Pokerbots, the truth from the source

[Wahoo73]

Alex-

I echo DD's compliment to you...thanks for your cogent post and analysis of OP's assertions.

However, I found the following comments particularly fascinating:

[ QUOTE ]
There was a bot thread at 2+2 not long ago, where some players over at Full Tilt were accused of being bots because their PokerTracker statistics were identical. 2+2 should be utterly ashamed of that thread - it was an absolute travesty of misinformation.

[/ QUOTE ]

I assume this is the thread you are talking about: NL Bots on Full Tilt
Why should 2+2 "be utterly ashamed of that thread?" What parts of that thread were "an absolute travesty of misinformation?"

DD-

Your post appears to be talking about the same thread as the one Alex mentioned above, and that I linked. Is that correct? If so, I am confused by your report that several of those accounts were shut down by FTP for using bots. In fact, I thought FTP found none of them to be bots and cleared them for future play, thus validating the accuseds' assertions that they were simply a team of human poker players who strictly adhered to playing by a script. (This is the same case that I mentioned in my previous post earlier in this thread.) Are you talking about a different different case that FTP investigated?

[Tendencies]

[ QUOTE ]
I must admit that having, as a result of this thread, viewed the cheaters' site I now know for certain that not a single one of the poker rooms is doing all it can to eradicate 'bots.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not so, during my employment I regularly used bots on our tables to test against our detection methods. As soon as a new bot was touted/available we acquired it and tested it. I know this is true for other sites because I would also test the bots out against our competition on their play money tables. Yes, even if it's only a play money table it will still be detected. Actually, I think at least 75% of bots were new accounts testing them on the play money tables before they were going to commit for real money. Regarding custom bots it's a little harder to detect them but not a lot. Bot detection is relatively easy to manage and develop and the only case that I remember that took a large sum of money was a custom 7 stud bot being used by a group of Korean accounts.

As you pointed out before, I am only coming from the position of one site but I would find it hard to believe that the major poker sites are not doing all they can to detect bots because it’s not that hard.

[qpw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I must admit that having, as a result of this thread, viewed the cheaters' site I now know for certain that not a single one of the poker rooms is doing all it can to eradicate 'bots.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not so, during my employment I regularly used bots on our tables to test against our detection methods. As soon as a new bot was touted/available we acquired it and tested it. I know this is true for other sites because I would also test the bots out against our competition on their play money tables. Yes, even if it's only a play money table it will still be detected. Actually, I think at least 75% of bots were new accounts testing them on the play money tables before they were going to commit for real money. Regarding custom bots it's a little harder to detect them but not a lot. Bot detection is relatively easy to manage and develop and the only case that I remember that took a large sum of money was a custom 7 stud bot being used by a group of Korean accounts.

As you pointed out before, I am only coming from the position of one site but I would find it hard to believe that the major poker sites are not doing all they can to detect bots because it’s not that hard.

[/ QUOTE ]
There are two possibilities here.

One is that you were not as good at detecting 'bots as you thought you were.

The other is that the winholdem site and all its forums are a sham and all the people there discussing stealth tactics, poker algorithms, and other 'bot related matters, are just full of it.

Looking at the number of people involved, the time it's been running, and the texture of the dialogue, the later seems unlikely.

It's interesting to note that the one site they believe is really trying its best to thwart them (although, apparantly, with well under 100% sucess) is Pokerstars.

[PaulSpears]

Interesting post and thread.

Why don't the poker sites take legal action against bot companies such as winholdem? There is probably no point acting against individuals since the legal costs would be greater than the gain, but that argument doesn't hold for companies selling bots. Even if the bot companies don't use the bots themselves I would have thought the sites could use a "conspiracy to defraud" or "conspiracy to breach contract" argument.

[kornman17]

Because there is no point in that, apart from all other reasons. As long as detection is no problem, and the bots that are intentionally left are good for the site and the players, there is no point.

[qpw]

[ QUOTE ]
Because there is no point in that, apart from all other reasons. As long as detection is no problem, and the bots that are intentionally left are good for the site and the players, there is no point.

[/ QUOTE ]
Ah, but you see, although that is logical and consistent with the facts, we have on this thread, two people, apart from yourself, who claim to be working for, or to have worked for, on line poker rooms, each of whom claim that their companies did everything in their power to ensure they were 'bot free.

On the other hand there appears to be evidence of at least one thriving community of 'bot operators whose activities are being inconvenienced, but little more, by a third poker room. This third room seems to be the only one with which they have any real difficulty.

Although I have little time for you claims of secret departments unknown to the rest of the poker room staff, the explanation of reasoned self interest allowing a proportion of 'bots to operate unhindered by most rooms, and far from complete efforts being made by the others, would appear to fit most completely with the known facts.