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

[Losing all]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Okay...

What if they were to tell you that you are a bot?

[/ QUOTE ]

Then I would probably be a bot. Like he is.

[/ QUOTE ]

And yet you use the word probably. Which is one of the core issues here. I doubt many debate it's possible that Beatme is a bot.
But that leaves some N probability that she isn't. And Full Tilt's simple elegant word on it isn't nearly enough when taken in the full context of the lengths/non-lengths they have undertaken in other instances to determine this exact issue; efforts that at least in the case of the NL bots have included a dialogue with the suspected account owner/s prior to a final decision.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see how the NL bots being cleared helps Beatme's cause one bit. If they didn't look like bots I don't know what does, yet FT looked into it and cleared them. This is either outright theft by FT, or they found a smoking gun. Why launch a massive investigation if they have proof?

It's frustrating that we'll never know for sure, but we wont.

[StellarWind]

[ QUOTE ]
Libel. Lol. You can't defame the reputation of someone who is anonymous. Perhaps you should have googled libel first...

[/ QUOTE ]
Huh? What do you mean anonymous?

McGatorade repeatedly told FTP that beatme1 is operating a bot. FTP knows exactly who beatme1 is and they proceeded to ban her and confiscate $70000. Probably her name is now on some industry-wide cheating blacklist as well. It may be hard for her to ever play again.

A statement was made about her and it apparently led to enormous financial damages. Of course none of this matters if McGatorade is right. But if beatme1 is serious about her innocence then I think she should consult a lawyer about suing McGatorade for libel. Libel doesn't just mean public humiliation. Telling lies to someone's spouse, employer, customer, or supplier and getting them divorced, fired, dropped, or cutoff is quite sufficient.

P.S.: The "illegal gambling" aspect might create problems in court. I don't know and that's what the lawyer is paid for.

[StellarWind]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't see how the NL bots being cleared helps Beatme's cause one bit. If they didn't look like bots I don't know what does, yet FT looked into it and cleared them. This is either outright theft by FT, or they found a smoking gun.

[/ QUOTE ]
The NL bot case dragged on forever and then ended with a public verdict that sounded a lot like "maybe". If one wanted to draw a conclusion from that case it might be "FTP isn't very good at this".

FTP could be a stickler for absolute proof and the NL bots just got lucky. Or they could be very smart and both verdicts are spot on. Or they could be clueless and making random terrible mistakes--a jury of fair and impartial morons. There is just no way to tell.

The NL bot case doesn't tell us anything useful about this case.

[Gramps]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Ummmm...let's get the logic of this argument straight - bots sit at tables and wait for other players to sit down, never sitting at a table that has a player waiting, and sometimes waiting for an hour or more at a table if no one is sitting down. The accussed account behaves in this exact manner, demonstrated in part by the fact that they have zero against against the other suspected bots. Therefore, the accused is less likely to be a bot?


[/ QUOTE ]
No. That is called "putting words in people's mouths." Namely mine.

I never even implied it makes her less likely to be a bot. I implied it was a plausible explanation.

EDIT:
Bots sit at tables and wait for opponents.
Beatme1 sits at a table and waits for opponents.
Therefore, Beatme1 must be a bot.
This is a faulty syllogism.

(Sorry if this is not what you were implying, but it seemed like it to me.)

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't want to get into a semantics-off, but I don't think OP's explanation is even "plausible" in that it makes no common sense in the real world for a human to never, ever sit down at a table over tens of thousands of hands at which another player is sitting. There's not even the appearance of truth in that argument IMO, hence it's not even "plausible" (IMO).

If you're saying OP offered a theoretically-possible-explanation-that-few-if-anyone-would-believe-could-be-true-in-real-life for why she never played a single hand against a bot, then I agree with you. I took the tone of your post w/bold included as implying that it was less likely/people should think it's less likely that OP was employing a bot. I guess that's not your contention.

