[lemming]

Imo SukitTrebek has pretty much said it all in his post:

[ QUOTE ]
Yikes. We all knew that a non-substantive response was likely, but that was pretty bad after all of what's already transpired. Hopefully, you'll be at least a little more forthcoming in the future.

I wasn't going to post too many details from the emails I traded with FT, but because of this lack of response by FT it seems necessary. I realize you're not going to answer many of these questions but I'll ask anyways.

After I saw the bots reappear and sent an email that read like the end of my OP, your representative replied indicating that there are many different actions that FT can take when an investigation is completed. That if complete guilt can't be shown, restrictions are placed on the accounts or continued monitoring takes place. In your OP, you acted as if the accounts were completely exonerated after a lack of proof was found. You don't have to go into detail about whatever double-secret-probation you placed the accounts on. But please answer directly, did you completely exonerate the accounts or did you take some level of action?

In justifying how the bots were likely human grinders, your rep alluded to how they had a significant chat history. This seems pretty frightening. Can you confirm or deny that this was used as evidence that they weren't bots?

Did you use the fact that most days one tournament was played in addition to the 16 or so cash game tables as proof it wasn't a bot?

Why have I been thanked over and over and over for my help, if I have misunderstood the situation? FTPDoug even thanked me for my vigilance in posting the OP. Seems pretty weird to thank someone who created a firestorm of negative publicity if you believe that they've misunderstood the situation?

In my original email, I offered to help in any way I could, discussing the bots' tendencies or whatever. No one ever took me up on it. Do you think that was a mistake?

Did you come up with an explanation why human grinders would get up from the tables when I logged in? Did you look at timestamps to confirm this did or didn't happen?

In the emails, your rep would refer to the stat picture I sent itself as a piece of evidence. I assumed that upon beginning the investigation you would have created your own versions of the stat pictures with access to all hand histories. Thus you'd have created stat summaries using 300-500k hand samples for each player. Can you please confirm that you have the ability to do this? It won't be giving away any secrets, we all assume (hope) you can.

Hopefully, you'll at least discuss hypotheticals. Hypothetically, if you had concrete proof that players were using a computerized decision making system with humans inputting the actions, was this allowed previously? Is it allowed in the future? Have any policies changed on what players are or are not allowed to do?

Hypothetically, if you were to have hand samples of hundreds of thousand of hands for several players, is there any level of precision with which the convergence of the stats would by itself be enough proof that robotic decision making is being made?

This is just one guy's opinion, but my impression from the emails was that your investigation was indeed less detailed than my OP. It seems that you very likely did think they were bots, but did not have the level of sophistication at poker to prove it (even with access to all kinds of info, hh's, timestamps, whatever). You then placed some kind of vague restriction on the accounts, my post erupted, you realize you've made a mistake, and are now hoping that conclusive proof comes out in the main thread. Thus allowing you to finally reverse your decision and move on. Am I close?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think if we can get (at least partly) satisfactory answers to all these questions, this situation would calm down a great deal...

The question remains, whether you (FTPSean/FTP) are able to and/or are willing to answer all these questions in order for many 2+2 users, frequent player on your site, to calm down. Don't get me wrong on this one, but I doubt you will.

Your turn now...