thing to comprehend, but what is the wrongness of it? Any different to playing alone while 2 friends observe and remind you if you are about to deviate from the system? Any different to coaching over VNC+Skype?

[ QUOTE ]

I think we can all agree that Full Tilt dropped the ball on this....big time!


[/ QUOTE ]

Indeed, but (as is my current perception of the situation) only by failing to quickly point out what these people were doing, and why it was indeed allowed.



Maybe I have totally misunderstood, but I find nothing in any site's t&c that would outlaw such "sweatshopping" - and I'm kinda hard pushed to actually see anything actually wrong with it - apart from the gut-reaction nasty taste in the mouth the idea of such scenarios creates.

If there are actually people playing an identical tiltless aggro-nit strategy set in stone 6 hours a day, every day - where is the wrongness?

Weird situation indeed, and I'm glad it has come up - but the mob is so very quick to judge, me thinks.

dave.

Re: Official Full Tilt Poker Response to Bot Thread
 

you kids were screaming the sky is falling about bots a long time ago, you were just waiting for a thread to run with......this whole thing is stupid and so is pretty much every person who replied in this thread.

Good Work FTP some of us still love you guys.

Re: Official Full Tilt Poker Response to Bot Thread
 

[ QUOTE ]
you kids were screaming the sky is falling about bots a long time ago, you were just waiting for a thread to run with......this whole thing is stupid and so is pretty much every person who replied in this thread.

Good Work FTP some of us still love you guys.

[/ QUOTE ]

You can go f*** yourself and your cavalier attitude. If in doubt kick them out. Get rid of them. If they feel like s***, smell like s***, and taste like s***, they probably are. FTP is screwing around alot of people for a few. Complete BS. Well guess what, BOTS will be on the increase on FTP because they obviously don't have the kohonas to do anything about it.

Re: Official Full Tilt Poker Response to Bot Thread
 

[ QUOTE ]
If the evidence was found to be inconclusive, why were the account not closed? If there is even a small chance the accounts could be bots at all the accounts should all be closed and the funds seized. And wtf if the evidence was inconclusive then how did you determine that the evidence did not warrant the seizure of funds? This is completely rediculous that nothing has been done.

[/ QUOTE ]

wow. no. they better be pretty damn sure before they start closing accounts and seizing funds, that is not something that it is not acceptable to make a mistake about.

Re: Official Full Tilt Poker Response to Bot Thread
 

[ QUOTE ]

You can go f*** yourself and your cavalier attitude. If in doubt kick them out. Get rid of them. If they feel like s***, smell like s***, and taste like s***, they probably are. FTP is screwing around alot of people for a few. Complete BS. Well guess what, BOTS will be on the increase on FTP because they obviously don't have the kohonas to do anything about it.

[/ QUOTE ]

You would gladly accept it if FT seized your bankroll and banned your account without a large amount of overwhelming evidence?

ARE YOU SURE you have never made a play "a bot would make"?

Think about what you are saying, fool.

Re: Official Full Tilt Poker Response to Bot Thread
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

You can go f*** yourself and your cavalier attitude. If in doubt kick them out. Get rid of them. If they feel like s***, smell like s***, and taste like s***, they probably are. FTP is screwing around alot of people for a few. Complete BS. Well guess what, BOTS will be on the increase on FTP because they obviously don't have the kohonas to do anything about it.

[/ QUOTE ]

You would gladly accept it if FT seized your bankroll and banned your account without a large amount of overwhelming evidence?

ARE YOU SURE you have never made a play "a bot would make"?

Think about what you are saying, fool.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well for one thing fool he said nothing about taking there money. Kick them out. End of story. Their plotting and planning together is ludicrous whether they uses bots or not.
Online has to be as close to live as possible. Do you discuss hand play with friends at a live table while the hand is in progress. This is plain sick.

Re: Official Full Tilt Poker Response to Bot Thread
 

Well then consider the same argument without taking money.

Would you be happy to be kicked from site to site on allegation without evidence?

It would not be long before there is no sites left... and if you are US based, what, 4 sites boot you before you are entirely banned from playing poker through no fault of your own?

