Mr. Gatorade’s Lies cost me over 70k at Full Tilt

[jack21221]

RITT, I fail to see what point you're attempting to make. Do you think online poker should remain illegal because it's difficult to prove that a site isn't rigging decks just for the hell of it?

You're going on many tangents here, none of which have to do with the US government adopting similar regulations with regards to online poker as the rest of the civilized world.

[El_Hombre_Grande]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The T&C's we accepted when joining the various sites,without reading in most cases, give them this right.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is incorrect as a matter of law. See my earlier posts in this thread.

[/ QUOTE ]

sethypooh21: This statement is correct only if you also presume a jurisdiction that would bring higher legal principles to bear upon the site TOS. I live in the U.S. and as much as I might like to believe that the power of America reaches everywhere - the facts are that it does not both physically and legally - and so if we're talking about the 3rd world jurisdiction of Wallaboomba then the risk to the player will be according to the practices there regardless of what the major national jurisdictions would want otherwise.

I agree with your statement completely in the context of major jurisdictions and I think there are more than a few instances of site TOS wording that would be struck down due to higher legal precepts.

However, even if we allow a context of say the state of Nevada and a major LV strip casino online site, there are still major problems involving policeability where the online game is concerned. The online game as it exists right now is NOT policeable in any real way above and beyond a "he said she said" level (as in the recent 2+2 threads). Real policeability means that the gaming authority has the ability to know what is true and what is not true such that they can sort through complaints and accusations from any entity involved - site, player, other, etc.

Here is a short list of complaints that are impossible to police at present:

1) Player complains that the site is skewing the shuffle.

A site can know they are shuffling honestly but they cannot prove it to a 3rd party. To really clue in here, just pause for a moment and compare what is possible with a live b&m shuffle and what is possible with a software shuffle where that software runs on a secure sever entirely under the control of the operator.

2) Player complains that the site is hinting house players.

A site can know they are properly containing all sensitive game information (i.e. all card info) but they cannot prove it to a 3rd party. To really clue in here, just pause for a moment and compare what is possible with a live b&m game and what is possible with a client/server setup where the client/server software and the internet connection between them is entirely within the control of the site operator.

3) Player complains that another player is using restricted software help (bots, trackers, calculators)

The other player can know they are playing according to the site TOS but they cannot prove it to a 3rd party.

4) Player complains that other players are colluding.

The other players can know they are playing according to the site TOS but they cannot prove it to a 3rd party.

Note that citing motive is not a reasonable defense against these accusations (i.e. the typical "The house has zero motive to cheat" argument posed many times here in 2+2 threads)

Items 3&4 can be resolved by striking all TOS wording that forbids those actions in the first place thus rendering the complaints as meaningless (popular? probably not. doable? yes very easily). The gaming authority doesn't have to lift a finger in these cases; problem solved.

Items 1&2 are much more serious and cannot be resolved with changes to the TOS because they have to do with that actual game mechanics themselves.

[/ QUOTE ]

As to points one and two, I assume that there would be no actual evidence of skewing the deal or hinting house players so said cases would be summarily dismissed on motion. If there was indeed evidence of skewing or hinting, let the sun shine down on it for everyone to review.

B&M have operated in this environment for years--heavy regulation, and must be able to demostrate that they are above reproach. And they are making billions.

I believe that Stars and probably Party would welcome regulation, if it came hand in hand with credit card acceptance, easy cashouts, etc.

These are not insurmountable obstacles. Every industry that operates globally faces them. In fact, online poker is easier to regulate that most industries because the product --a fair game -- is forever recorded in the hand histories.

As for bots and the like, I think tthat everyone is in agreement that they shouldn't be used.

Try getting that kind of data or that kind of consensus on an issue on like say, the acceptable level of greenhouse gas emissions by automobiles.

[/ QUOTE ]

El_Hombre_Grande: Well it seems you're making my case for me here.

[ QUOTE ]
As to points one and two, I assume that there would be no actual evidence of skewing the deal or hinting house players so said cases would be summarily dismissed on motion. If there was indeed evidence of skewing or hinting, let the sun shine down on it for everyone to review.

[/ QUOTE ]
Exactly; you've simply stated my point with different words. It's not possible to collect evidence against an online site for items 1&2; they are in fact quite IMMUNE to getting caught in the act. They can in fact hint a house player at will on the other side of the planet and there's nothing anybody can do about it.

