Pokerbots, the truth from the source

[StellarWind]

[ QUOTE ]
My guess is OP may of worked for Pacific/888.com. Before UIGEA they were a contender for one of the top 3 sites for a short period of time. They also took countermeasures against winning players. Taking away their Frequent Player program against winning players. Delaying cashouts to winning players.

[/ QUOTE ]
I actually thought of Pacific while I was writing my last post but they were never close to being a top three room.

They are the one poker room that apparently practices some of what OP describes and they have a very shady reputation as a result.

[Python49]

If OP could elaborate further on what they do to "randomly kill off" winning players that would be great, thanks.

[adanthar]

[ QUOTE ]
If OP could elaborate further on what they do to "randomly kill off" winning players that would be great, thanks.

[/ QUOTE ]

That part is obvious from his second post - they (whoever 'they' are) look for little T&C violations and other ways to close their accounts. Maybe their T&C says 'one account per household' but this winner's girlfriend also legitimately plays, so instead of overlooking them like everybody else they ban them both anyway. Maybe they look a little harder at his chat than usual, especially if he abuses the fish. I dunno, I could think of a bunch of things that'd make this plausible. Since he says the money is refunded it wouldn't usually make for big 2+2 threads.

I wouldn't really want to play at this room, though, which is why it's funny that it does sound like Pacific. (Or maybe the old Pokerroom/Ongame? Half those skins could've sent hitmen out to murder their entire playerbase and nobody would have noticed anything different.)

[JOEL_]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

If any major site were routinely booting players for winning too much it would be common knowledge. Poker players are a gossipy lot and word would spread quickly. Plus there would be frequent threads started by well-known strategy posters who were booted.

[/ QUOTE ]

My guess is OP may of worked for Pacific/888.com. Before UIGEA they were a contender for one of the top 3 sites for a short period of time. They also took countermeasures against winning players. Taking away their Frequent Player program against winning players. Delaying cashouts to winning players.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, Pacific also came to my mind. They were very open to tell you that as a big winning player you will receive nothing but agravation from them.

[JOEL_]

And if players took the same view as I did back then,which was if they don't want my custom I will go to where they do want it. Then effectively what the OP has stated is true. They would take measures to get that player out of their site that worked without actually barring them.

[Sciolist]

[ QUOTE ]
If any major site were routinely booting players for winning too much it would be common knowledge. Poker players are a gossipy lot and word would spread quickly. Plus there would be frequent threads started by well-known strategy posters who were booted.

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree, and the fact that he's saying this brings the rest of his post into serious doubt... Which is a shame, as I agree with some of the things he says.

[TruePoker CEO]

"No one care about poker robots as such. "

We do not accept that your "model is ..what simply make sense". We have been operating continually for over 6 years with a poker experience model instead. To us poker is human competition.

We do not accept your rationale for allowing bots. First, we try and promote an interactive poker experience among human players. Our software is designed for human interaction. Aesthetically, for example, there is a reason why chat appears on the table, and is restricted there to seated players. We adopted a First Person Player viewpoint.

We do not support poker aids or tools, nor bots. (We want a level playing field. Live poker games do not allow for mechanical aids, they are person v. person, (We do provide for note-taking during play and allow up to 4 multi-tables and will send hand histories if you are present at the table.)

Second, we believe that reputational reasons should make every site care about preventing/removing bots.

We care about our own earnings of course, but maybe we have a different product or service to offer. (We do work to offer customer service and cashout as well as any of the competition (well, maybe we're not quite a slick as Stars ... damn they're good.)

Even if we accept your assumption that your "ecosystem model" is industry accepted, I would not jump to your "bots indifference" conclusion generally.

I have no quarrel with your discussion of bot protection and detection, just with the premise that a site would bother to that extent if it did not "care". You assume a real bias against "winning p[layers", bot or not, as the site behavior determinant. I would suggest that a site can and, if it spends a lot of effort detecting bots, does care about the playing field afforded human players.

If a bot loses in the forest and no one else sees it, does it make a difference that the site does ? I do not think many players complain about losing bots, but nevertheless, we think a site can and should act if it finds one.

Finally, allowing bots undercuts any argument that poker is a game of skill. Poker is a game only if the players are human. Bots do not play games, they can't. We offer poker, as a game in which you can win money.

[ChipFerFree]

[ QUOTE ]
"No one care about poker robots as such. "

We do not accept that your "model is ..what simply make sense". We have been operating continually for over 6 years with a poker experience model instead. To us poker is human competition.


[/ QUOTE ]

Who is this mystical 'WE'?

[ChoicestHops]

[ QUOTE ]
Settle down cowboy. I said I was using PP and I was -- the HTML version which to this day is not detected I'm sure. So my guess is that yes INDEED that string of wins caused them to red flag me. They ACCUSED me of using PP -- I admitted it to get the account back open. I have no issue with Party Poker or how they handled it. I miss them and love them and want them to come home!

[/ QUOTE ]

Im not trying to attack you but you are spouting false information. The idea that Stars/Party/FT are closing down player's accounts for winning is absurd. You are also wrong about HTML Poker Prophecy. Party takes shots of your desktop, checks your cookies, who knows what else. Back when the program was very popular there were alot of players at this forum who were warned to not use the program again when they handnt used it in awhile, and I think the conclusion was because of their cookies.

[ChipFerFree]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Settle down cowboy. I said I was using PP and I was -- the HTML version which to this day is not detected I'm sure. So my guess is that yes INDEED that string of wins caused them to red flag me. They ACCUSED me of using PP -- I admitted it to get the account back open. I have no issue with Party Poker or how they handled it. I miss them and love them and want them to come home!

[/ QUOTE ]

Im not trying to attack you but you are spouting false information. The idea that Stars/Party/FT are closing down player's accounts for winning is absurd. You are also wrong about HTML Poker Prophecy. Party takes shots of your desktop, checks your cookies, who knows what else. Back when the program was very popular there were alot of players at this forum who were warned to not use the program again when they handnt used it in awhile, and I think the conclusion was because of their cookies.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well ok -- I'll give here. It was an odd coincidence certainly but I'm not really vested enough in this angle of the thread to be arguing that I mistrust Party or Stars or even FTP...

I'll stick to my main point which is:

Regardless of what a site might do with the information -- red flags are thrown for behavior significantly deviant from the norm -- Guaranteed.

Your apology -- is accepted [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]
Chip