You quote-call me fool? Do you fail to realize how your "execution without trial" suggestion is far more foolish than occasionally failing to catch a criminal?

Re: Official Full Tilt Poker Response to Bot Thread
 

Well so be it. When people cheat in the Olympics they are banned for life. You have a problem with that too? To me they have been caught (and admitted to) discusiing hands while they are in progress. Maybe they should have kept their mouthts shut rather than incriminating themselves.

Re: Official Full Tilt Poker Response to Bot Thread
 

[ QUOTE ]

Their plotting and planning together is ludicrous whether they uses bots or not.


[/ QUOTE ]

No it is not.

"plotting and planning together" is what goes on in every strategy thread in every strategy forum on this very site every day.

What is the difference between strategy posters and these "bots" you are accusing?

Re: Official Full Tilt Poker Response to Bot Thread
 

They are doing it well the hand is in play. What don't you get about that?

Re: Official Full Tilt Poker Response to Bot Thread
 

[ QUOTE ]

When people cheat in the Olympics they are banned for life. You have a problem with that too?


[/ QUOTE ]

Absolutely not. Cheaters should be banned.

BUT IT IS NOT PROVEN THESE PEOPLE ARE CHEATING!! IT IS IN FACT HARD TO ARGUE THEY HAVE DONE ANYTHING REMOTELY BORDERLINE!!

FT has exonerated them, and they have describes their "sweatshop" that plays a nitty fit-or-fold strategy explaining their similar stats.

If they were to play at the same tables as each other, colluding ZeeJustin style, I'd be right there with the "BAN THEM" crew... but these people have not done this... what do you think they have done wrong?

Re: Official Full Tilt Poker Response to Bot Thread
 

[ QUOTE ]
They are doing it well the hand is in play. What don't you get about that?

[/ QUOTE ]

Where do you get the idea this is wrong?

It is not.

See coaching / sweating. Refer to Lee Jones previous posts on the alleged "one player per hand" rule - it is a uniqueness of the live-game, nothing to do with online poker. Unenforceable, therefore not even stated to be against the online rules.

Re: Official Full Tilt Poker Response to Bot Thread
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

When people cheat in the Olympics they are banned for life. You have a problem with that too?


[/ QUOTE ]

Absolutely not. Cheaters should be banned.

BUT IT IS NOT PROVEN THESE PEOPLE ARE CHEATING!! IT IS IN FACT HARD TO ARGUE THEY HAVE DONE ANYTHING REMOTELY BORDERLINE!!

FT has exonerated them, and they have describes their "sweatshop" that plays a nitty fit-or-fold strategy explaining their similar stats.

If they were to play at the same tables as each other, colluding ZeeJustin style, I'd be right there with the "BAN THEM" crew... but these people have not done this... what do you think they have done wrong?

[/ QUOTE ]

Plain and simple. they are discussing a hand while it is in play. Obviously others do that also. One problem. They admitted to this going on constanlty. Inappropriate and bannable behaviour imo.

Re: Official Full Tilt Poker Response to Bot Thread
 

[ QUOTE ]

Plain and simple. they are discussing a hand while it is in play. Obviously others do that also. One problem. They admitted to this going on constanlty. Inappropriate and bannable behaviour imo.


[/ QUOTE ]

As I said above,this is totally fine with online poker.

Lee Jones (Former Head Honcho of PokerStars) said exactly so.

This is some random rule from live-poker etiquette that for unknown reasons some think applies to the Internet - it does not.

Re: Official Full Tilt Poker Response to Bot Thread
 

so you figure they are just doing coaching sessions. i don't think it is coaching. when adults go on the soccer pitch with six year olds to help thme with their game that is coaching. when a overage player plays on an undrage team that is cheating. they are not coaching nor can their behaviour be defined as coaching. more like cheating.

Re: Official Full Tilt Poker Response to Bot Thread
 

Anyhow , Dave I think we can both take back the fool comments. It has been a decent discussion. food for thought.. thats for sure. Take care. I think I am done with this thread. [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

Re: Official Full Tilt Poker Response to Bot Thread
 

AS am I - another very late night for me in the UK.

