[El_Hombre_Grande]

[ QUOTE ]
Mr. G,

Please do not make your detection methods, or the evidence you collected against beatme public. This is not a legal issue. There is no requirement for habeas corpus.

Is it possible this is a false positive? Of course. Lots of bots got kicked off FT after Mr. G's recent efforts, and only 1 person has proclaimed innocence. This would make sense if 1 botter was running several accounts, or if there was 1 mistake.

If beatme is a botter, her motivation for making this stink probably are not to try and get her money back. She wants to rile the 2+2 community up enough so that we begin to demand to see the evidence. For Mr. Gatorade or FTP to succumb do our demands would be a huge mistake, but it's possible either party might feel the building negative publicity would neccessitate it.

I also want to know the methods and evidence used for bot detection at FTP, but not nearly as much as I don't want beatme to. Please don't tell us.

Also note how many people have come out saying 'crazy mike accused me of being a bot.' None of them got letters from FTP saying 'we are 100% sure you are a bot'. It doesn't matter what Crazy Mike's batting average is. He doesn't ban bots. Poker sites do. If you don't trust FTP to do this, play somewhere else.

Come on guys. FTP won't ban someone for not chatting. They won't ban someone for sticking to a strategy and not tilting. Would they ban someone for taking the exact same amount of time in specific situations over significant trials? I hope so, because that's pretty damned good evidence. They also will not ban someone for never playing a hand against another player, or group of players. What if they all know each other? What if they play different stakes? These things might be good indications of where to start looking for bots, but noe of it is evidence. There is more to the story that we do not, and should not, know.

If you're not satisfied with that, don't keep much of your bankroll on-site, or switch sites. The slight -EV of a remote false+ is far outweighed by the big +EV of getting rid of a signifcant portion of the tough player population, which happen to be bots.

[/ QUOTE ]

I applaud you for your willingness to forfeit $70,000 without public evidence. You are far more trusting than I.
I'm sure there's a job for you over at the DOJ. Generally, most people won't do business with a party that may unilaterally seize 70,000 and not fully and publicly disclose why. I know I wouldn't.

And FWIW, habeas corpus applies to cases of imprisonment, and has no application here. and I find it amusing that the seizure of 70,000 does not strike you as a legal issue. Would it if it were you, and you were innocent?