For those that think botting isn't too big of a problem

[5thStreetHog]

If you want to ignore the truth by arguing that a number i used that was just used as a figure of speech cant be scientifically proven to be 100% accurate thats fine lol

[Flintoff]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Btw Burn,find the Party/Bots thread.The OP that claimed bots were at work there gathered thousands of hands and the evidence was very compelling.And to Opera,the bots in that thread(and i believe the evidence showed they were),were beating 10/20 Limit at over 1.5bb/100.Theres your beef.And this isnt the only example.

[/ QUOTE ]


I have read the entire mega threat you are talking about, and that is not hard proof.

[/ QUOTE ]

How much proof do you want?

It was me who did a lot of that research. I have 70,000 hands of them winning at 1.5 on 10/20. I have had PM's off others claiming similar. What hand sample size do you need?

The guy who created them even posted on the bot site that he was devastated his very profitable operation had been shut down!!

[5thStreetHog]

Btw,its a pretty close number lol But i will give you your arguement that its possible someone had ten multiple accounts,but its not likely someone was 60 tabling 10/20.Or someone creating the whole thread thinking that exposing the bot problem would somehow make their bot site money,but whatever,we can agree to disagree.

[5thStreetHog]

I forgot about that Flint,thanks.If i remember correct,he called it his "Party 6max Empire".

[2461Badugi]

[ QUOTE ]

I also think you underestimate how quickly you can get the end results from a bot. Let's say you have a bot 16 or 20 tabling (spread over different sites, of course) for 8 hours a day. That's about 10k hands a day, and not at all unreasonable. You're going to get your results (i.e. find out whether your bot is a winner) pretty damn quickly.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bots aren't immune to the massive multitabler cycle:

10k hands.
"Crap I'm losing."
Tweak Tweak.
10k more hands.
"Crap I'm still losing."
Tweak Tweak.
10k more hands.
"Crap I'm STILL losing."
Tweak Tweak.
10k more hands.
"All right I'm winning time to move up."
10k hands.
"Crap I'm losing."

[operaman]

[ QUOTE ]
If you want to ignore the truth by arguing that a number i used that was just used as a figure of speech cant be scientifically proven to be 100% accurate thats fine lol

[/ QUOTE ]

That is not what i am saying. I am saying you have no idea of the chances of this happening without bots. Is it 1 in 100, 1000000, 2,10 to 40th power? You see one set of numbers but don't know several of the other variables needed in the formula. I will be generous and concede the point that 10 ACCOUNTS have some degree of similarity. I am honestly asking what is the chance of this happening? until someone finishes the question no proof will have been given. This is a simple scientific approach.

[5thStreetHog]

Fair enough,your right that i cannot honestly give you an accurate number.But i can tell you its a hell of alot less likely than 1/100.The numbers these "players" were producing were extremely abnormal and were extremely similar in almost every aspect.Lets just leave it at that.

[operaman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Btw Burn,find the Party/Bots thread.The OP that claimed bots were at work there gathered thousands of hands and the evidence was very compelling.And to Opera,the bots in that thread(and i believe the evidence showed they were),were beating 10/20 Limit at over 1.5bb/100.Theres your beef.And this isnt the only example.

[/ QUOTE ]


I have read the entire mega threat you are talking about, and that is not hard proof.

[/ QUOTE ]

How much proof do you want?

It was me who did a lot of that research. I have 70,000 hands of them winning at 1.5 on 10/20. I have had PM's off others claiming similar. What hand sample size do you need?

The guy who created them even posted on the bot site that he was devastated his very profitable operation had been shut down!!

[/ QUOTE ]

70,000 for all the accounts, or each one? Remember you have to some degree contaminated your results by selecting players after the hands have been played and grouping players as you see fit.

How do you know that you havn't just isolated a naturaly occuring grouping of stats?

I am glad you went to the trouble to post real information on here, but it seems your work is just preliminary.


How do you know the person complaining on the forum is accociated the the accounts that you singled out?

[DMoogle]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I also think you underestimate how quickly you can get the end results from a bot. Let's say you have a bot 16 or 20 tabling (spread over different sites, of course) for 8 hours a day. That's about 10k hands a day, and not at all unreasonable. You're going to get your results (i.e. find out whether your bot is a winner) pretty damn quickly.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bots aren't immune to the massive multitabler cycle:

10k hands.
"Crap I'm losing."
Tweak Tweak.
10k more hands.
"Crap I'm still losing."
Tweak Tweak.
10k more hands.
"Crap I'm STILL losing."
Tweak Tweak.
10k more hands.
"All right I'm winning time to move up."
10k hands.
"Crap I'm losing."

[/ QUOTE ]
I think the most of the people that take the time to build and program their bot were already winners, or at least breakeven players (but winners with rakeback and bonuses). In any case they probably take poker seriously, and understand bankroll management better than that.

Personally I think 10K hands a day is conservative for a serious botter. In one month, it has played 300,000 hands. Even it IS a breakeven player at stacks as low as $50NL, that's at LEAST a couple thousand dollars in rakeback.

[Ron Burgundy]

[ QUOTE ]
ummm....... play no limit.....

[/ QUOTE ]

You really suck at poker if you think that's the solution.