Pokerbots, the truth from the source

[kyleb]

It's gotta be Pacific. Good read.

[RikaKazak]

[ QUOTE ]
It's gotta be Pacific. interesting read.

[/ QUOTE ]

fyp

[That Foreign Guy]

[ QUOTE ]
When you say you kill winning players, you mean that figuratively, right? Right?

[/ QUOTE ]

He did say he was in the black belt double-secret probation team.... :S

[Kriber13]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It even seems almost reasonable...

[/ QUOTE ]

I wouldn't say reasonable. Poker is a game with simple rules. Games are fun because they're pure competition within a well-defined framework (rules). Being punished for playing the game too well (arbitrary meta-rule) is unfair and unreasonable.

[/ QUOTE ]

For most companies the bottom line is what counts.

[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.

[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.

[kornman17]

Grande, I wrote already for the winning players. About the “Figuring out”: What about that I am an existing member of the team who wants to put this post on a member that left? You can respond here that in such case I would have not written this. But as I said: I am sorry; I will not discuss true/false, and will not generally bring exact details. I think you are quite clever, take my second and forth sentences linked together and you will see also the additional hidden logic and info between the lines.

I want to use the chance to respond to a question that I got a lot by PM – is there the famous doom-switch, are sites rigged, is the shuffle not random etc.: The site is fair, and the shuffle is random, I’m sure this is the case for all poker sites. No one ever touched that. We were discussing tweaks rarely, but these were never serious discussions. I had access to the complete source code, and data, if the deck was hacked, I would be able to prove it now by exploiting it, and it's costly to reimplement such things. It’s a very dangerous thing for the poker site with very real threats.

[Backspin20]

If poker sites were not random we would surely know it from our own databases. Quite a few of us have 200k + hands stored away.

[ChipFerFree]

Can you please hook the second and fourth sentence with the Da Vinci Code information together for those of us that are not equipped to decipher this hidden message?