FT Bot refund rumor.

[Skallagrim]

I agree bots should be a free- market issue, not a legal or regulatory issue.

There are some "identified" bots of FT (actually the "sweat shop" guys, maybe they are not "bots") who can be easily beaten once you know their game (fold to their big raises PF or re-raise them after the flop - they fold 9 out 10 times if you do).

Bots are not and should not be illegal - they dont "cheat."

But they are no fun to play against that is sure. Their only real advantage is that they dont get bored folding everything but the top 10 hands and can play like that forever.

As a consumer, I too prefer to play against live folks not bots. I am sure that the sites understand this is the overwhelming view. Sites will respond to that or lose customers.

Skallagrim

[kidpokeher]

Sheesh, what's the alternative other than the free market? Does anyone think some D.C. bureaucrat can set up a bot detecting agency? Let me rephrase that. They can set up an agency and collect a lot of taxes but does anyone think they can or will do anything other than waste money?

The only option we have is the power of the purse. As consumers, if there's a site we don't trust we leave and go to a site we can trust.

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree bots should be a free- market issue, not a legal or regulatory issue.

There are some "identified" bots of FT (actually the "sweat shop" guys, maybe they are not "bots") who can be easily beaten once you know their game (fold to their big raises PF or re-raise them after the flop - they fold 9 out 10 times if you do).

Bots are not and should not be illegal - they dont "cheat."

But they are no fun to play against that is sure. Their only real advantage is that they dont get bored folding everything but the top 10 hands and can play like that forever.

As a consumer, I too prefer to play against live folks not bots. I am sure that the sites understand this is the overwhelming view. Sites will respond to that or lose customers.

Skallagrim

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't the sites have some legal responsibility under Tort law to provide straight games? When their security is breached or over come shouldn't their "coverage" of losses extend beyond whatever they manage to seize?

I suggest this responsibility extends in the case of bots to the rake back affiliates. They bear some responsibility because they are the main payment processors and make a good deal from these type of players.

Unless those who profit from the bot accounts existance are made to dip into their own pockets rather than distribute what every scraps are left in the seized accounts, they will only show they are being cheap and attempting to band-aid the problem.

The problem is it is too easy for them to look away and cash in on the volume. They only hate the bots when the players leave or get pissed off. The rest of the time the bots are their best customers.


D$D

[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.

[CountingMyOuts]

[ QUOTE ]
I suggest this responsibility extends in the case of bots to the rake back affiliates. They bear some responsibility because they are the main payment processors and make a good deal from these type of players.

Unless those who profit from the bot accounts existance are made to dip into their own pockets rather than distribute what every scraps are left in the seized accounts, they will only show they are being cheap and attempting to band-aid the problem.

[/ QUOTE ]

When the affiliates cannot stop bot accounts, who are you going to go after next? The janitor in the Full Tilt building or one of the secretaries in the building? They gain from the bot accounts, also.

[JPFisher55]

Does this mean that if I make money off a bot, then I have to give it back? I'm with Skall, I am not sure that using a bot is actually cheating or smart for that matter. The person behind the bot is risking their money on a programmed style of play. I'm not sure that should be considered cheating.

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
Does this mean that if I make money off a bot, then I have to give it back? I'm with Skall, I am not sure that using a bot is actually cheating or smart for that matter. The person behind the bot is risking their money on a programmed style of play. I'm not sure that should be considered cheating.

[/ QUOTE ]

My thinking comes from the fact that a couple of poker site operators have claimed that there exists the technology to spot problem gamblers.

Bot's by their nature exhibit "un-natural" behavior.

If the poker sites are willing in exchange for "legal" access to US markets to run the problem gamblers filters and take some responsibility to stop or help them, then how much more is it to ask for the same commitment against bots?

Right now there is no reason for any site or affiliate to do anything to stop bots. There is every incentive to encourage their play, both for the poker site and the affiliate.

Setting the "enforcement bar" so low as to only a precentage of the seized proven bot accounts given to players specifically identified as playing against them, after an investigation ALMOST always iniciated by mutiple players is just plain stupid as a poker consumer IMPO!

I feel we are at an important time in the future of on-line poker. We the consumers, the little guys, have some power in this matter. The poker sites need us to lobby congress to get them more players to their game. I want all I can get in return for my efforts.

Asking for the best game in return for me helping getting them more players IMPO is a fair trade.....


D$D

[Legislurker]

Bots are easy to spot if a site spends time and invests in the tech. New ways to prompt unattended machines should always be being developed. It may not be cheating by the operator so much as fraudulent by the site. You market playing with real people, you need to deliver real people. Who would show up to play a chess prgram rated 200 points above them for $?

[KEW]

How can you hold affiliates responsible for bots and bot detection????

Affiliates are in no position to detect bots...Affiliates only recieve summary data from the site in regards to there players amount of play..

[Legislurker]

Because some rakeback offerers run bots themselves. If they are they should be held liable by the sites, but that is between the sites and affiliates.