In contrast, a live b&m operator is not even close to being IMMUNE but you seem to be trying to suggest that the security aspects are the same for both environments; they most definitely are NOT. An online poker server has plenary god-like power over the entire game quite unlike a live dealer who does NOT.

Compare the ability of a human dealer being able to select the exact composition of the first 30 cards, to the ability of software to do the same.

Compare the ability of a human dealer to then privately/secretly communicate/hint a house player, to the ability of a poker server that has a secure encrypted connection/conversation with each player at the table.

The facts are that right now any online site can hint a house player at will and there is zero chance of getting caught - they are 100% IMMUNE. The same cannot be said for the live game. The live game has a very acceptable level of policeability; the online games does NOT.

[ QUOTE ]
B&M have operated in this environment for years--heavy regulation, and must be able to demostrate that they are above reproach. And they are making billions.

[/ QUOTE ]
I totally agree. But do not attempt to treat the security aspects of the online game and the live game as equals, for doing so makes you appear uninformed at best or biased at worst.

[ QUOTE ]
I believe that Stars and probably Party would welcome regulation, if it came hand in hand with credit card acceptance, easy cashouts, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]
You have the "welcoming" issue backwards here; it matters little what any operator "wants" or "welcomes"; what I am telling you is that the serious gaming authorities will say "NO" to the current online game as it exists right now and if they do not agree to police it then that game CANNOT legally be offered in that jurisdiction; what part of this do you not understand? Gambling is legal in many places; but this does not mean that all games get approved.

[ QUOTE ]
These are not insurmountable obstacles. Every industry that operates globally faces them. In fact, online poker is easier to regulate that most industries because the product --a fair game -- is forever recorded in the hand histories.

[/ QUOTE ]
Hand histories are certainly a record of what happened; but they have zero power to prove that a site skewed the deck or hinted a house player. Consider the power of each site to create as many prop accounts as desired. Now describe how you plan on proving hints spread across many accounts over many months/years.

So when a jurisdiction like Nevada asks a large online site what their plan is to prove they're not skewing shuffles or hinting players and the site responds with "We can't prove our honesty; everone will just have to trust us", you're saying the gaming authority will just say "Ok, we trust you to be honest as long as you cross your heart and hope to die - step on a tack break your mothers back"

[ QUOTE ]
As for bots and the like, I think tthat everyone is in agreement that they shouldn't be used.

[/ QUOTE ]
Same issues with players as with sites but compounded an a scale equal to the player population. In a live setting the players are visible to one and all (including house cameras). On the internet, player behavior is entirely shrouded in privacy other than their actual actions within the game. Live operators have the right to refuse play to anybody for any reason but they cannot confiscate money unless there is hard eyewitness evidence of cheating the mechanics of the game; such evidence is impossible to collect online. You'd probably never see a situation where a major gaming jurisdiction would approve terms and conditions that allowed a site operator to confiscate account funds for any reason; close the account and return the money? yes. close the account and keep the money? no.

[ QUOTE ]
Try getting that kind of data or that kind of consensus on an issue on like say, the acceptable level of greenhouse gas emissions by automobiles.

[/ QUOTE ]
Consensus does not matter to major gaming authorities; they're not trying to win a popularity contest; their job is to effectively police gambling games. If an operator cannot show them how to do that then the game will NOT be approved. What you want, what I want, what the online site wants is not important.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am not the uninformed one. As for bias, go buy a tinfoil hat. Maybe I'm the one skewing the deck. LOL

You are clearly uninformed about how the gaming commision works. They have 24-7 access to all records and all floor operations. To deny access is to risk your license.

You have made the mistake of assuming the current state of affairs is not only the way its is, but the way it must be. In other words, you lack imagination.

Every single action taken on a server can be recorded and reviewed. In other words, while it may be true that the current system is "shrouded in privacy", it doesn't have to be. The sites can be required to record everything, always, and immediately surrender the reocrds to an investigator 24-7. This can be accomplished extremely cheaply, at least compared to the sums expended on policing live casinos.

The records of who has played, when, and for how much, will also be available 24-7. If PS wants to claim that 78,000 refugees from Darfur were beating the [censored] out a bunch of Americans, Europeans, and Aussies, in order to divert money into a gigantic PS slushfund, I suspect they will get caught. Moreover, I suspect that they will never try. Regulated online, world wide poker will be a cash cow so big that slowing down to commit fraud would cost you money.

