|
View Poll Results: KQo | |||
raise | 38 | 71.70% | |
fold | 11 | 20.75% | |
call | 4 | 7.55% | |
Voters: 53. You may not vote on this poll |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1951
|
|||
|
|||
Re: NL Bots on Full Tilt
adanthar,
It doesn't max out at 2bb/100, but it takes a "decent" player to beat it for that. Having a bot that can beat it for that playing long hours 12 tabling= huge amounts of cash for very little work. The rakeback from this would be amazing too. I was under the impression that these bots aren't making 2bb/100 though. |
#1952
|
|||
|
|||
Re: NL Bots on Full Tilt
Good post, but...
[ QUOTE ] The point you're missing is that most players play recreationally... [/ QUOTE ] It's the opposite. I'm defending Recreational players. They get abused for 10% rake by the casino... Then they get abused for another 10% "rake" by the 2 Pros at their table... And then maybe they get nicked by a Bot or two. From a casino financial point of view... Only the recreational player is profitable... And should be protected. [ QUOTE ] Eventually, there is no doubt that bots, especially if allowed by the sites, will become sophisticated enough to beat good poker players. [/ QUOTE ] The above idea is a myth. The AI field is advancing VERY slowly... And world class AI in rogue Bots is many years away. Why? Because the best minds are NOT working on Poker Bots. I build trading systems for a living... Of the same complexity as the FTP Bot room... And, people, you have to SCRAP the ** fantasy **... Of stand-alone Bots running 24/7 without supervision. The reality is like that FTP Bot room this thread is about... With several Humans MANNING several Bots. This thread is like a course in what NOT to do... And a better designed Man + Bot combination is 100% undetectable... So Casino has choice: (a) Allow Pros and Bots (b) Ban Pros and Bots, limit all money-makers |
#1953
|
|||
|
|||
Re: NL Bots on Full Tilt
|
#1954
|
|||
|
|||
Re: NL Bots on Full Tilt
RedManPlus: There is no way a site can make a rule against winning and survive. That would effectively be announcing to all players that they should not deposit if they plan on winning.
winning ban = deposit killer Such a site would quickly be known as the "Ima-Loser" site or the "Nota-Winner" site. Pause for a moment and consider 2+2 threads from these players: [ QUOTE ] Hello, I play at IL .... (insert hh text) Did i make the correct play on the turn here? Thanks, ICantWin [/ QUOTE ] Wouldn't any "winning" advice from this community be directly against the TOS of the IL/NW site? |
#1955
|
|||
|
|||
Re: NL Bots on Full Tilt
[ QUOTE ]
RedManPlus: There is no way a site can make a rule against winning and survive. That would effectively be announcing to all players that they should not deposit if they plan on winning. winning ban = deposit killer Such a site would quickly be known as the "Ima-Loser" site or the "Nota-Winner" site. Pause for a moment and consider 2+2 threads from these players: [ QUOTE ] Hello, I play at IL .... (insert hh text) Did i make the correct play on the turn here? Thanks, ICantWin [/ QUOTE ] Wouldn't any "winning" advice from this community be directly against the TOS of the IL/NW site? [/ QUOTE ] I did not say anything like "rule against winning". RIIT, you take my posts... And then dummy them down to an IQ level of about 75. You must own a very sophisticated "Artificial Stupidity" generator. |
#1956
|
|||
|
|||
Re: NL Bots on Full Tilt
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] RedManPlus: There is no way a site can make a rule against winning and survive. That would effectively be announcing to all players that they should not deposit if they plan on winning. winning ban = deposit killer Such a site would quickly be known as the "Ima-Loser" site or the "Nota-Winner" site. Pause for a moment and consider 2+2 threads from these players: [ QUOTE ] Hello, I play at IL .... (insert hh text) Did i make the correct play on the turn here? Thanks, ICantWin [/ QUOTE ] Wouldn't any "winning" advice from this community be directly against the TOS of the IL/NW site? [/ QUOTE ] I did not say anything like "rule against winning". RIIT, you take my posts... And then dummy them down to an IQ level of about 75. You must own a very sophisticated "Artificial Stupidity" generator. [/ QUOTE ] RedManPlus: Yes I understand you didn't use that exact wording. Nevertheless, the resulting conditions are the same as if you had. No site is going to make a policy against winning. Take your entire argument and translate that into any context within a land-based casino and ask yourself if their gaming license would not be immediately threatened. Here is an appropriate theme song for your site: Casino California (sung to Hotel California by The Eagles) "... Last thing I remember, I was Running for the door I had to find the passage back To the place I was before 'Relax,' said the night man, 'We are programmed to receive. You can cash-out any time you like, But money never leaves!' ... Welcome to Casino California ..." |
#1957
|
|||
|
|||
Re: NL Bots on Full Tilt
[ QUOTE ]
Because the Top Bots are MANNED by high level players...Who step in and make the 5% most tricky decisions...And can defeat any "human tests". [/ QUOTE ] And how will they defeat the tests for 95% of the time? |
#1958
|
|||
|
|||
Re: NL Bots on Full Tilt
I read this whole damn thread this week and as far as i can tell, FULL TILT only replied once and said they would be back.
Did they ever reply a 2nd time and address this b.s.? |
#1959
|
|||
|
|||
Re: NL Bots on Full Tilt
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Because the Top Bots are MANNED by high level players...Who step in and make the 5% most tricky decisions...And can defeat any "human tests". [/ QUOTE ] And how will they defeat the tests for 95% of the time? [/ QUOTE ] I'm so confused what this post even means? You understand that he was talking about poker and not bot tests right? |
#1960
|
|||
|
|||
Re: NL Bots on Full Tilt
Ive read like 40 pages and theres a lot of good discussion going on. But unfortunately also a lot more of nonsense. If someone could just make some lengthy cliff notes it would be awesome.
I think the accused persons have found a reason against every piece of reasonable evidence. Why would a botter have multiple accounts and not just one? Earlier someone said b/c FT only allows 8 tables. But at the same time he said that one could request more. Do you really think a botter would set up 3 accounts instead of one? I dont think it makes much sense. The scenario that there are 3 people that just play according to set rules 15 hours a day does fit the picture of the stats. I think this sounds more like east europe or asain child sweatshopping, but its at least plausible. And that they never at the same table: same IP address so wouldnt be allowed anyway. So it all makes sense. I still don't believe its the full truth. I have thought about different ways to get this into a picture where its just 1 person botting but it all doesn't totally fit. So far all I can say we cant prove they are bots, although its so extremely suspicious. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|