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

[chube]

[ QUOTE ]

In general the way I play is simple. I sit at an empty HU table and wait for a game. A player has to sit at my table if he wants to play me. So if the players you are refering to did not sit at my table I did not play them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why would any normal, non-bot-using human being do this as a rule???

If you play regularly on a site, even if you do not care who you play against, wouldn't you sometimes want to sit in on a table instead of waiting for a game to come to you?

If you saw a juicy donk sitting wouldn't you sit in with that person?

[ntnBO]

[ QUOTE ]

as for avoiding each other, one would think that they would test each other out first. otherwise, how would they know to avoid each other?

[/ QUOTE ]
From what I've read, it's because the bots are programmed to "open" a HU table, never to join a table with somebody already sitting. This way bots would never play each other.

BO

[Unabridged]

[ QUOTE ]
the problem with your example is that hu lhe is exponentially more complex than 10 tablin sngs.


[/ QUOTE ]

proof?

[apefish]

Are we back to the "they never played against each other omg bots" argument?
What if... bots only play 30-60 and BeatMe logs few if any hands at that limit? Is the "have never played each other" argument still in play at least as far as Beatme goes?
Again I am not taking any sides here because I am certainly not discounting that they would fill up all available seats within a certain range of games, but isn't the truly damning evidence predictable timing, marathon sessions that don't deviate, and perhaps some of the autopost/first post things that Gatorade has already said he checks for? Things that Full Tilt will likely never ever reply to?

I understand the desire to want to believe that Full Tilt got this one correct. I just think it's pretty scary how it went down if we are getting even a somewhat accurate story from the person posting at Beatme as far as the emails go.
There certainly was a spot here for Full Tilt to repair their image in some player's eyes that didn't involve taking a hit to revenue- and that is the part that has me concerned- because once again they managed to find it.

Again for those saying it wasn't in their interest to ban someone who isn't a bot by claiming they are a bot, how long does it take to pay the entire 70K in rake playing heads up at the rate BeatMe was playing?
How many think that players will still get some of this money refunded for their losses to Beatme?

Far too many issues that don't sort immediately out to just assume they got it right here.
That doesn't presume they got it wrong either.

[blackize]

[ QUOTE ]
the problem with your example is that hu lhe is exponentially more complex than 10 tablin sngs.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

proof?

[/ QUOTE ]

SNGs are a mostly preflop game. The postflop decisions that do come up are usually quite simple as well.

[Bobo Fett]

I don't think seizing 70K and refusing to provide evidence is right. I think poker sites should follow one of two courses with players they believe are botters:

1) Freeze account and let player know why this has been done. Some sort of back-and-forth discussion should ensue, the player should be allowed to properly plead their case, and FT should have to provide at least SOME kind of evidence.

2) FT tells accused botter they are no longer welcome at the site, lets them withdraw money, closes their account. No evidence or appeal process required.

[apefish]

[ QUOTE ]

2) FT tells accused botter they are no longer welcome at the site, lets them withdraw money, closes their account. No evidence or appeal process required.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with your first part but you lose me on this part. A reasonable case can be made that a botter harms the site overall and some claim to the money is legitimate if only because at that point the T&C were broken.
Certainly putting money like this into further integrity issue based efforts seems legit.
What bothers me in this case at hand though is that I don't expect to hear many if any stories about "omg- Full Tilt refunded me money a bot cheated me out of" in the upcoming weeks.
Based on track record I don't expect customer service efforts to get this money either.
Which makes this a windfall for Full Tilt.
Which combined with zero transparency or apparent dialogue looks standard for them.

[Bobo Fett]

I'm not saying this is necessarily the option I'd want, I just think that if FT feels for some reason that they do not want to provide an alleged botter with any evidence or appeal process, they shouldn't be seizing the money. They are of course entitled to choose who they do business with, so the same processes aren't neccessary to simply shut down someone's account and return their money.

[apefish]

Right - I realized after that I wasn't reading it exactly the way you likely meant it to be read. I then wrote an edit and didnt post it... here it is...

Edit: I reread what I quoted and the problem I think with an either or test is who decides which path they follow? Surely a botter or for that matter anyone knowing the full risks of the situation no matter how innocent is likely to choose the second path where they get their money back. If I have 100K on the site and Full Tilt says "withdraw your money or we will investigate and if we say so you lose the money" I'm damn well getting all of my money out no matter what I have or haven't done. This means there is no true deterence to not bot- which is why I disagreed with it to begin with.

------------------------------------------------------

It certainly avoids potential issues of wrongfully seizing funds though- which is where I realize you were going with it to begin with.

[Bobo Fett]

What I meant is that each poker site should have a clear policy, and it should be 1 or 2.