Parting clarification:

[ QUOTE ]

so you figure they are just doing coaching sessions. i don't think it is coaching.


[/ QUOTE ]

Not at all. I think they are being told EXACTLY how to play.

But there is no difference. Site t&c do not enforce 1 player per hand. Coaching is widely accepted, and may wellexert @50%? influence over actions taken? I have no idea really. But the sites t&c make no distinction beween a donkey shouting "Raise", with a 0.0001% chance of influencing action - and a slavemaster commanding the same "Raise" instruction with 100% effectiveness.

Also, make sure to believe I don't think this sort of operation is in any way good for the game or for normal players, I am just arguing that it is allowed - therefore a banning based on such activity would be absurd.

Nothing short of a change in sites t&c would change this, and judging by Lee Jones' previous comments about a lack of universal enforceability, is unlikely to happen.

While it may be nice to think sites would implement such a policy, I actually hope they do not - as I'm sure most are aware, a selectively enforced law is one of the worst kind.

dave.

Re: Official Full Tilt Poker Response to Bot Thread
 

I have not played on Ful Tilt for about a year or so. I definately would not come back regardless of their decision on this issue.

The reason I stopped playing there was simple ... I could not win there. My BB/100 was something like -2.0 (I have to check My PT datatbase to be sure). I found other sites to be much more advantageous to my play. I really feel that one of the reasons I ran so bad there, and not on other sites, had to do with team play. Aside from this "bot" issue I belive that there is rampant collusion at FT and they either overlook this or simply do not have the tools or manpower to detect and deal with it. So I play elsewhere.

Re: Official Full Tilt Poker Response to Bot Thread
 

[ QUOTE ]

Imagine if you were NOT - like maybe 0_drunkenboxer seems to have been prior to the "sweatshop"

You are a losing player, someone offers you a detailed, street-by-street "system" to eek out a minimal winrate, collect gobs of rakeback, with the reduced varience of combined bankroll - wouldn't you follow the "system" to the absolute letter?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think a losing player is a losing player because they lack discipline. If they lack that much discipline that they cant beat low stakes poker then I have no clue how they are going to follow some rule set precisely.

[ QUOTE ]
Remind me... the only one I remember was the disbelief of nlnut unable to sort out antivirus, but able to fix AHK - I didn't argue about that at the time since there was ~300+ posts since, but I don't go for that - I repair Windows for a R/L job - I have encountered boffins who can code ASM but can't adequately protect themselves from simple malware.

[/ QUOTE ]

What doesnt make sense to me:

1. Abnormally similar stats between 4 accounts over 400K+ hands.

2. They supposedly are following some rule set precisely but they need to play together within a ridiculously crammed environment. Why? They say because they help each other make tough decisions. Well this isnt following a rule set. Now there is coaching with human element involved which will lead to enough deviation in the stats which is not showing up! Something is shady.

3. The entire computer illiterate crap when he obviously can fix scripts, etc. If he can fix scripts then it isnt that much harder to code a low level bot. Dave, as fellow coders I think we both now this.

There are more that I cant think of off the top of my head without going back through the entire thing and scrutinizing it. These three are the major ones though.

[ QUOTE ]
If you ignore the ridiculous posts by his co-hort and only pay attention to those of nlnut, there is very little inconsistency.

[/ QUOTE ]

What is the point of these ridiculous comments by his co-hort if they are 100% innocent as he says? I just dont think they've been very forth coming about the entire thing. Even nlnut. Everything he has said has been a bunch of fluff with no substance. Its like he running for political office or something. If I were in his shoes and was 100% innocent as he states, I would be extremely detailed and honest about everything. Not jump around the questions.

[ QUOTE ]
IMO a site must be able to - it is really not hard to detect activities of a real bot - it will make mistakes (not TOP mistakes, but detection mistakes) if it is playing 12 tables. Like acting on 4 tables simultaneously, or the obvious playing of obscene hours.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that a site must prove they are a 100% a bot if they were to confiscate funds. There is nothing stopping them from banning them though. Lets assume that they are not breaking the T&C like you believe (and I will not argue). A site still has authority to ban them. Its their site and they need to protect their players. Anything shady should not be allowed and they should remove these players to protect their other customers. I'd rather be proactive in this situation and completely squash any remote possibilities of bots or shady play then to be reactive and to constantly be behind the eight ball like they have been account hackings, etc.