[StellarWind]

[ QUOTE ]
The standard is a little lower, but to get your money, the site would need to show the specific damages.

[/ QUOTE ]
1. I would be tempted to make the following argument in court:

A. Winning a bet by cheating is stealing ("larceny by trick").

B. Using a bot is cheating.

C. Every pot the bot won is stolen money.

The bot user should be liable for the full dollar value of every pot won with no offset for losses. This money would be owed to other players.

2. The site should be compensated for the cost of the investigation.

3. The site should be compensated for the damage done to its reputation.

4. The basic point in your quote may be wrong. This is a natural situation for punitive damages which would not be limited by the actual damage done.

Getting the court to award hefty damages against a proven botter seems like the easiest part of the whole process. Identifying the perpetrator, proving bot use in court, and actually collecting the award are the hard parts.

[RIIT]

[ QUOTE ]
RITT, I fail to see what point you're attempting to make. Do you think online poker should remain illegal because it's difficult to prove that a site isn't rigging decks just for the hell of it?

You're going on many tangents here, none of which have to do with the US government adopting similar regulations with regards to online poker as the rest of the civilized world.

[/ QUOTE ]

jack21221: The house doesn't actually need to skew the deck as long as they have the power to hint house players. In a 10-handed game, a fair deck will favor each player an average of 10% of hands dealt. If you're a prop player then it's a simple matter of patience to wait for the server to hint you. If you're a really good prop player then you will intentionally lose some hands to gain statistical cover.

My Point? To challenge the mindset that innocently views the live and online game security issues as equal. They are not equal and never will be. The live game is policeable by 3rd parties; the online game is not policeable by 3rd parties. Sanctionable? yes. Policeable? no. The Kahnawake Gaming Commission is nothing more than a sanctioning entity. They have zero power to police the honesty of an operator where the game mechanics are concerned.

So the issue doesn't have anything to do with what I want or what you want. It has to do with the larger context of real world facts involving any scenario where online poker would operate within a serious gaming jurisdiction.

Such scenarios have already been suggested several times within this thread. I'm challenging the underlying assumption that such a scenario is even possible let alone better than what we have now.

Legalizing online gaming and approving a specific online game are two entirely different matters. Any U.S. state can legalize online gaming right now (fyi - they don't need federal permission to do this). But legalizing online gaming within a state does not automatically mean that every online game will automatically get approved for regulation by the gaming authority. The state of Nevada can legalize online gaming right now but if their gaming authority declares a game to be "unpoliceable" then that game cannot happen period. The NGC will not sanction any game that is unpoliceable where as the KGC will sanction pretty much anything.

[RIIT]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The T&C's we accepted when joining the various sites,without reading in most cases, give them this right.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is incorrect as a matter of law. See my earlier posts in this thread.

[/ QUOTE ]

sethypooh21: This statement is correct only if you also presume a jurisdiction that would bring higher legal principles to bear upon the site TOS. I live in the U.S. and as much as I might like to believe that the power of America reaches everywhere - the facts are that it does not both physically and legally - and so if we're talking about the 3rd world jurisdiction of Wallaboomba then the risk to the player will be according to the practices there regardless of what the major national jurisdictions would want otherwise.

I agree with your statement completely in the context of major jurisdictions and I think there are more than a few instances of site TOS wording that would be struck down due to higher legal precepts.

However, even if we allow a context of say the state of Nevada and a major LV strip casino online site, there are still major problems involving policeability where the online game is concerned. The online game as it exists right now is NOT policeable in any real way above and beyond a "he said she said" level (as in the recent 2+2 threads). Real policeability means that the gaming authority has the ability to know what is true and what is not true such that they can sort through complaints and accusations from any entity involved - site, player, other, etc.

Here is a short list of complaints that are impossible to police at present:

1) Player complains that the site is skewing the shuffle.

A site can know they are shuffling honestly but they cannot prove it to a 3rd party. To really clue in here, just pause for a moment and compare what is possible with a live b&m shuffle and what is possible with a software shuffle where that software runs on a secure sever entirely under the control of the operator.

2) Player complains that the site is hinting house players.

A site can know they are properly containing all sensitive game information (i.e. all card info) but they cannot prove it to a 3rd party. To really clue in here, just pause for a moment and compare what is possible with a live b&m game and what is possible with a client/server setup where the client/server software and the internet connection between them is entirely within the control of the site operator.

3) Player complains that another player is using restricted software help (bots, trackers, calculators)

The other player can know they are playing according to the site TOS but they cannot prove it to a 3rd party.