-Bots sit at tables and wait for opponents.
-Humans sometimes sit at tables and wait for opponents, and sometimes sit at tables where opponent is waiting, and over tens of thousands of hands it's virtually impossible (abesnt some odd circumstance/reason) to have never of sat down at a table with person already there.
-BeatMe1 has zero hands against bots that only sit at tables and waits
-BeatMe1 says, "oh, that's because that's just what I do" without offering any logical reason for such behavior (not that it would add much credibility to the argument)
-Statement by BeatMe1 (while addressing the issue that she has never played a single hand against other suspected bots) decreases the likelihood that she is a bot by roughly ZERO % (down from whatever % one in their own judgment, based on the semi-sparse evidence presented, has placed on said likelihood).

But of course, there's a lot of facts out there that we don't/won't have access to, so it's all largely conjecture on our part. Something smells pretty damn fishy though.

[MrGatorade]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Libel. Lol. You can't defame the reputation of someone who is anonymous. Perhaps you should have googled libel first...

[/ QUOTE ]
Huh? What do you mean anonymous?


McGatorade repeatedly told FTP that beatme1 is operating a bot. FTP knows exactly who beatme1 is and they proceeded to ban her and confiscate $70000. Probably her name is now on some industry-wide cheating blacklist as well. It may be hard for her to ever play again.

A statement was made about her and it apparently led to enormous financial damages. Of course none of this matters if McGatorade is right. But if beatme1 is serious about her innocence then I think she should consult a lawyer about suing McGatorade for libel. Libel doesn't just mean public humiliation. Telling lies to someone's spouse, employer, customer, or supplier and getting them divorced, fired, dropped, or cutoff is quite sufficient.

P.S.: The "illegal gambling" aspect might create problems in court. I don't know and that's what the lawyer is paid for.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow you give me a lot of credit. I guess you know all the facts and you know that I "repeatedly" told FTP to ban him. LOL. I guess you side with Beatme1 without having all the facts as no one but FTP has all the facts. Beatme1 is a bot and I stand by my position, which is the same as FTP position. Also about this libel thing, that’s simply funny. What "lies" have I said? I simply speak truth about this matter. I don’t work for FTP but I guess in your eyes and Beatme1's that I am the one that decides who gets banned on FTP. I guess I should promote myself from "player" to "FTP bot security banning guy". I hope my new position pays well, because right now I get nothing. =) On a serious note please understand that there is WAY more then what is posted here and hopefully when the time is right FTP will divulge. Also, I would say most people that play 50/100+ after years of self-proclaimed poker play he/she would have some sort of reputable friend on here that will stand by him/her. I might be wrong; he/she might be a hermit that wants to play a 200K freeze out with me. Beatme1 uses a bot, was caught, and now is punished. Without punishment what is going to stop him or any bot user from thinking twice about just opening up another account with a different IP address using EVDO, DSL, Cable, Satellite, Dial up, ETC. to play his bot's again. Understand that crime goes down when there is harsh punishment. I just wish that other sites follow suit and take the bot problem head on instead of ignoring it like they have done the last few years. Bots will become a more significant problem as time goes on if they are not destroyed right here right now.
-Crazy Mike (MrGatorade)

[suzy89222]

gramps, i just posted that beatme1 did sit with me several times. she said she occasionally sits with fish (me, apparently.)

[admiralfluff]

[ QUOTE ]
And yet you use the word probably. Which is one of the core issues here. I doubt many debate it's possible that Beatme is a bot.
But that leaves some N probability that she isn't. And Full Tilt's simple elegant word on it isn't nearly enough when taken in the full context of the lengths/non-lengths they have undertaken in other instances to determine this exact issue; efforts that at least in the case of the NL bots have included a dialogue with the suspected account owner/s prior to a final decision.

[/ QUOTE ]

I use probably because there is always some threshold of acceptable doubt. I have no idea what that level is for FTP, but I assume it is very small.