[ QUOTE ]
Consider this: if the "sweatshop" is indeed fully automated bots - would it not make more sense to run one for six hours - break for a little - get new IP - run another account for 6 hours, rinse, repeat?

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that would make the most sense but we can not assume that they are this smart or had the knowledge or resources to do this. Personally while it doesnt make sense I dont think this can be used as evidence to prove they are not a bot. If you and I (the computer geeks we are) would build a bot, I'm sure it would be rather sophisticated and undetectable. It doesnt take much knowledge to build a low level working bot. I just dont think we can assume their intelligence at this point. I'd rather work off of fact.

[ QUOTE ]
But there is at the end of it nothing here other than similar stats? they are not colluding - which is of course ban worthy - what is wrong with being a "human-bot"?

[/ QUOTE ]

Nothing wrong with a human bot. Put three of them in the same room with the things I listed above that do not make sense and this is when I start having problems.

[ QUOTE ]
If there is enough to justifiably ban them, there should also be enough to justifiably take their funds as the proceeds of illegal play, no?

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree. Basically you think its either confiscate funds which would include an obvious ban or nothing. Sites have the flexibility to ban whomever they like whether they are following the T&C or not. I think they need to protect their customers from shady activities. Why do you think we never hear about these things happening on Pokerstars? They are proactive and squash the situations before they get this big. I think Full Tilt needs to do the same thing.

[ QUOTE ]
At the end of the day, what is actually wrong with a "sweatshop" such as this one is purported to be?

I agree it is a bit of a weird thing to comprehend, but what is the wrongness of it? Any different to playing alone while 2 friends observe and remind you if you are about to deviate from the system? Any different to coaching over VNC+Skype?

[/ QUOTE ]

Its not good for the game. Coaching for a few hour sessions is one thing. Running a sweat shop where the ONLY time you play is with a huge group of people literally sitting on each others laps for hours on end is another. I think you are comparing apples and oranges. (Even you admit in other posts this is not good for the game) I see no good that can come from not modifying the sites T&C to prohibit this type of blatant sweat shopping.

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe I have totally misunderstood, but I find nothing in any site's t&c that would outlaw such "sweatshopping" - and I'm kinda hard pushed to actually see anything actually wrong with it - apart from the gut-reaction nasty taste in the mouth the idea of such scenarios creates.

[/ QUOTE ]

The nasty perception that it gives off is enough of a reason to add it to the T&C. Do you want to be losing customers because you allow these guys? Do you want fish knowing they are playing against human bots? Its bad for the game and bad for the perception of the site, period. This is easily enough reason to not allow it int he future and to add it to an updated T&C. I dont see how you can not agree with this...

Re: Official Full Tilt Poker Response to Bot Thread
 

Bots or no bots, I will always love you Full Tilt.

Re: Official Full Tilt Poker Response to Bot Thread
 

[ QUOTE ]
I have not played on Ful Tilt for about a year or so. I definately would not come back regardless of their decision on this issue.

The reason I stopped playing there was simple ... I could not win there. My BB/100 was something like -2.0 (I have to check My PT datatbase to be sure). I found other sites to be much more advantageous to my play. I really feel that one of the reasons I ran so bad there, and not on other sites, had to do with team play. Aside from this "bot" issue I belive that there is rampant collusion at FT and they either overlook this or simply do not have the tools or manpower to detect and deal with it. So I play elsewhere.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your post would have been shorter and more honest if you had said: "I can't win at FTP, so it must be cheating." The assumption being you are too good to lose in a straight game, and only a rigged game can defeat you.

Sorry I don't buy that. It's easy to blame others for your own bad play. Since you have PT maybe you should examine something meaningful like hands played in what position, and when you played past the point you should have been in the hand. I am guessing those would be painfully enlightening.

