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

[El_Hombre_Grande]

[ QUOTE ]
Guthrie,

Suppose that Beatme1 has a bot. Suppose also that Beatme1 can play exactly like the bot she has.

These things are both possible and therefore it doesn't PROVE anything to have her play in front of FTP representatives.

This was Victor's point.

Best,
Bill

[/ QUOTE ]

Just because it isn't conclusive doesn't mean its not worthwhile. It shows something, just not everything.

[Guthrie]

And FTP cannot possibly be 100% certain that she has, and is using, a bot. If she cannot play in person, under scrutiny, exactly the same as her "bot" then FTP wins by a landslide. If she does play exactly the same, then FTP's 100% certainty drops to maybe 50%. They cannot allow this, so they refuse the challenge, mumble something about how they can't give away their bot-catching techniques, and keep the stolen money.

[KurtSF]

Not to mention the fact that their bot catching criteria may have nothing to do with the game she plays. As poker players its natural we gravitate to how a hand is played and stats when determining automated play. But frankly, sniffing a bot on her computer (bad bot setup) would lead to a "100% sure" verdict, and having her play on their computers would do nothing to change the fact that hers has a bot on it.

I'm not saying anything, other than urging everyone to give up this silly "if she plays the same game at FTP headquarters she's innocent" thing. Its bull.

[suzy89222]

the more i think about it, the more i think redgar3 on pokerroom (same person/bot as beatme1) used a bot at least some of the time. i wasnt suspicious at the time because i didnt know bots really existed. i probably played more hands with redgar3 than anyone, over like 3 or 4 years, and i was on pokerroom more than about anyone.

there was a regular HORRIBLE (i can't stress how bad)heads up player for a year or two that everyone chased. he would bounce around from hu table to hu table. there were about 6 of us that would chase him, and open up as many hu tables as possible and hope he came to us and get on lists of tables that he was on. redgar usually did not. he would keep his one table open (at 3 different limits) and would almost never make an effort to play with him. also, when this fish was around, people would sit in redgar's table to block it so the fish couldnt sit with him. a real player would get up and open a new table or yell at him or SOMETHING. redgar did nothing.

also, when redgar busted out, he wouldnt rebuy for a few minutes usually.

at first, i remember saying to myself, man, this guy just doesnt adjust. for example, if i limped on the button, he would raise 99% of the time, so if i had a good hand, i limped and 3 bet and he never learned. after about a million hands together, that stopped, but it took a very long time.

no, none of this is proof that he was using a bot, but i do find it suspicous.

[Guthrie]

There is no such thing as 100% sure. Pokerstars was 100% sure when they caught Teddy's mom "botting" at the penny tables. They apologized.

Prisoners are released from death row routinely when DNA evidence trumps the 100% sure jury verdict.

[KurtSF]

[ QUOTE ]
There is no such thing as 100% sure.

[/ QUOTE ]

If, for the sake of argument, it is against the Terms of Service to run XYZ software while playing at the site, and if the site checks the player's running processes and finds XYZ software running, how sure are they...

(1) that the player is botting? Well, certainly not 100%.

(2) the the player violated the Terms of Service? Pretty much by definition, eh. 100%.

Not saying any of this applies to this case, or that mistakes haven't been made before, and I certainly don't give FTP credit for meaning 100% when they say 100%, but I don't know why you think there's no such thing as proof, ever.

[Nairb]

With so much talk about FT not releasing their findings in this case how can it be known that FT did not divulge their evidence to the accused bot programmer. If they did would she admit it? I find it very difficult to believe they would post damning evidence in this forum. I am sure their are some privacy issues at stake too. It sucks to lose that much dough but third party info will never solve the arguments here.The only ones who truly knows the truth is beatme and FT investigations.

[Bobo Fett]

There'd be no benefit to keeping that fact secret; all it does is make them look bad. If they told accused botter what she did wrong, why wouldn't they come on here and say "we can't reveal what botter was caught doing, but we told botter EXACTLY what she did so she could attempt to clear her name"?

[Guthrie]

Then let them identify the XYZ software that they found, and how they found it.

They refuse, but still keep the stolen money.

Something stinks.

[MasterLJ]

[ QUOTE ]
How is this dumb? A bot presupposes there's a computer not only making decisions but executing them, If she's a bot, she can't play without her computer. If she's playing the same game on FTP's computer, while they watch, then she's not a bot. Case closed.

What's dumb is FTP claiming they're 100% certain she's a bot, stealing her money, then refusing to show even a shred of evidence.

[/ QUOTE ]

If she programmed the bot she would be intimately knowledgeable of the bot's tendencies and playstyle.

For example, I wrote a compiler in college. It's generally a large, complex piece of software. I could emulate it by hand by the time I was done with that beast (had to do it to debug).

I have no doubt she could reproduce the same play live as online, but it would still leave questions about her using an automated program at home.