4) Player complains that other players are colluding.

The other players can know they are playing according to the site TOS but they cannot prove it to a 3rd party.

Note that citing motive is not a reasonable defense against these accusations (i.e. the typical "The house has zero motive to cheat" argument posed many times here in 2+2 threads)

Items 3&4 can be resolved by striking all TOS wording that forbids those actions in the first place thus rendering the complaints as meaningless (popular? probably not. doable? yes very easily). The gaming authority doesn't have to lift a finger in these cases; problem solved.

Items 1&2 are much more serious and cannot be resolved with changes to the TOS because they have to do with that actual game mechanics themselves.

[/ QUOTE ]

As to points one and two, I assume that there would be no actual evidence of skewing the deal or hinting house players so said cases would be summarily dismissed on motion. If there was indeed evidence of skewing or hinting, let the sun shine down on it for everyone to review.

B&M have operated in this environment for years--heavy regulation, and must be able to demostrate that they are above reproach. And they are making billions.

I believe that Stars and probably Party would welcome regulation, if it came hand in hand with credit card acceptance, easy cashouts, etc.

These are not insurmountable obstacles. Every industry that operates globally faces them. In fact, online poker is easier to regulate that most industries because the product --a fair game -- is forever recorded in the hand histories.

As for bots and the like, I think tthat everyone is in agreement that they shouldn't be used.

Try getting that kind of data or that kind of consensus on an issue on like say, the acceptable level of greenhouse gas emissions by automobiles.

[/ QUOTE ]

El_Hombre_Grande: Well it seems you're making my case for me here.

[ QUOTE ]
As to points one and two, I assume that there would be no actual evidence of skewing the deal or hinting house players so said cases would be summarily dismissed on motion. If there was indeed evidence of skewing or hinting, let the sun shine down on it for everyone to review.

[/ QUOTE ]
Exactly; you've simply stated my point with different words. It's not possible to collect evidence against an online site for items 1&2; they are in fact quite IMMUNE to getting caught in the act. They can in fact hint a house player at will on the other side of the planet and there's nothing anybody can do about it.

In contrast, a live b&m operator is not even close to being IMMUNE but you seem to be trying to suggest that the security aspects are the same for both environments; they most definitely are NOT. An online poker server has plenary god-like power over the entire game quite unlike a live dealer who does NOT.

Compare the ability of a human dealer being able to select the exact composition of the first 30 cards, to the ability of software to do the same.

Compare the ability of a human dealer to then privately/secretly communicate/hint a house player, to the ability of a poker server that has a secure encrypted connection/conversation with each player at the table.

The facts are that right now any online site can hint a house player at will and there is zero chance of getting caught - they are 100% IMMUNE. The same cannot be said for the live game. The live game has a very acceptable level of policeability; the online games does NOT.

[ QUOTE ]
B&M have operated in this environment for years--heavy regulation, and must be able to demostrate that they are above reproach. And they are making billions.

[/ QUOTE ]
I totally agree. But do not attempt to treat the security aspects of the online game and the live game as equals, for doing so makes you appear uninformed at best or biased at worst.

[ QUOTE ]
I believe that Stars and probably Party would welcome regulation, if it came hand in hand with credit card acceptance, easy cashouts, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]
You have the "welcoming" issue backwards here; it matters little what any operator "wants" or "welcomes"; what I am telling you is that the serious gaming authorities will say "NO" to the current online game as it exists right now and if they do not agree to police it then that game CANNOT legally be offered in that jurisdiction; what part of this do you not understand? Gambling is legal in many places; but this does not mean that all games get approved.

[ QUOTE ]
These are not insurmountable obstacles. Every industry that operates globally faces them. In fact, online poker is easier to regulate that most industries because the product --a fair game -- is forever recorded in the hand histories.

[/ QUOTE ]
Hand histories are certainly a record of what happened; but they have zero power to prove that a site skewed the deck or hinted a house player. Consider the power of each site to create as many prop accounts as desired. Now describe how you plan on proving hints spread across many accounts over many months/years.

So when a jurisdiction like Nevada asks a large online site what their plan is to prove they're not skewing shuffles or hinting players and the site responds with "We can't prove our honesty; everone will just have to trust us", you're saying the gaming authority will just say "Ok, we trust you to be honest as long as you cross your heart and hope to die - step on a tack break your mothers back"

[ QUOTE ]
As for bots and the like, I think tthat everyone is in agreement that they shouldn't be used.

