Official Full Tilt Poker Response to Bot Thread

[R*R]

They are doing it well the hand is in play. What don't you get about that?

[_dave_]

[ QUOTE ]

When people cheat in the Olympics they are banned for life. You have a problem with that too?


[/ QUOTE ]

Absolutely not. Cheaters should be banned.

BUT IT IS NOT PROVEN THESE PEOPLE ARE CHEATING!! IT IS IN FACT HARD TO ARGUE THEY HAVE DONE ANYTHING REMOTELY BORDERLINE!!

FT has exonerated them, and they have describes their "sweatshop" that plays a nitty fit-or-fold strategy explaining their similar stats.

If they were to play at the same tables as each other, colluding ZeeJustin style, I'd be right there with the "BAN THEM" crew... but these people have not done this... what do you think they have done wrong?

[_dave_]

[ QUOTE ]
They are doing it well the hand is in play. What don't you get about that?

[/ QUOTE ]

Where do you get the idea this is wrong?

It is not.

See coaching / sweating. Refer to Lee Jones previous posts on the alleged "one player per hand" rule - it is a uniqueness of the live-game, nothing to do with online poker. Unenforceable, therefore not even stated to be against the online rules.

[R*R]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

When people cheat in the Olympics they are banned for life. You have a problem with that too?


[/ QUOTE ]

Absolutely not. Cheaters should be banned.

BUT IT IS NOT PROVEN THESE PEOPLE ARE CHEATING!! IT IS IN FACT HARD TO ARGUE THEY HAVE DONE ANYTHING REMOTELY BORDERLINE!!

FT has exonerated them, and they have describes their "sweatshop" that plays a nitty fit-or-fold strategy explaining their similar stats.

If they were to play at the same tables as each other, colluding ZeeJustin style, I'd be right there with the "BAN THEM" crew... but these people have not done this... what do you think they have done wrong?

[/ QUOTE ]

Plain and simple. they are discussing a hand while it is in play. Obviously others do that also. One problem. They admitted to this going on constanlty. Inappropriate and bannable behaviour imo.

[_dave_]

[ QUOTE ]

Plain and simple. they are discussing a hand while it is in play. Obviously others do that also. One problem. They admitted to this going on constanlty. Inappropriate and bannable behaviour imo.


[/ QUOTE ]

As I said above,this is totally fine with online poker.

Lee Jones (Former Head Honcho of PokerStars) said exactly so.

This is some random rule from live-poker etiquette that for unknown reasons some think applies to the Internet - it does not.

[R*R]

so you figure they are just doing coaching sessions. i don't think it is coaching. when adults go on the soccer pitch with six year olds to help thme with their game that is coaching. when a overage player plays on an undrage team that is cheating. they are not coaching nor can their behaviour be defined as coaching. more like cheating.

[R*R]

Anyhow , Dave I think we can both take back the fool comments. It has been a decent discussion. food for thought.. thats for sure. Take care. I think I am done with this thread. [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

[_dave_]

AS am I - another very late night for me in the UK.

Parting clarification:

[ QUOTE ]

so you figure they are just doing coaching sessions. i don't think it is coaching.


[/ QUOTE ]

Not at all. I think they are being told EXACTLY how to play.

But there is no difference. Site t&c do not enforce 1 player per hand. Coaching is widely accepted, and may wellexert @50%? influence over actions taken? I have no idea really. But the sites t&c make no distinction beween a donkey shouting "Raise", with a 0.0001% chance of influencing action - and a slavemaster commanding the same "Raise" instruction with 100% effectiveness.

Also, make sure to believe I don't think this sort of operation is in any way good for the game or for normal players, I am just arguing that it is allowed - therefore a banning based on such activity would be absurd.

Nothing short of a change in sites t&c would change this, and judging by Lee Jones' previous comments about a lack of universal enforceability, is unlikely to happen.

While it may be nice to think sites would implement such a policy, I actually hope they do not - as I'm sure most are aware, a selectively enforced law is one of the worst kind.

dave.

[pokerpunchout]

I have not played on Ful Tilt for about a year or so. I definately would not come back regardless of their decision on this issue.

The reason I stopped playing there was simple ... I could not win there. My BB/100 was something like -2.0 (I have to check My PT datatbase to be sure). I found other sites to be much more advantageous to my play. I really feel that one of the reasons I ran so bad there, and not on other sites, had to do with team play. Aside from this "bot" issue I belive that there is rampant collusion at FT and they either overlook this or simply do not have the tools or manpower to detect and deal with it. So I play elsewhere.

[APerfect10]

[ QUOTE ]

Imagine if you were NOT - like maybe 0_drunkenboxer seems to have been prior to the "sweatshop"

You are a losing player, someone offers you a detailed, street-by-street "system" to eek out a minimal winrate, collect gobs of rakeback, with the reduced varience of combined bankroll - wouldn't you follow the "system" to the absolute letter?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think a losing player is a losing player because they lack discipline. If they lack that much discipline that they cant beat low stakes poker then I have no clue how they are going to follow some rule set precisely.

