[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm afraid this whole situation is very unsatisfactory. As a c50k a month hand player with accounts at multiple sites, I will certainly look to migrate business elsewhere.

I think the key issues are:
1) The concept of allowing multiple users at one location is not ethical in my opinion. This may not be covered by the terms and conditions, and therefore can't be acted on, but this is merely an argument for updating terms and conditions.
2) Almost everyone believes there is a degree of decision automation here which goes beyond basic charts. The statistics are too similar across all 3 streets. There is debate about the degree of this automation. Again your terms & conditions do not appear tight enough - apparently you operate to a binary is a bot/isn't a bot definition.
3) I would agree that to confiscate funds you need evidence beyond reasonable doubt. But there is a lot of circumstantial evidence here, which suggests on the balance of probabilities these guys are botting. In my opinion this is enough to ban accounts and return funds.

The simple question to ask is whether if you convened a meeting of all your customers whether they would approve or disapprove of the outlined operation (even that agreed by DLNUT as fact). The answer would overwhelmingly, in my opinion, be that they would be disgusted by such practices.

I will be extremely angry to face any of these players again (yes, I have lost a stack to Full_Tilting), irrespective of my views of their capabilities.

Full Tilt faces a choice. It can seek to sweep the inevitable continued issue of bots under the carpet, with complicit acceptance from winning players, until their profits are eroded away. This has two issues 1) Customers do have the ability to switch away to other sites, and integrity can be a point of competitive advantage) 2) It gives your business a limited lifespan before profits are competed away on your bot infested tables

Alternatively you can work with your core customer base (yes, here is a good place to start) to tackle the issue head on.

Currently, your stance is clearly that of see no evil hear no evil. Don't underestimate the power of viral marketing in your business. If your business loses momentum it will not recover. I for one would be a part of that negative publicity generation, unless you up your game.

[/ QUOTE ]


The above is indeed a very good response, and Sean needs to answer its points to have any credibility. I would like to emphasize a couple of those points and add to them.

1) Same IP play

You can come up with all the excuses you want for this, from college dorms to small towns to wifi or whatever, but it is a huge issue and one that touches on collusion. Some players might have to be limited in their play options or indeed given no options, in order to insure game integrity for the vast majority of players.

2) Over-enablement of software aides

Now this doesn't just apply to FT. But allowing HUDs and datamining undermines the integrity of the game in the minds of the casual players, and allows a hyper-predatory decimation of losing players when the emphasis should be on the long-term goal of keeping the games going, instead of focusing on short-term gains that risk the long-term viability of the games. Choose the long-term viability of the game for both your business and the players over short-term gains and desire of some players here to over-fish the waters heedless of its consequences.

3) FT needs to see the many alternatives in these situations, and have several alternative responses to match them, instead of just making it only 2 choices.

This means that it's not just botting or not botting, with "inconclusive" always being a win for the investigated account. As pointed out in the main thread, a mix of botting and regular play to cover same has to be considered.

And it means that there is more than one response to an investigated player. It's not just guilty and funds seized, or innocent/inconclusive and keep on as usual. The third option as noted by others is to say it is inconclusive but doesn't smell right, and return their funds and close their accounts.

4)*Pro-active* means need to be taken to root out botting and collusion.

This means not hiding behind the valid but ass-covering response of "we can't divulge our methods" stuff, and making a public committment to datamining the hand history database to find these things yourself instead of it being on the players mostly as a default. If FT (or any other site) isn't willing to expend some computing and investigating time on such pro-active means, then any statements that they do take botting and collusion seriously are bald-faced lies. Taking seriously = using *effective* means.


Finally I would like to commend FT and Doug and Sean for their ongoing communication with 2+2'ers. I realize it's not always easy and you face lots of tough questions. And that you two aren't the owners and have constraints on what you can say. But a substantive response to the points raised here is necessary for FT's future credibility.

[/ QUOTE ]


I'm just requoting my earlier post and that of another poster, because I want to note that the points made in them, as well as in several other good posts in this thread, need a FULL discussion by FTPSean. The OP is basically a canned PR response and it will be a week tomorrow since he made it. If Sean doesn't continue the discussion in this thread, then no 2+2'er should give them any credit for for their assertions of taking botting (and collusion) seriously.