NL Bots on Full Tilt

[Lyrrad]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


Bet River:

2497/575 = 0.230276332
961/216 = 0.224765869
2403/538 = 0.223886808
1836/411 = 0.223856209


[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

this part bugs me the most

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't really understand why people think this particular stat means it's a bot? If it's a bot, it would likely only bet on the river based on the cards it has and the board. Wouldn't variance mean that these numbers would more likely to be farther apart due to the sample size? 1000-2500 hands is a small sample size isn't it? I don't really think it's evidence one way or another.

Would other people have the same statistic from these players from a different sample of hands to compare it to?

ETA: Also, this is one statistic among many that they have in common. How do other statistics like Bet Turn percentage differ?

My main point is that if I designed a bot, or was playing the same strategy with other people, I would expect the variance at the river betting percentage over a sample of 2500 hands to be larger than what is listed here. But, if you start looking at X statistics between 4 players/bots using the same strategy, the chances of finding 1 or 2 numbers in there that are close to each other is pretty good.

[kkcountry]

[ QUOTE ]

My argument was that river was the most difficult to program,

[/ QUOTE ]

i believe the river would be much easier to program than the turn (but not as easy to program the PF or the 100% cbet flop) because as much 'information' as possible is out there, and there are no more streets to anticipate. the bot/sweatshop either has a hand or it doesn't, and since the bot/sweatshop is nitty, it can bet or raise when it determines its hand is above a certain threshold of worth, and check and/or fold when it doesn't have anything

[KotOD]

[ QUOTE ]

My argument was that river was the most difficult to program, so how come the PF stat differs so much while the river (least susceptible to botting) would be identical? I think it could just as easily be the result of a learned strategy.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's really difficult to program a bot to make decisions that will match over 4 accounts, but it's really easy to make sure 4 different humans make the exact decisions to match numbers over accounts?

This is what you're saying? I want to make sure I have this right.

[DWarrior]

[ QUOTE ]
A friend of mine is a journalist on one of denmarks biggest newspapers.... This might hit the poker section on friday.

DAMN this is going to hurt fulltiltpoker

[/ QUOTE ]

So far every article on a story that I've followed that made it to the news has been half-assed and misinformed. So I won't hold my breath for this one.

[tautomer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

My argument was that river was the most difficult to program,

[/ QUOTE ]

i believe the river would be much easier to program than the turn (but not as easy to program the PF or the 100% cbet flop) because as much 'information' as possible is out there, and there are no more streets to anticipate. the bot/sweatshop either has a hand or it doesn't, and since the bot/sweatshop is nitty, it can bet or raise when it determines its hand is above a certain threshold of worth, and check and/or fold when it doesn't have anything

[/ QUOTE ]

But, it sounds like he knows how difficult it was to program the river so maybe not. [img]/images/graemlins/shocked.gif[/img]

[KotOD]

[ QUOTE ]
the bot/sweatshop either has a hand or it doesn't, and since the bot/sweatshop is nitty, it can bet or raise when it determines its hand is above a certain threshold of worth, and check and/or fold when it doesn't have anything

[/ QUOTE ]

And four humans, considering the combinations facing them and the calculations necessary with 20 seconds, are not going to be able to do this with the exact same ratios on all four accounts...wait for it...without using a bot.

[tautomer]

That's where the sweatshop part of bot/sweatshop comes in I believe.

[Bobo Fett]

[ QUOTE ]
A friend of mine is a journalist on one of denmarks biggest newspapers.... This might hit the poker section on friday.

DAMN this is going to hurt fulltiltpoker

[/ QUOTE ]
Fantastic...what a great day this would be for all online poker players. Perhaps we can also dig up some stories about how 14 year olds are able to gamble away their allowance, go into debt, and rob their grannies; and then find a couple of people who have "clicked a mouse and lost their house"? Put it all together for a GREAT article, what a wonderful outcome that could have for the 2+2 community!

Ahhhh, but that's OK...because, DAMN this is going to hurt fulltiltpoker.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
1) I believe that there are 3 different people, each having their own account.
2) I believe that they often play in the same location, grinding it away.
3) I also believe that most often they play as bots.

Question for Chuck and brandon:

1) Who has expertise in programming?

Here's my guess as to what happened:

- Chuck starts playing poker and becomes a decent player.
- Chuck has a couple of friends that are good programmers.
- Chuck teaches these guys poker and they begin to discuss a way to program a winning bot.
- Their 'think tank' plays a lot together and develops the bot.
- Sometimes they play 'for real' and sometime they play as bots. This is the perfect cover.

[/ QUOTE ]

This seems like a decent explanation.

[/ QUOTE ]


DW,

I got a couple hours sleep and woke up to piss, so I decided to check this thread and have read a butt-load of posts catching up. I was ready to bash you for spending so much time defending the anti-bot position, but your post above shows you aren't as intent on denying the possibility of botting as I thought. I too think that's a decent explanation, and perhaps more likely than the sweatsthop alternative. However it is still clear that the last alternative that nlnut and his buddy who has take the night shift in defense of their crew being 100% truthful or even anywhere close to it, is a huge longshot, no matter what nation says. And the bottom line is that a part-time botter is still a botter.

[lemming]

Wow, I just read all posts in this thread... And I'm actually at work, lol...


Was there still no FTP representative making ANY statement at all? (I don't think I missed any posts, but still? No reaction???)

@FTPSean/Doug: If FTP sticks to the decision on having closed these investigations, then post this in here, or this will never take an end... Imo if you don't react to this, people will get more and more and more suspicious, the longer this goes on!

I would be pleased to hear a statement from FTPs side, as we've heard enough from the accusers and defenders IMO... Facts, claims and accusations are all out there, we need some judge // more technical facts or some details from these investigations!

This thread will make the forum explode if you don't react... And we all don't want that!