[/ QUOTE ]
Same issues with players as with sites but compounded an a scale equal to the player population. In a live setting the players are visible to one and all (including house cameras). On the internet, player behavior is entirely shrouded in privacy other than their actual actions within the game. Live operators have the right to refuse play to anybody for any reason but they cannot confiscate money unless there is hard eyewitness evidence of cheating the mechanics of the game; such evidence is impossible to collect online. You'd probably never see a situation where a major gaming jurisdiction would approve terms and conditions that allowed a site operator to confiscate account funds for any reason; close the account and return the money? yes. close the account and keep the money? no.

[ QUOTE ]
Try getting that kind of data or that kind of consensus on an issue on like say, the acceptable level of greenhouse gas emissions by automobiles.

[/ QUOTE ]
Consensus does not matter to major gaming authorities; they're not trying to win a popularity contest; their job is to effectively police gambling games. If an operator cannot show them how to do that then the game will NOT be approved. What you want, what I want, what the online site wants is not important.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am not the uninformed one. As for bias, go buy a tinfoil hat. Maybe I'm the one skewing the deck. LOL

You are clearly uninformed about how the gaming commision works. They have 24-7 access to all records and all floor operations. To deny access is to risk your license.

You have made the mistake of assuming the current state of affairs is not only the way its is, but the way it must be. In other words, you lack imagination.

Every single action taken on a server can be recorded and reviewed. In other words, while it may be true that the current system is "shrouded in privacy", it doesn't have to be. The sites can be required to record everything, always, and immediately surrender the reocrds to an investigator 24-7. This can be accomplished extremely cheaply, at least compared to the sums expended on policing live casinos.

The records of who has played, when, and for how much, will also be available 24-7. If PS wants to claim that 78,000 refugees from Darfur were beating the [censored] out a bunch of Americans, Europeans, and Aussies, in order to divert money into a gigantic PS slushfund, I suspect they will get caught. Moreover, I suspect that they will never try. Regulated online, world wide poker will be a cash cow so big that slowing down to commit fraud would cost you money.

[/ QUOTE ]

El_Hombre_Grande: I think you misunderstand me here.

[ QUOTE ]
I am not the uninformed one. As for bias, go buy a tinfoil hat. Maybe I'm the one skewing the deck. LOL

[/ QUOTE ]
You appear to be very informed about the security of the live game; I'm not questioning that and my apologies to you if you thought I was; however, I am definitely questioning your mindset when it comes to translating that live security to an online environment because your treatment of the subject is too matter of fact when in practice there are grave issues not seen in the live game.

[ QUOTE ]
You are clearly uninformed about how the gaming commision works. They have 24-7 access to all records and all floor operations. To deny access is to risk your license.

[/ QUOTE ]
Well you're misinformed about how well informed I am. LOL. Yes. I understand everything you've said here. But your context is the "live" game. I fully admit that the live game is policed really well. That's not my point. I'm contending that the online game cannot be policed as easily and I'm contending that you're less informed than you could be on what is involved with policing the mechanics of an online game by a 3rd party. If you were then you'd stay away from any statements that suggest that policing the online game is as easy as policing the live game.

[ QUOTE ]
You have made the mistake of assuming the current state of affairs is not only the way its is, but the way it must be. In other words, you lack imagination.

[/ QUOTE ]
It's not a mistake to assume that a long-time trusted gaming authority (like the NGC) will continue to refuse to sanction games that are unpoliceable. If you have inside info that would suggest otherwise then please do tell. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[ QUOTE ]
Every single action taken on a server can be recorded and reviewed. In other words, while it may be true that the current system is "shrouded in privacy", it doesn't have to be. The sites can be required to record everything, always, and immediately surrender the reocrds to an investigator 24-7. This can be accomplished extremely cheaply, at least compared to the sums expended on policing live casinos.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes there can be regulations about logs and records and sites can easily produce those. But that can't stop a poker server from hinting a player. It only takes a single line of source code to include a hint within an outgoing message to the house player. If you want to play the tinfoil card here then I'll trump with the eyewitness card.

