Bots in PartyPoker's 6-max Limit games?

[DING-DONG YO]

Sniper, are you saying the bots chip dump to each other so they can filter cashouts through only a few bots?

Me dumb, so I need clarification.

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
You probably don't realize that it is not necessary for every bot account to be able to withdraw?... in fact it is very likely that an individual botter with many bots is using only a *very* small number of withdrawal accounts.

[/ QUOTE ]
This seems an unnecessary risk, and difficult to implement without getting caught. Especially given that some sites (Full Tilt, UB, Pacific) appear to be doing nothing about bots, and others (Stars) rarely if ever confiscate money.

[ QUOTE ]
Personally, I believe there are several actions that the sites can take to be more proactive (rather than reactive) and make botting much harder, but it's not clear to me that any of the sites are truly interested in taking the necessary steps, at this time.

[/ QUOTE ]
Don't you think Party is taking significant steps? They're certainly strongly anti-bot, and have the strictest address and ID verification systems in the business.

I'm not sure I agree with this whole "proactive vs reactive" thing. Keeping bot numbers low is as much about hunting bots, harassing them and adapating to bot technology/workarounds as it is putting systems in place to prevent them.

[LouisCyphre]

Chip dumping is definitely a possibility. Although at their estimate win rate of 1.5BB/100 this is still an awful lot of money to lose to only a few accounts. Every poker site should be able to scan their records to find that certain accounts lose a suspiciously large sums of money only to specific accounts.

[FULL RAKE]

it's not chip dumping, it's IATs.

[LouisCyphre]

Interaccount transfers should be even easier to spot. Even if Party is not very much interested in finding bots. It is still in their best interest to monitor ITAs and watch out for chip dumping to prevent multi-accounts. Even if all accounts are actually played by a human. They don't want to award any promotions multiple times to the same person.

[aal113086]

where do these foolios get these bots, is it only the people that develop them that use them?

[arahant]

[ QUOTE ]

The bots were all colluding with each other and communicating information about their hole cards, and they would take a flop only when the distribution of hole cards was such that the odds on the flop sidebet were favorable for the players. Because they were all bots, they were playing 600 hands an hour, folding nearly every flop.

Remember the side bet in the ring games? It seems that, rather than get rid of the bots, Party took the sidebet option away from the players so as not to get burned on this prop.


[/ QUOTE ]

That doesn't sound right. You had to place the sidebet before the cards were dealt, for one thing. If you didn't, then even your own cards were enough to give a slight edge.

I can see how it might be a reasonable way to go for jackpots under the right circumstances...

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

The bots were all colluding with each other and communicating information about their hole cards, and they would take a flop only when the distribution of hole cards was such that the odds on the flop sidebet were favorable for the players. Because they were all bots, they were playing 600 hands an hour, folding nearly every flop.

Remember the side bet in the ring games? It seems that, rather than get rid of the bots, Party took the sidebet option away from the players so as not to get burned on this prop.


[/ QUOTE ]

That doesn't sound right. You had to place the sidebet before the cards were dealt, for one thing.

[/ QUOTE ]
You can't lose the flop side bet if there's no flop. So they only saw flops when the odds on the side bets were in their favor.

[aflaba]

[ QUOTE ]

You probably don't realize that it is not necessary for every bot account to be able to withdraw?... in fact it is very likely that an individual botter with many bots is using only a *very* small number of withdrawal accounts.

[/ QUOTE ]


If that would be the case, then the sites could some other method. Like sending a code at the day of the deposit. Then the site could let the account be active for the first week, and after that freeze the account if the code does not get entered within that time.

To the player who uses fake addresses this would mean that his bots can only run for a week. If you couple this with the no-withdrawal rule, then it get's even more troublesome for the botters to get hold of many accounts.

But to make it sufficient, a secure ID verification process is needed as well.

If you have this though, then I can't see the botters being able to open and run lot's of accounts without much hassle.

[jukofyork]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
FFS, the cold war ended 15 years ago... perhaps it's time some woke up to the fact that Russians (or Romanians, Latvians, Ukrainians, ...) are NOT ALL gangsters. They're human, just like you or me, and if they want to play poker then why should they be judged by the misdeeds of other's from their country?
Juk

[/ QUOTE ]
By creating sophisticated hand grabber code to circumvent Party's datamining bans, and releasing that code, your coding work and lack of foresight is directly responsible for the creation of some bots. See the thread in the software forum. I don't think you should be getting on your high horse.

[/ QUOTE ]
My comments had absolutely nothing to do with bots, handgrabbers or anything else related to this threat. My comments (if you had bothered to read them) were about how ridiculous it would be to ban players based solely on their geographical location, but obviously you think this type of stereotypical view is fine so there is little point in trying to convince you otherwise:

[ QUOTE ]
From the other thread: "Excellent work. I noticed you got annoyed in another thread about people from Russia being characterized as cheats. Perhaps that's not far from the truth."

[/ QUOTE ]
Juk [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]