Pokerbots, the truth from the source

[Mike Haven]

You sound remarkably like that bottom-dwelling, scum-sucking bot cheat RayBornert.

Oh, wait ...

[CountingMyOuts]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
(if what you say is true, no poker room would ever ever hire prop players)

[/ QUOTE ]

I know an online prop who was very recently fired for consistently winning.

Onaflag.......

[/ QUOTE ]

Story, please.

[Onaflag]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
(if what you say is true, no poker room would ever ever hire prop players)

[/ QUOTE ]

I know an online prop who was very recently fired for consistently winning.

Onaflag.......

[/ QUOTE ]

Story, please.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry. Can't. Flame if necessary. There are, however, people right here in this thread who can verify this as fact.

This particular claim by OP has happened. I doubt, though, that it happens/has happened at any of the 3 current mega-sites.

Onaflag........

[ChipFerFree]

Thus once again supporting my argument that it is a piece of cake to do this sort of manipulation to the betterment of the underlying business -- yet not done cause the big three don't need to...

[curtains]

top 3 sites = not fulltilt poker or pokerstars but whichever one the OP thinks is number 3. Maybe UB?

[6471849653]

[ QUOTE ]
A consistently winning player, playing a lot, with somewhat high BB/100h is the same kind of enemy. They suck up money with speed sometimes faster than the site does (on the relative amount of tables), which destroys the ecosystem in some time (I believe you can do the calculation but these calculations and analysis we had done in details). These (real players as well as bots) were under fire. If it’s a bot, it’s killed right away, no issue. If it’s a real player, it’s randomly killed too

[/ QUOTE ]

It seems to be happening to some players, though not too much later the site gets rockier anyway as the amount of fish gets less. Another story is then the games where one scores high even then. Some ways to deal with that is not to play more than one or two tables and not to play at any one place too much. Safe is better than sorry.

[StellarWind]

[ QUOTE ]
I know an online prop who was very recently fired for consistently winning.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is a little different than anything else in this thread. Prop players are paid to nurture weak "ecosystems" by starting and maintaining tables. If they aren't doing that they should be let go and it doesn't really matter what the problem is.

1. Firing a prop is very different from barring a player. The prop is an employee and not a customer. The site has no obligation to keep paying an employee who is damaging the business. It's strictly a business decision and as a regular player I wouldn't be upset that a prop account was closed.

2. A very strong prop could backfire on the poker room. You can't build a successful business solely around props. "Amateur" winning and breakeven players are the primary table-starters and game-maintainers in any remotely healthy poker room. What if the prop is so strong that all the high-volume regular players are afraid to play him shorthanded? You aren't much of a prop if whenever you sit down at a shorthanded table two other players immediately sit out.

3. If the customers realize that a very strong player is a prop there can be problems. I resent sites that pay sharks to sit at my tables. Other less knowledgeable players may suspect the prop's success is not just skill and spread rumors of rigging.

4. Economically speaking a prop who is a big winner may be overpaid. Why pay 110% rakeback to someone who also sucks 4 BB/100 out of the room when another prop is willing to take the same 110% and only win 1 BB/100?

PS: Please no flames from working props. I realize perfectly that this sucks from your perspective and you have my sympathy. But it's no different than a thousand other businesses that may produce wonderful products and services while playing hardball with their employees.

[kyleb]

Good to know that one of two major sites that use props doesn't care about any of that, and that they have way too many of them to begin with.

[MrGatorade]

Ultimatebet and absolute have known 100% that the had a huge bot infestation problem 2 years ago. There answer to the problem was to take all HU games below 50/100 off because what bot could play high stakes right? Right now the bot problem is so bad at ub that if they took the bots off there player base and games starting up and going would drop in my opinion by 30%. So in my view it is entirly a business decisin to keep the bots on there site even though they average 1.8 BB per 100 so they are definetly not losing bots.
-Crazy Mike (MrGatorade)

[kornman17]

Gatorade, I can understand that you have fun by hunting bots, maybe some business in mind, but only do not take it maniacally serious, or take for granted that what you do is the right thing to do for the poker.
Poker botting is a complex thing. Killing the winning bots was good for the site I worked, but if every site started to do it, it would have been a problem for us. The methods to detect bots are very reliable. Once implemented by every site, if the bot authors cannot any longer deploy their bots, there will be much more focus in selling (or even give away) them as training tools [This all assumes – if there are winning bots. There are winning bots (not generic one), but most of them were/are losing. I assume this will change in few years]. Fish, average players, and winners aided with good tools that easily improve their play to a winning (optimal exploitive) one, will kill the poker ecosystem the same. Many of the bot detection mechanisms that I know are detecting extensive computer aided help, rather than automation. Sites would need to stop such users in the future, or you get the same “problem” as you get with having automated play – and you get the same “solution”, that I described.
Playing chess or backgammon for money has died not because of presence of bots, but because of availability computer tools that play much better than a human do.


[ QUOTE ]
Ultimatebet and absolute have known 100% that the had a huge bot infestation problem 2 years ago. There answer to the problem was to take all HU games below 50/100 off because what bot could play high stakes right? Right now the bot problem is so bad at ub that if they took the bots off there player base and games starting up and going would drop in my opinion by 30%. So in my view it is entirly a business decisin to keep the bots on there site even though they average 1.8 BB per 100 so they are definetly not losing bots.
-Crazy Mike (MrGatorade)

[/ QUOTE ]