[indianaV8]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Am I that unclear or are you that obtuse?

[/ QUOTE ]

You're that unclear. You've said a few times that you're proposing regulation. Can you summarize what exactly it is you're proposing?

[/ QUOTE ]

FT only distributing the seized account money in a proven bot account after 2+2'ers found the bot on their own and reported it to FT is chicken$hit, IMPO!

Given only the information I see from the report on my own rake back account I could with one data base sort seperate the casual poker players from any bots.

Give me a look at FT's daily information and I could seperate well over 50% of the multi-tabling grinders and bots with another database type sort or filter.

I don't know enough about the full "poker" accounting, but can imagine given the information in my rake back account AND an inside look at FT's security information eliminating 95% of humans from bots can't be that hard. A few phone calls and some faxed documentation or even an affiliate vouching for accounts IMPO would get us 100% of the way to a workible solution.

At the very least the time and programing cost to FT including giving every player twice what they paid out in this case is worth 100 times or more in less regulatory burden that might be imposed by my "imagined" future hearings.

I am asking FT to stop just looking at this week's or this quater's bottom line but look at the multi-year profits. Show congress, the anti-gambling nuts, and me they have the best interests of poker at heart.

Even if FT ultimately got a free pass in "my imagined" congressional hearings write it off to good will.

But don't expect me to hold my tounge when we are asked to suggest that the industry is self regulating and a free market rewards the best poker site in response to the crap the anti-gambling nuts will pull. I'll do what I'm told but hey in my mind I'm going to be saying "I told you so!"


D$D

[/ QUOTE ]

Why should bots be reported at all?