|
|
#41
08-02-2007, 09:58 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Pokerbots, a different view from another source
[ QUOTE ]
Settle down cowboy. I said I was using PP and I was -- the HTML version which to this day is not detected I'm sure. So my guess is that yes INDEED that string of wins caused them to red flag me. They ACCUSED me of using PP -- I admitted it to get the account back open. I have no issue with Party Poker or how they handled it. I miss them and love them and want them to come home! [/ QUOTE ] Im not trying to attack you but you are spouting false information. The idea that Stars/Party/FT are closing down player's accounts for winning is absurd. You are also wrong about HTML Poker Prophecy. Party takes shots of your desktop, checks your cookies, who knows what else. Back when the program was very popular there were alot of players at this forum who were warned to not use the program again when they handnt used it in awhile, and I think the conclusion was because of their cookies. 
|
|
#42
08-02-2007, 10:09 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Pokerbots, a different view from another source
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Settle down cowboy. I said I was using PP and I was -- the HTML version which to this day is not detected I'm sure. So my guess is that yes INDEED that string of wins caused them to red flag me. They ACCUSED me of using PP -- I admitted it to get the account back open. I have no issue with Party Poker or how they handled it. I miss them and love them and want them to come home! [/ QUOTE ] Im not trying to attack you but you are spouting false information. The idea that Stars/Party/FT are closing down player's accounts for winning is absurd. You are also wrong about HTML Poker Prophecy. Party takes shots of your desktop, checks your cookies, who knows what else. Back when the program was very popular there were alot of players at this forum who were warned to not use the program again when they handnt used it in awhile, and I think the conclusion was because of their cookies. [/ QUOTE ] Well ok -- I'll give here. It was an odd coincidence certainly but I'm not really vested enough in this angle of the thread to be arguing that I mistrust Party or Stars or even FTP... I'll stick to my main point which is: Regardless of what a site might do with the information -- red flags are thrown for behavior significantly deviant from the norm -- Guaranteed. Your apology -- is accepted [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] Chip
|
|
#44
08-02-2007, 10:41 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Pokerbots, the truth from the source
While I'm always doubtful of any information that falls in to the bot/rigged/doomswitch (especially without any data or concrete proof), I am not ruling this out entirely. I have always thought that for every winning bot (assuming they exist) there must be 10 losing or beta bots, if not more.
Saying that accounts that win "too much" are closed down is obviously the hardest part of your testimony to believe. Is there a way to elaborate or explain how the ninja team determined when an account was "too hot"? That would add some credibility to this story, because everybody saying that the poker community would pick up on this practice right away is 100% right. For the sake of transparency, I'm hoping that you continue posting as much information (real or not) as you can, and that posters here don't drive you away. If this turns out to be true (entirely or partially), I think this is something everyone needs to know. So all I ask is that you tell as much as you can, and that those who doubt don't just flame this thread to death. I know that almost everyone here assumes this is false right from the get go, but it wouldn't make any sense to not hear him/her out and decide later.
|
|
#45
08-02-2007, 10:52 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Pokerbots, the truth from the source
[ QUOTE ]
While I'm always doubtful of any information that falls in to the bot/rigged/doomswitch (especially without any data or concrete proof), I am not ruling this out entirely. I have always thought that for every winning bot (assuming they exist) there must be 10 losing or beta bots, if not more. Saying that accounts that win "too much" are closed down is obviously the hardest part of your testimony to believe. Is there a way to elaborate or explain how the ninja team determined when an account was "too hot"? That would add some credibility to this story, because everybody saying that the poker community would pick up on this practice right away is 100% right. For the sake of transparency, I'm hoping that you continue posting as much information (real or not) as you can, and that posters here don't drive you away. If this turns out to be true (entirely or partially), I think this is something everyone needs to know. So all I ask is that you tell as much as you can, and that those who doubt don't just flame this thread to death. I know that almost everyone here assumes this is false right from the get go, but it wouldn't make any sense to not hear him/her out and decide later. [/ QUOTE ] I agree that more info is needed here. I also think OP's origninal post is not intended to display any doom switch or rigged nonsense at all. He's telling use the casino's are watching VERY closely the 'ecosystem' they are attempting to nurture and grow -- for surely that is both a responsibility and goal without question...
|
|
#46
08-02-2007, 10:52 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Pokerbots, a different view from another source
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] "No one care about poker robots as such. " We do not accept that your "model is ..what simply make sense". We have been operating continually for over 6 years with a poker experience model instead. To us poker is human competition. [/ QUOTE ] Who is this mystical 'WE'? [/ QUOTE ] True Poker
|
|
#47
08-02-2007, 11:21 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Pokerbots, the truth from the source
[ QUOTE ]
My guess is OP may of worked for Pacific/888.com. Before UIGEA they were a contender for one of the top 3 sites for a short period of time. They also took countermeasures against winning players. Taking away their Frequent Player program against winning players. Delaying cashouts to winning players. [/ QUOTE ] I actually thought of Pacific while I was writing my last post but they were never close to being a top three room. They are the one poker room that apparently practices some of what OP describes and they have a very shady reputation as a result.
|
|
#49
08-03-2007, 12:39 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Pokerbots, the truth from the source
[ QUOTE ]
If OP could elaborate further on what they do to "randomly kill off" winning players that would be great, thanks. [/ QUOTE ] That part is obvious from his second post - they (whoever 'they' are) look for little T&C violations and other ways to close their accounts. Maybe their T&C says 'one account per household' but this winner's girlfriend also legitimately plays, so instead of overlooking them like everybody else they ban them both anyway. Maybe they look a little harder at his chat than usual, especially if he abuses the fish. I dunno, I could think of a bunch of things that'd make this plausible. Since he says the money is refunded it wouldn't usually make for big 2+2 threads. I wouldn't really want to play at this room, though, which is why it's funny that it does sound like Pacific. (Or maybe the old Pokerroom/Ongame? Half those skins could've sent hitmen out to murder their entire playerbase and nobody would have noticed anything different.)
|
|
#50
08-03-2007, 01:22 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Pokerbots, the truth from the source
[ QUOTE ]
If you have 2 accounts and you think you’re very clever by signing up your grand ma but your mail clients put your PC name or VMWare prefix …X-Sieve: CMU Sieve / Received: from john-dell-2 (xyz-@[191.27.9.71]) by fwd31.aul.xxx … in your mails, you’ve practically done. [/ QUOTE ] Am I correct in assuming that if you use two different web browser-based mail sites, people won't know your emails are coming from the same computer?
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
