NL Bots on Full Tilt

[wims]

I dont know if this is bots or not, I do however know that you guys would have convicted witches in harlem lols. Oh well, hope you dont become jury members sometime....

Here's the picture for those who missed it :

[KotOD]

[ QUOTE ]
Man I'm really skeptical that unique human players could have such identical stats over 100K+ hands. I mean they're not just identical in the preflop stats, which maybe would be possible with a very strict set of rules and no tilt, but they're also identical in all of the other postflop stats.

For example, isn't their c-bet percentage exactly 100% for all 4 users? I don't have access to the image anymore but that's what I remember.

So when Chuck and his buddies raise AdKh in EP and get 4 or 5 callers then they will continuation bet on a flop of 7c6c5c for 75% of the pot in a 5 or 6 way pot? And they will make those c-bets every single time? That is the best fixed strategy that they could come up with? I can understand if they have a C-bet of 100% in heads up or 3-way pots, but in multiway pots too?

Correct me if I'm wrong about my understanding or recollection of these stats. But that sounds like the behaviour of a mediocre bot to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Continuation bet % was 97%

Clickable thumb

[DWarrior]

[ QUOTE ]
I never liked Nation so I'm not going to believe him now. But it doesn't matter because as far as I'm concerned, UIGEA is a bigger problem for me than bots at 200 full.

[/ QUOTE ]

[teddyFBI]

Nation, how much did this 'team' make per day / week?
(when they're not locked out of their accounts, that is...)

[nation]

I told chuck to save his breath and not post on here. He's a sub 20 post poster, so I have a feeling he would have gotten zero credibility, and no one would believe him.

As I said, they have similar stats because they all basically play together, so they play exactly the same. They play for pot control in the same spots, stack off in the same spots, etc.

I've done my part as far as clearing up any and all questions regarding this matter. I get the feeling that any further correspondence will be "I don't believe you" posts. At this point, those posters are set in their beliefs and nothing, save an independently placed live web cam from chuck's house, will convince them otherwise.

If there are any more relevant questions, I'll be monitoring this thread and will answer them.

[KotOD]

[ QUOTE ]
They are hard core grinders. They sit there all day to grind low limits and turn a good profit.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't particularly believe nation's alibi, but I do believe him when he says that $2,300 a month is good, if not great, money for a full-time job for a group of 32 year old men in Johnstown, PA.

[AAAAx]

Why would a bot use 3 different accounts?

However, playing such a memorized strategy would probably be very daunting - it would make a sense to create a software to remember the rules and maybe use the human to click the mouse.

[KotOD]

[ QUOTE ]
Nation, how much did this 'team' make per day / week?
(when they're not locked out of their accounts, that is...)

[/ QUOTE ]

OP has three months worth of stats on them, as per his post. Do the math...

[nation]

[ QUOTE ]
Nation, how much did this 'team' make per day / week?
(when they're not locked out of their accounts, that is...)

[/ QUOTE ]

That is definitely his private info, and I'm not going to post that.

[sethypooh21]

Though not completely convinced by Nation's reply, let me just separate the objective facts from the subjective.

Objective:

1) Identical stats
2) Massive multitabling at similar times, never playing together
3) General exploitability until noticed

These have been confirmed and reconfirmed since OP.

Subjective:
1) "instantly" leaving OP's tables.
2) taking full time bank every time.

These last two are completely unconfirmed, subject to OP's faulty memory and/or bias, yet in attempting to rebut Nation's post, multiple people are treating these as certitudes. Now, this is natural, because of the concrete nature of the objective evidence, but the existence of such verifiable and objective information is not necessarily a guarantee of the credibility and/or correctness of OP's subjective observation.

I think it behooves us to step back for a moment and examine the information and separate what we know from what we think.

That is all, carry on.