FT Bot refund rumor.

[DeadMoneyDad]

There is a rumor in FT's forum that FT has refunded money seized from to confirmed bot accounts after a lenghty FT investigation.

Those of us thinking of any regulator mix for future on-line poker and those that oppose any regulation might want to consider their response to this issue.

I suggest that if the facts as stated on FT's forum are indeed true FT and it's rakeback affiliates should be held to a higher standard.

Simply refunding the money left in the bot's accounts by the time FT got around to completing their investigation, and suggesting this is fair as "that is all there is to be had" is crap.

I am by no means an expert in affiliate and on-line poker accounting, but I know enough that FT knows exactly how much I've cost them because of my "negative rakeback carry over" ammount.

I say the responsibility for ID'ing and stopping this crap can't end with a simple refund of the remaining balances from the seized accounts. FT knows to the fraction of a cent both their net revenue and the rackback payments made to these accounts.

If a rakeback affiliate can't spot a bot account they should be responsible for looking at bot like accounts. They after all process the payments.



D$D

[LiveInPeace]

Disguising bot play is easier than writing a bot to play good poker. There is no way sites can keep out all good bots. Players just need to accept that they will be out there. It just means track your opponents and select them carefully.

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
Disguising bot play is easier than writing a bot to play good poker. There is no way sites can keep out all good bots. Players just need to accept that they will be out there. It just means track your opponents and select them carefully.

[/ QUOTE ]

My point exactly. Bots at play a little better than break even poker, and bank the rake back.

With lisencing would come some sort of legal entity. I'm not a lawyer but seems like there would be a responsibility of the sites to run a safe and secure game. From a purely business sense free markets are self correcting but some of the swing and scams can really burn people and sometime like the Louisina Lottery scam set an industry back decades.

No I am not suggesting that a couple of bot accounts is the same as the Louisiana Lotter episode, but how many more would it really take to change on-line poker?

As it is affiliates want standing in court as they are affected parties, since they stood up and in the bots case other than the poker sites profit the most from this type of play it seems the responsibility and the risk should be born by them.

D$D

[Legislurker]

We're PRETENDING sites are going to step up and go 100% legit.
The free market sucks at a lot of things. Its a lot like steroids in professional sports. The leagues cant control steroids. Bots are liek steroids. No matter how good I am at poker, a competent bot farmer can always make more money than I can at that level. Its an uneven playing field. It [censored] my livelihood. I dont want to comepte against programs. I don't the the average joe does either. Left alone, the sites won't expend $ or effort to root them out.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
Left alone, the sites won't expend $ or effort to root them out.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why not?

[ QUOTE ]
I dont want to comepte against programs. I don't the the average joe does either.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's why the sites will have to address the issue, especially if there is plenty of competition.

I know Americans have a new tendency to ask for government regulation every time they don't like something, but what you want can be accomplished via the free market.

[CountingMyOuts]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Left alone, the sites won't expend $ or effort to root them out.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why not?

[ QUOTE ]
I dont want to comepte against programs. I don't the the average joe does either.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's why the sites will have to address the issue, especially if there is plenty of competition.

I know Americans have a new tendency to ask for government regulation every time they don't like something, but what you want can be accomplished via the free market.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed. Concentrate on getting online poker "legally" available in the U.S. and there will be enough choices for players and the sites that are bot friendly will be encouraged by marketplace pressures to address the bot issue or reap the benefits of not doing anything.

Also, for others to suggest that affiliates be held responsible for bot accounts is unreasonable. How can an affiliate monitor potential bot accounts? They are not privy to the player data or tools needed to determine if a player is a bot.

[disjunction]

[ QUOTE ]
Disguising bot play is easier than writing a bot to play good poker. There is no way sites can keep out all good bots. Players just need to accept that they will be out there. It just means track your opponents and select them carefully.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is silly reasoning. I see the same type of silliness in debates about terrorism FWIW.

So what if the bot makers can do some extra work and thwart the anti-bot measures? The point is to make their life hell, and to make them do that extra work at every step. The point is that if you encourage a site to seize funds whenever they find a bot, the bot-maker has to overcome more of an overhead to become profitable.

[Fedorfan]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Disguising bot play is easier than writing a bot to play good poker. There is no way sites can keep out all good bots. Players just need to accept that they will be out there. It just means track your opponents and select them carefully.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is silly reasoning. I see the same type of silliness in debates about terrorism FWIW.

So what if the bot makers can do some extra work and thwart the anti-bot measures? The point is to make their life hell, and to make them do that extra work at every step. The point is that if you encourage a site to seize funds whenever they find a bot, the bot-maker has to overcome more of an overhead to become profitable.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree, the counter measures can really hurt the profitability of a bot, since when caught it loses its funds in the account and now the user has to use fake names and such to resign up for the site.

Also, it would make it less likely that bots would attack the higher games, since they'd have to risk having much more money in the account to be frozen and such.

[Legislurker]

An affiliate CAN provide essential bot detection info. If a bot farmer is using the same RB acct at diff sites, then its a slam dunk. Theres only SO much live cash action you can do.
I can only manage maybe 14 cash tables for 2-3 hrs, if a bot is getting similar RB to that at 2-3 sites in the same month, especially skins at ongame or crypto etc, then its a bot very likely. But what affiliate would turn that in? They are making a killing and can dodge any guilt. I have ZERO doubts the bot farmers have affiliates working with them, if the affiliates themselves arent bot farming. A MILD penalty but one that hurts their profits would be a decent tool. Im half a mind to support that all affiliates only receive a one-off fee for new signups and a tiered payout per month for RB accts that go to players in whole.
Its a scuzzy world with threats, backstabbing, and intimidation omnipresent that should be phased out.

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
An affiliate CAN provide essential bot detection info. If a bot farmer is using the same RB acct at diff sites, then its a slam dunk. Theres only SO much live cash action you can do.

But what affiliate would turn that in? They are making a killing and can dodge any guilt. I have ZERO doubts the bot farmers have affiliates working with them, if the affiliates themselves arent bot farming.

A MILD penalty but one that hurts their profits would be a decent tool. Im half a mind to support that all affiliates only receive a one-off fee for new signups and a tiered payout per month for RB accts that go to players in whole.
Its a scuzzy world with threats, backstabbing, and intimidation omnipresent that should be phased out.

[/ QUOTE ]

MILD Penality???

There is already a nice time delay built into the system of rakeback payments of at least two weeks from the end of the month until payment, well at least on FT. Add another week if you want. Sure some would bitch but it's a one time delay, sort of like day-light savings time.

Let the affiliates who are risk adverse send all their questionable accounts back to the poker site for review, and if the poker site clears payment it can't come back to the affiliate. The gambling affiliates can pay off right away if they think their is a profit in the market of rakeback customers. Me I would want one that is more risk adverse as it is more less likely to suffer a major charge back and go under.


D$D