Oh! and those nickel and dime games can be pretty rough! Yea that's another area you might look at, the level you are playing at.

Re: Official Full Tilt Poker Response to Bot Thread
 

Not gonna read this giant thread, so maybe this has been mentioned already.

The biggest mistake FT made here was not finding these guys themselves (who clearly were suspicious enough to warrant an investigation). I mean... it's not the player's job to police this [censored], and FT has way more information than players do (or at least it should) to prevent this.

Basically, FT's security department has repeatedly shown everybody what a joke it is. God I hope this [censored] gets regulated soon.

Re: Official Full Tilt Poker Response to Bot Thread
 

I think there is a consensus building here, and I think it begs for another FTP response, maybe a response from the whole industry:

1) These guys were not bots, or using bots in a manner that violates the T&C.
2) The level of consistency and coordination shown by these guys is unprecedented - calling them "human bots" seems appropriate.
3) There is nothing wrong with an individual playing a system by rote.
4) And there may well be nothing wrong or unethical about having a bunch of folks together playing the same system by rote (and/or aided by computer scripts to one degere or another).
5) But is that good for the game?

There is a reason live play mandates no computer assistance and one player per hand. The reason is to keep the "fish" playing. Amatuers and wannabes will not readily sit down and play against a bunch of people sitting with computer aids and a system and all helping each other stick to the system. Even good players and pros dont want to play against these types without knowing that that is what they are doing so they can respond accordingly....

I say, therefore, FIRST, stop picking on FTP and these guys. Whats done is done and no rules were clearly broken.

SECOND, lets start discussing WHAT THE RULES SHOULD BE.

If FTP (and the other sites) are going to allow folks to play in this manner, we all have to realize that once word gets out to the fish they will be afraid to play and online poker will become a battle of the systems, for the most part.

If we are not going to go that way, then we must come up with some enforceable rules that prevent this from occurring.

As a first thought, just how bad would it be to rule that folks cannot play simultaneously from the same IP? Or maybe make that a general rule and allow appropriate exceptions with proper documentation that precludes "sweatshops."

In sum, I agree its time to stop beating the dead horse and let these guys alone, but I dont agree that letting this style of play occur freely is good for the game at all.

Skallagrim

Re: Official Full Tilt Poker Response to Bot Thread
 

I'll throw in my support for that opinion too.

I don't think they are bots. I don't think they are using any automated software. I don't think they have done anything wrong. I don't think the numbers are that sensational.

I do think they got themselves lost somewhere in trying to explain, making it more suspicious than it is.

Also, the spin-doctorism [that should be a word!] used by some people are ridiculous; the suspiciously clean workspace for instance.

Adde

Re: Official Full Tilt Poker Response to Bot Thread
 

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think the numbers are that sensational.


[/ QUOTE ]

Can only people that understand statistics try to make claims about whether the numbers comparison is meaningful or not? It's embarrassing.

Re: Official Full Tilt Poker Response to Bot Thread
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't think the numbers are that sensational.


[/ QUOTE ]

Can only people that understand statistics try to make claims about whether the numbers comparison is meaningful or not? It's embarrassing.

[/ QUOTE ]

QFT


[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] stars

Re: Official Full Tilt Poker Response to Bot Thread
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't think the numbers are that sensational.


[/ QUOTE ]

Can only people that understand statistics try to make claims about whether the numbers comparison is meaningful or not? It's embarrassing.

[/ QUOTE ]

It doesn't matter if I say how much statistics I've studied in my life (none or some or much), you will still say the same thing.

I don't think it's sensational for several people to play a simple strategy and get that close numbers.

Adde

Re: Official Full Tilt Poker Response to Bot Thread
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't think the numbers are that sensational.


[/ QUOTE ]

Can only people that understand statistics try to make claims about whether the numbers comparison is meaningful or not? It's embarrassing.

[/ QUOTE ]

It doesn't matter if I say how much statistics I've studied in my life (none or some or much), you will still say the same thing.

I don't think it's sensational for several people to play a simple strategy and get that close numbers.

