NL Bots on Full Tilt

[DWarrior]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
On a side note, if these players do, in fact, discuss late-street decisions together before making them, do you see why their stats would have a much higher likelihood of convergence?


[/ QUOTE ]
No I don't see why. Could you please explain how introducing another random element helps the stats come closer together? It seems players A, B, and C all choose to diverge from the system an equal amount of times. Then thru discussion, players A, B, and C all arrive at an alternate course of action equally, even more exactly than a bot programmed to bet the river .28357962% of the time would do.

Maybe if on some streets, they could randomly decide to sometimes flip a coin to decide what to do, the stats would be even closer together than opposed to a set script telling them what to do everytime.

Let's test that.
I will program a computer to always raise the river. You can discuss with your friends what course of action to take sometimes, and throw in a random factor or two. Let's see which approach arrives at a more consistent raise on the river.

Players A, B, and C have the most identical stat of river bets out of all the stats. So *obviously* this would be the place that is the least likely to be scripted, right?

[/ QUOTE ]

But...my entire argument up to that point has been why it doesn't make sense that the stats would all converge on the late street due to botting...if we agree on the fact that they're not botting at least some of the time. Do you understand that part?

Now, I tried to give an alternative explanation as to why these stats *could* possibly converge. It seems to me that if they made at least some of the decision together, their stats would be more likely to converge than if they each played completely separately from one another. This is because the 3 (or more) of them would arrive at one strategy that would be consistent across their accounts. Does that make sense? Sure, it's still not likely to converge, but it's a lot more likely to converge than the 3 of them playing separately. And, like I said before, they do play without running a bot at least some of the time.

[DWarrior]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
hey guys. What if there were 3 players and 3 accounts. and on day 1 player a was paired with account a, b with b, and c with c. On day 2, a played on account b, b on c and c on a. day 3 player a played on account c, b on a and c on b. even if player a was a LAG and player b was a TAG, and player c was a LP, all 3 accounts would look the same after 100k hands. Yes or no.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL Nick B - you beat me to it - seems perfectly reasonable to me, obv [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

It makes sense for them to converge. However, I don't see why anybody would do that.

[stonescar]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
hey guys. What if there were 3 players and 3 accounts. and on day 1 player a was paired with account a, b with b, and c with c. On day 2, a played on account b, b on c and c on a. day 3 player a played on account c, b on a and c on b. even if player a was a LAG and player b was a TAG, and player c was a LP, all 3 accounts would look the same after 100k hands. Yes or no.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL Nick B - you beat me to it - seems perfectly reasonable to me, obv [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]
So they played the exact same amount of hands every sequence? And none of them would adjust to the players they were up against? I don't think the solution to the stats issue is that simple...

EDIT:
And as Dwarrior said, why bother? Sounds like a lot of organization for no particular benefit.

[KotOD]

[ QUOTE ]
that was meant for the turn and river...we didn't slow play flops obv by our stats...

[/ QUOTE ]

No.


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

[DWarrior]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Also, regarding the timeouts.

They would occasionally timeout in places most people wouldn't, like in a hu pot. The other player would donk the river or something, and it would think and think, then timeout. (And often immediately get up from the table)

I can't remember once them timing out in the more traditional manner where there is a five way pot, they have nothing, got sidetracked on a different table, and forgot to hit check/fold.

IMHO, FT should be able to run through their thousands of hands and find that they timed out way way less than other players who play 6-8 tables.

[/ QUOTE ]

This piece of evidence is meaningless. Why would a bot not act?

[/ QUOTE ]

seriously, if anything its more proof they arent a bot.

[/ QUOTE ]
I guess you guys missed the part of the theory that talked about how humans sometimes took over during bot play.

[/ QUOTE ]

See, this is precisely the reasoning that keeps repeating over and over and over in this thread. You guys bring up extremely shaky evidence and evidence that contradicts your argument. When that gets disproved, you guys use the "well, sometimes" excuse to lay that to rest. Then you bring it up 3 pages later.

I think this thread should be locked now, obviously everybody else is locked into their opinions by now.

[/ QUOTE ]
DWarrior,

You're not catching the point of my posts. I don't have an opinion either way. I'm just as curious as the next guy to find out what is going on with these players/bots. If you scour through my posts, you will see that I've approached the situation from both sides on several different occasions.

The reason I'm asking the questions and/or making the statements that I am is to see what kind of answers are given. There's only one truth to this issue, and we may or may not have covered it by now. Hopefully at some point, it will come out.

Actually, if I were forced to render an opinion, it would be that there is a combination of botting/non-botting going on and at least some sort of shadiness that isn't allowed in FT's T&C.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here is how this time-out argument goes over and over:

Person 1: Timing out = bot ldo. THEY'RE BOTTING
Person 2: No, timing out is more likely to be human. Timing out = human ldo.
Person 3: Well, they obviously play some of the time. So they time out when it's a human. Timing out = human, but they're still botting.