[ QUOTE ]
The records of who has played, when, and for how much, will also be available 24-7. If PS wants to claim that 78,000 refugees from Darfur were beating the [censored] out a bunch of Americans, Europeans, and Aussies, in order to divert money into a gigantic PS slushfund, I suspect they will get caught. Moreover, I suspect that they will never try. Regulated online, world wide poker will be a cash cow so big that slowing down to commit fraud would cost you money.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes records are easy to keep but they're not necessarily proof of hints. It depends on which records we're talking about here. The only way to police hints is to have a 3rd party listen to the conversations between the server and each client. The 3rd party would need knowledge of the entire protocol such that every bit in every message was accounted for. If the server tried to fix an outgoing message by setting a hint bit that was defined as always zero then that act could be detected.

But you still have to prove that the server is not skewing decks.

[jack21221]

RITT:

A state cannot legalize online gaming on its own in the United States because of federal laws. It's the same argument as a state legalizing medical marijuana. Sure, they can technically do it, but the feds can still arrest members of those states. See California for an example.

As far as poker sites giving hints to specific players: That's easily enough debunked by opening up the source code to an investigator. If the source code doesn't allow for viewing or manipulating of the "cards" before they're shown on the table, there goes your theory.

But, can you explain WHY you seem to be so concerned about this? It sounds like an absurd stretch that poker sites would face millions of dollars in fines and jail time to help somebody make a few extra dollars. Can it technically happen? I guess, but it's a rather absurd scenario.

[RIIT]

[ QUOTE ]
RITT:

A state cannot legalize online gaming on its own in the United States because of federal laws. It's the same argument as a state legalizing medical marijuana. Sure, they can technically do it, but the feds can still arrest members of those states. See California for an example.

As far as poker sites giving hints to specific players: That's easily enough debunked by opening up the source code to an investigator. If the source code doesn't allow for viewing or manipulating of the "cards" before they're shown on the table, there goes your theory.

But, can you explain WHY you seem to be so concerned about this? It sounds like an absurd stretch that poker sites would face millions of dollars in fines and jail time to help somebody make a few extra dollars. Can it technically happen? I guess, but it's a rather absurd scenario.

[/ QUOTE ]

jack21221: U.S. states can in fact legalize online gaming within their state and offer it to those within their state without federal approval. If they want to accept business from those across state lines (and yes they all would want that) then, yes, the fed. comes into play.

Your supposed source code audit does not debunk anything. Yes, it can show the source code to be honest but it cannot offer any protection beyond that. This leads to a decaying slippery slope argument of compiler audits and watchdog processes where in the end the entity with control over the server computer wins. The final end to that slope is where the gaming authority runs the gaming servers in which case they have then become an operator and are no longer suitable to be the police and then we're right back to square one in the debate.

This same idea can be applied to an actual dealer. If a dealer has the ability to skew and hint without the possibility of detection then the dealer wins the policing game. Fortunately for all of the live players, deck stacking and player hinting is very hard if not impossible. And even if it's not entirely impossible, it's accurate to claim that it's very much more difficult a task for the live human than it is for the poker server.

Again, the ease with which a site host can cheat in the online game and not get caught is unmistakable. This same ease does not apply to the live game.

Your explanation as to the fear and loathing of jail time is non-issue if it is impossible to get caught. The only reasonable come-back on your part is to find a way to make it easier for the operator to get caught.

[jack21221]

I'm still failing to see your point. You contest that online poker sites can cheat. Further, you state it's impossible to catch them.

So, what do you propose should happen with online poker?

[Chump Change]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


For the conclusion of this thread: Use a bot, get caught, lose money and get banned. Simple as that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Like Teddy's Mom and the guy from WPEX who were both subjected to false positives? Its not simple at all. Fools like to simplify complicated issues. It may be one dimensional to you, as the Don Quixote of Bot Hunting, but I think that there are many other players who realize that this is a difficult balancing act with several competing interests, not the least of which is the account holder's right to assurances that his/her money is safe from seizure due to "false positives." Pretending a complicated issue is simple doesn't get you any closer to solving the problem.

[/ QUOTE ]

So beautifully said...

Especially:

[ QUOTE ]
Don Quixote of Bot Hunting

[/ QUOTE ]


Custom title, do u reckon?

[RIIT]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm still failing to see your point. You contest that online poker sites can cheat. Further, you state it's impossible to catch them.

So, what do you propose should happen with online poker?

[/ QUOTE ]
As I've already mentioned in this thread, I am against wording in any site TOS where the site allows themselves to take account funds from a player for any reason.

Online gaming would be much better off if all online players turned their attention toward the unchecked powers of offshore operators instead of worrying about the behavior of opponents.