Adde

[/ QUOTE ]

It absolutely does matter, because we can test for statistically significant difference based on the data given and sample size. It's not like I just looked at the numbers and said "oh boy those look close enough, I guess they must be bots!" Apparently your judgment, however, was doing just that, looking at the numbers and coming to a conclusion that has absolutely no support behind it.

The chances 4 people could play on their own and get numbers that close, over that large of a sample is close to impossible.

Re: Official Full Tilt Poker Response to Bot Thread
 

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think it's sensational for several people to play a simple strategy and get that close numbers.


[/ QUOTE ]

Some people "think" that AA vs KK gets dealt too often online. Luckily we don't have to "think" about distributions or chance or how close things are. There is a mathematical science to guide us.

Re: Official Full Tilt Poker Response to Bot Thread
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't think the numbers are that sensational.


[/ QUOTE ]

Can only people that understand statistics try to make claims about whether the numbers comparison is meaningful or not? It's embarrassing.

[/ QUOTE ]

It doesn't matter if I say how much statistics I've studied in my life (none or some or much), you will still say the same thing.

I don't think it's sensational for several people to play a simple strategy and get that close numbers.

Adde

[/ QUOTE ]

How do you have any idea what you're talking about if you don't undertsand statistics? Seems like an ignorant thing to say they aren't that sensational, when you might not have the slightest idea what sensational means in terms of the data. Have you ever seen 4 players stats this closely related over a huge sample like this? How about looking through your database and trying to find 4 players at any level you have ever played with stats that look like this and then report back to us? Back up what you're saying if these numbers aren't that "sensational".

Re: Official Full Tilt Poker Response to Bot Thread
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't think the numbers are that sensational.


[/ QUOTE ]

Can only people that understand statistics try to make claims about whether the numbers comparison is meaningful or not? It's embarrassing.

[/ QUOTE ]

It doesn't matter if I say how much statistics I've studied in my life (none or some or much), you will still say the same thing.

I don't think it's sensational for several people to play a simple strategy and get that close numbers.

Adde

[/ QUOTE ]

It absolutely does matter, because we can test for statistically significant difference based on the data given and sample size. It's not like I just looked at the numbers and said "oh boy those look close enough, I guess they must be bots!" Apparently your judgment, however, was doing just that, looking at the numbers and coming to a conclusion that has absolutely no support behind it.

The chances 4 people could play on their own and get numbers that close, over that large of a sample is close to impossible.

[/ QUOTE ]

just a silly though that came to me -- IF, in the sweatshop there was NOT 1 account uniquely assigned to each individual sweatshopper...e.g. sometimes player #1 played on account #1, but not always and sometimes he played on #2 and #3, and all 3 sweatshoppers did this (let's say just hypothetically it was random who played on which account so that at the end of the day, after 100K hands played on each account, each of the 3 users was responsible for approx 1/3 of that), then might that not be one way that we would expect to see alarming conformity between the 3 accounts' statistics? e.g. it would theoretically be possible for the 3 sweatshoppers to use "the system" in markedly different ways (yes, making different decisions given the same scenario), but as long as they were randomly assigned an account to play on, over the long run, the statistics would approach uniformity.
(This relies on the assumption that the same individual never deviated from his OWN use of "The System"...see >> if each of the 3 people applied "The System" slightly differently, but never deviated from HIS OWN application thereof, then statistics for the 3 accounts would gradually approach uniformity)

p.s. i still think something shadier was going on here...just thinking about hypothetical explanations.

Re: Official Full Tilt Poker Response to Bot Thread
 

A person is just not going to play the exact same way as another person over that many hands, as a system does not account for all factors, especially in NL due to the practically infinite bet sizings.

Re: Official Full Tilt Poker Response to Bot Thread
 

[ QUOTE ]
A person is just not going to play the exact same way as another person over that many hands, as a system does not account for all factors, especially in NL due to the practically infinite bet sizings.

[/ QUOTE ]
With Teddy's theory, which someone else actually came up with as well several hundred posts ago, all that would be required would be for each player to play consistently themselves...oh, and for each account to be divided up fairly evenly between the three of them. Far-fetched, perhaps, but possible.