EDIT: my point is, sure, scripts can time out, and so can humans. Therefore, I believe this piece of evidence is 100% useless and should be thrown out.

[Alobar]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Also, regarding the timeouts.

They would occasionally timeout in places most people wouldn't, like in a hu pot. The other player would donk the river or something, and it would think and think, then timeout. (And often immediately get up from the table)

I can't remember once them timing out in the more traditional manner where there is a five way pot, they have nothing, got sidetracked on a different table, and forgot to hit check/fold.

IMHO, FT should be able to run through their thousands of hands and find that they timed out way way less than other players who play 6-8 tables.

[/ QUOTE ]

This piece of evidence is meaningless. Why would a bot not act?

[/ QUOTE ]

seriously, if anything its more proof they arent a bot.

[/ QUOTE ]
I guess you guys missed the part of the theory that talked about how humans sometimes took over during bot play.

[/ QUOTE ]

See, this is precisely the reasoning that keeps repeating over and over and over in this thread. You guys bring up extremely shaky evidence and evidence that contradicts your argument. When that gets disproved, you guys use the "well, sometimes" excuse to lay that to rest. Then you bring it up 3 pages later.

I think this thread should be locked now, obviously everybody else is locked into their opinions by now.

Nothing these guys say can ever prove them right, if they start announcing their strategy I really don't see how that will have any effect on any side of the argument.

When statistical evidence shows they aren't using the same strategy, it's dismissed because of changing conditions. When it matches, it's obvious proof (even though this is even more affected by changing table dynamics, etc, and could easily be the result of chance as well).

Then we have the guys who keep saying these guys are changing stories "a million times", when this couldn't be farther from the truth.

FTP did an investigation, but what does FTP know?

A mod says they didn't do it, obviously the mod sucks, lynch him.

Anyone whose opinions differ from your own is an idiot.

etc, etc, etc.

EDIT: oh yeah, and now the whole world will hear about from newspapers. That will certainly accomplish a lot and will shed a lot of light on this investigation.

[/ QUOTE ]

excellent post

[_dave_]

[ QUOTE ]
most obvious botting case ever?

[/ QUOTE ]

Certainly not - Saabpo and friends is quite an obvious oldie, as was the more recent Bots in PartyPoker's 6-max Limit games?

Those are both pretty clear cut - however there is a fair chance of false positive here, just human drones following formulaic nitiness guidelines.


Another point in their defense, they are not defending themselves like botters do... remember Ray and his crazy holier-than-thou bot-using supporters? Nlnut and friends are acting considerably different to those loons.

[_dave_]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
hey guys. What if there were 3 players and 3 accounts. and on day 1 player a was paired with account a, b with b, and c with c. On day 2, a played on account b, b on c and c on a. day 3 player a played on account c, b on a and c on b. even if player a was a LAG and player b was a TAG, and player c was a LP, all 3 accounts would look the same after 100k hands. Yes or no.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL Nick B - you beat me to it - seems perfectly reasonable to me, obv [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

It makes sense for them to converge. However, I don't see why anybody would do that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Did you read my post? One of the computers has a superior chair!! J/K

But seriously, if they are sharing wins/losses/rakeback to reduce variance/even profits, and playing the same style/same hours - why would it matter which account they are actually logged in on?

[DWarrior]

[ QUOTE ]
Hi have verified through my sources in Pittsburgh that it is not bots. There is 6-8 players in a room. They are paid 8$ per hour or at least thats what it was one year ago. View my complete story at my site <a href="link" target="_blank"> Pokerbloggs </a> http://pokerbloggs.com

[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting.

However, this case should be limited to computer botting, wtf is "human botting" or "poker sweatshop"? Trebek's original intent was to out a few players suspected of running poker bots, which are illegal. Humans playing formulaic poker IS NOT ILLEGAL (it's been called SNGs up till now).

If there is reasonable evidence showing that they are not running bots, this should be the end of this thread.

Then you guys can start another one discussing the ethics of formulaic poker, but this thread is long enough, and when new people come here, they don't come to discuss the ethics of formulaic poker, they come here to flame suspected botters.

[Moneyline]

[ QUOTE ]
hey guys. What if there were 3 players and 3 accounts. and on day 1 player a was paired with account a, b with b, and c with c. On day 2, a played on account b, b on c and c on a. day 3 player a played on account c, b on a and c on b. even if player a was a LAG and player b was a TAG, and player c was a LP, all 3 accounts would look the same after 100k hands. Yes or no.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am under the impression that playing on other peoples accounts is against the T&C's of all sites, and therefore shouldn't be used as an excuse for these guys.