[ QUOTE ]
Remind me... the only one I remember was the disbelief of nlnut unable to sort out antivirus, but able to fix AHK - I didn't argue about that at the time since there was ~300+ posts since, but I don't go for that - I repair Windows for a R/L job - I have encountered boffins who can code ASM but can't adequately protect themselves from simple malware.

[/ QUOTE ]

What doesnt make sense to me:

1. Abnormally similar stats between 4 accounts over 400K+ hands.

2. They supposedly are following some rule set precisely but they need to play together within a ridiculously crammed environment. Why? They say because they help each other make tough decisions. Well this isnt following a rule set. Now there is coaching with human element involved which will lead to enough deviation in the stats which is not showing up! Something is shady.

3. The entire computer illiterate crap when he obviously can fix scripts, etc. If he can fix scripts then it isnt that much harder to code a low level bot. Dave, as fellow coders I think we both now this.

There are more that I cant think of off the top of my head without going back through the entire thing and scrutinizing it. These three are the major ones though.

[ QUOTE ]
If you ignore the ridiculous posts by his co-hort and only pay attention to those of nlnut, there is very little inconsistency.

[/ QUOTE ]

What is the point of these ridiculous comments by his co-hort if they are 100% innocent as he says? I just dont think they've been very forth coming about the entire thing. Even nlnut. Everything he has said has been a bunch of fluff with no substance. Its like he running for political office or something. If I were in his shoes and was 100% innocent as he states, I would be extremely detailed and honest about everything. Not jump around the questions.

[ QUOTE ]
IMO a site must be able to - it is really not hard to detect activities of a real bot - it will make mistakes (not TOP mistakes, but detection mistakes) if it is playing 12 tables. Like acting on 4 tables simultaneously, or the obvious playing of obscene hours.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that a site must prove they are a 100% a bot if they were to confiscate funds. There is nothing stopping them from banning them though. Lets assume that they are not breaking the T&C like you believe (and I will not argue). A site still has authority to ban them. Its their site and they need to protect their players. Anything shady should not be allowed and they should remove these players to protect their other customers. I'd rather be proactive in this situation and completely squash any remote possibilities of bots or shady play then to be reactive and to constantly be behind the eight ball like they have been account hackings, etc.

[ QUOTE ]
Consider this: if the "sweatshop" is indeed fully automated bots - would it not make more sense to run one for six hours - break for a little - get new IP - run another account for 6 hours, rinse, repeat?

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that would make the most sense but we can not assume that they are this smart or had the knowledge or resources to do this. Personally while it doesnt make sense I dont think this can be used as evidence to prove they are not a bot. If you and I (the computer geeks we are) would build a bot, I'm sure it would be rather sophisticated and undetectable. It doesnt take much knowledge to build a low level working bot. I just dont think we can assume their intelligence at this point. I'd rather work off of fact.

[ QUOTE ]
But there is at the end of it nothing here other than similar stats? they are not colluding - which is of course ban worthy - what is wrong with being a "human-bot"?

[/ QUOTE ]

Nothing wrong with a human bot. Put three of them in the same room with the things I listed above that do not make sense and this is when I start having problems.

[ QUOTE ]
If there is enough to justifiably ban them, there should also be enough to justifiably take their funds as the proceeds of illegal play, no?

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree. Basically you think its either confiscate funds which would include an obvious ban or nothing. Sites have the flexibility to ban whomever they like whether they are following the T&C or not. I think they need to protect their customers from shady activities. Why do you think we never hear about these things happening on Pokerstars? They are proactive and squash the situations before they get this big. I think Full Tilt needs to do the same thing.

[ QUOTE ]
At the end of the day, what is actually wrong with a "sweatshop" such as this one is purported to be?

I agree it is a bit of a weird thing to comprehend, but what is the wrongness of it? Any different to playing alone while 2 friends observe and remind you if you are about to deviate from the system? Any different to coaching over VNC+Skype?

[/ QUOTE ]

Its not good for the game. Coaching for a few hour sessions is one thing. Running a sweat shop where the ONLY time you play is with a huge group of people literally sitting on each others laps for hours on end is another. I think you are comparing apples and oranges. (Even you admit in other posts this is not good for the game) I see no good that can come from not modifying the sites T&C to prohibit this type of blatant sweat shopping.

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe I have totally misunderstood, but I find nothing in any site's t&c that would outlaw such "sweatshopping" - and I'm kinda hard pushed to actually see anything actually wrong with it - apart from the gut-reaction nasty taste in the mouth the idea of such scenarios creates.

[/ QUOTE ]

The nasty perception that it gives off is enough of a reason to add it to the T&C. Do you want to be losing customers because you allow these guys? Do you want fish knowing they are playing against human bots? Its bad for the game and bad for the perception of the site, period. This is easily enough reason to not allow it int he future and to add it to an updated T&C. I dont see how you can not agree with this...