Re: Official Full Tilt Poker Response to Bot Thread
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A person is just not going to play the exact same way as another person over that many hands, as a system does not account for all factors, especially in NL due to the practically infinite bet sizings.

[/ QUOTE ]
With Teddy's theory, which someone else actually came up with as well several hundred posts ago, all that would be required would be for each player to play consistently themselves...oh, and for each account to be divided up fairly evenly between the three of them. Far-fetched, perhaps, but possible.

[/ QUOTE ]

I really don't think so, they could split up but I don't see why that would even matter. They are still going to have different stats, because even if you play a certain system, that system will not account for every possible situation in the game. It is those situations where they will deviate.

Re: Official Full Tilt Poker Response to Bot Thread
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A person is just not going to play the exact same way as another person over that many hands, as a system does not account for all factors, especially in NL due to the practically infinite bet sizings.

[/ QUOTE ]
With Teddy's theory, which someone else actually came up with as well several hundred posts ago, all that would be required would be for each player to play consistently themselves...oh, and for each account to be divided up fairly evenly between the three of them. Far-fetched, perhaps, but possible.

[/ QUOTE ]
Uhhh... NO. I think it has been shown that even if you break up an individual player's stats into four 100,000 hand chunks -- they won't match this closely.
So these 3 or 4 individuals were able to play more consistently than even a single person could do.

Re: Official Full Tilt Poker Response to Bot Thread
 

Meh...like I said, far-fetched. I'm almost beyond caring...FT has done what they're going to (or not do), everyone's fairly entrenched in their positions...this is a dying thread IMO.

Re: Official Full Tilt Poker Response to Bot Thread
 

This has turned into a hate feast just because people disagree with each other. No need for hate.

I haven't seen any extensive calculations on the stats, only rather loose formulas and judgments by people who may or may not be skilled enough in statistics, supporting both sides. I myself am not skilled enough to do this today, but I've got enough statistic classes in my masters exam to know that what looks easy at hand can be very complicated to prove when dealing with statistics.

I've introduced a couple of friends to poker over the years. They've read the same books as I have, and without having a shared "system", we all are 14/9-ish players. I can't imagine it would be any difficulties for us to follow a simple strategy and get very similar post flop stats over a substantial amount of hands.

Add to that the many circumstances that, because the sheer amount of them, lead people to cry wolf. Problem is that some of these are plain wrong, but they start to live their own life after being repeated again and again.

I don't know nlnut at all, but from his previous script requests to me and others in the Software forum earlier this year, there is no way possible that he is capable of developing a bot. Still, people only see the words "mouse clicker" and "script" and are all too soon to judge this as bot evidence.

People with academic experience should not be that sloppy with source control.

I could be wrong, but until proven otherwise, I see more signs pointing to fair play than foul play.

Adde

Re: Official Full Tilt Poker Response to Bot Thread
 

teddy,

As someone said earlier, one would think its virtually impossible for just one person to play with that sort of consistency over 100k+ hands. If you accept that, you would surely accept its even more unlikely for the play of three people to converge in a similar fashion, right?

Re: Official Full Tilt Poker Response to Bot Thread
 

[ QUOTE ]


I haven't seen any extensive calculations on the stats, only rather loose formulas and judgments by people who may or may not be skilled enough in statistics, supporting both sides. I myself am not skilled enough to do this today, but I've got enough statistic classes in my masters exam to know that what looks easy at hand can be very complicated to prove when dealing with statistics.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have not seen anyone with decent stat credentials show evidence concluding that these are not bots.

[ QUOTE ]
I've introduced a couple of friends to poker over the years. They've read the same books as I have, and without having a shared "system", we all are 14/9-ish players. I can't imagine it would be any difficulties for us to follow a simple strategy and get very similar post flop stats over a substantial amount of hands.

[/ QUOTE ]

The problem is you do not understand statistical significance. The more hands you play, the smaller of a difference statistical tests can detect between your stats. That means with a large sample as presented in this thread, the numbers given would have to be increasingly close together to conclude that they are using bots. And that is exactly what we found.