I think the lack of dialogue with beatme, which deviates from precedent cases, is not indicative of misconduct, but rather some pretty damning specific evidence. I am honestly a little shocked at the amount of ridiculousness in this thread. People are talking about how this is a backlash, and beatme might be a scapegoat, ftp did it for the money, etc. All of these ideas are totally absurd. FTP is a multimillion dollar business. They won't randomly ban accounts cause some crazy guy on an internet forum sais so. They won't do it to steal $70k. They did it because they have definitive, specific evidence that beatme is a bot. If there was some freak alignemnt of conditions that led to a false conviction, sucks for beatme. It's still not worth divuling extremely valuable information to the botters. When someone makes an emotional claim such as beatme's, it is natural to try to empathize with them. You try and think about how you would feel if it happened to you. In this case, it would be totally unacceptable, right? To have your funds siezed for doing nothing, and you're not even allowed to see the evidence against you? Well stop flipping out. It won't happen to you. Unless you're a bot.

[apefish]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And yet you use the word probably. Which is one of the core issues here. I doubt many debate it's possible that Beatme is a bot.
But that leaves some N probability that she isn't. And Full Tilt's simple elegant word on it isn't nearly enough when taken in the full context of the lengths/non-lengths they have undertaken in other instances to determine this exact issue; efforts that at least in the case of the NL bots have included a dialogue with the suspected account owner/s prior to a final decision.

[/ QUOTE ]

I use probably because there is always some threshold of acceptable doubt. I have no idea what that level is for FTP, but I assume it is very small.

I think the lack of dialogue with beatme, which deviates from precedent cases, is not indicative of misconduct, but rather some pretty damning specific evidence. I am honestly a little shocked at the amount of ridiculousness in this thread. People are talking about how this is a backlash, and beatme might be a scapegoat, ftp did it for the money, etc. All of these ideas are totally absurd. FTP is a multimillion dollar business. They won't randomly ban accounts cause some crazy guy on an internet forum sais so. They won't do it to steal $70k. They did it because they have definitive, specific evidence that beatme is a bot. If there was some freak alignemnt of conditions that led to a false conviction, sucks for beatme. It's still not worth divuling extremely valuable information to the botters. When someone makes an emotional claim such as beatme's, it is natural to try to empathize with them. You try and think about how you would feel if it happened to you. In this case, it would be totally unacceptable, right? To have your funds siezed for doing nothing, and you're not even allowed to see the evidence against you? Well stop flipping out. It won't happen to you. Unless you're a bot.



[/ QUOTE ]

The flip side of this is that in this case taking the other side of "obviously guilty because Full Tilt said so" is just as ridiculous.
That's all I have been pointing out.

I think people are misunderstanding my drawing parallels with the NL case. What I was saying is that where people are saying FullTilt obviously must have found the smoking gun here- I am saying they could also have messed both up- or neither- or one. I think people are giving too much credit to the different outcome now in saying "well they must have gotten at LEAST this one right since DAMN we thought the last one was a slam dunk."
Letting the massive rake players continue paying and confiscating a not insignificant lump sum are actually similar results in that they are potentially good/ the best results for FullTilt financially.
I am not saying they are stealing funds, but I was rebutting some people who were saying that if they wrongly ban a human by calling them a bot- there is no upside for them.
Clearly this thread proves that wrong since some faction of people believe more in their detective work now, and regardless they have 70K.
Stop reading more into what I am saying than what I am. I am taking the opposite side of those saying it must be a slam dunk since Full Tilt says so.
But that doesnt mean I believe one way or another on this case.

If I hear reports about refunds to players then the motivation issue becomes clearer. But not until then.
I am pointing out things I think are worth thinking about to those willing to say Tilt must be doing the right things here.

[whangarei]

Gramps, do you not understand game selection? You keep saying "not even once in x # of hands" etc ... if someone is disciplined and understands game selection, why would they even once sit with another shark?

[Bobo Fett]

I still have a hard time leaving these two points:

I don't care WHAT evidence FT has...if they are going to confiscate funds, they have to allow some sort of reasonable appeal process or proper oversight. If they don't want to provide this, then they need to close the account and return the funds.

Mr. G's threats to go to the media have the potential to harm ALL of us if he follows through in a reckless fashion.