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

[Josem]

One would think that if Governments are able to regulate and monitor the fairness of computer programs used to operate slot machines, the same Governments are able to regulate and monitor the fairness of computer programs used to operate online poker games.

[El_Hombre_Grande]

RIIT:

so you want no regulation, and no ability for the site to punish cheating, either? In the end, that's what all this blathering comes down to?

Well, I doubt you'll find too many friends here. I am one of the more "player rights" donks in this debate, and you would never,ever hear me say that I think that the worst thing that should happen to a cheater is he should get banned. He defrauded other players, and took their money, ie "larceny by trick or deceit," as has been alluded to previously. You are making bot building a positive EV game if the worst that can happen is you get shut down, and have to change sites or accounts.

No. I like this scenario better. Get caught, and after a fair process where all the facts can be determined, if you did cheat, you lose every penny in your account, and your name and the evidence is turned over to the appropriate authorities for criminal prosecution.

Go ahead and get caught cheating at a casino in vegas and see how that shakes out. Better yet, try to screw around in a underground club game.


PS: If you are a bot builder, and not just a bot builder advocate, you are going to want to keep it on the "down low." Crazy Mike hunts bots here, and he'll smoke you out with his amazing bot algorithm machine.

[RIIT]

[ QUOTE ]
RIIT:

so you want no regulation, and no ability for the site to punish cheating, either? In the end, that's what all this blathering comes down to?

Well, I doubt you'll find too many friends here. I am one of the more "player rights" donks in this debate, and you would never,ever hear me say that I think that the worst thing that should happen to a cheater is he should get banned. He defrauded other players, and took their money, ie "larceny by trick or deceit," as has been alluded to previously. You are making bot building a positive EV game if the worst that can happen is you get shut down, and have to change sites or accounts.

No. I like this scenario better. Get caught, and after a fair process where all the facts can be determined, if you did cheat, you lose every penny in your account, and your name and the evidence is turned over to the appropriate authorities for criminal prosecution.

Go ahead and get caught cheating at a casino in vegas and see how that shakes out. Better yet, try to screw around in a underground club game.


PS: If you are a bot builder, and not just a bot builder advocate, you are going to want to keep it on the "down low." Crazy Mike hunts bots here, and he'll smoke you out with his amazing bot algorithm machine.

[/ QUOTE ]

El_Hombre_Grande: You're putting a lot of words in my mouth here that I don't claim. As I've already said, a site with unchecked god-like powers that can confiscate my bankroll at will is more disturbing to me than the possibility that my opponent(s) might be using a robot; I say this based on the assumption that I can track my opponents as a natural part of the online game. I don't care why my opponents are winning, I just want to know whether or not I have edge against them so I can either avoid them or hunt them.

Any site with confiscatory wording in their TOS is a site that cannot ultimately be trusted to deliver a clean game.

[jack21221]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm still failing to see your point. You contest that online poker sites can cheat. Further, you state it's impossible to catch them.

So, what do you propose should happen with online poker?

[/ QUOTE ]
As I've already mentioned in this thread, I am against wording in any site TOS where the site allows themselves to take account funds from a player for any reason.

Online gaming would be much better off if all online players turned their attention toward the unchecked powers of offshore operators instead of worrying about the behavior of opponents.

[/ QUOTE ]

But what does this have to do with the issue of legalizing online poker in the USA? US regulations (and US operated sites) would give players the choice of sites, and would take away the "unchecked powers of offshore operators."

You seem to be arguing against US regulations and legalization, but that would go a long way to solve the very things you're against.

So, what specifically do you propose with regards to the US government's policy?

[RIIT]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm still failing to see your point. You contest that online poker sites can cheat. Further, you state it's impossible to catch them.

So, what do you propose should happen with online poker?

[/ QUOTE ]
As I've already mentioned in this thread, I am against wording in any site TOS where the site allows themselves to take account funds from a player for any reason.

Online gaming would be much better off if all online players turned their attention toward the unchecked powers of offshore operators instead of worrying about the behavior of opponents.

[/ QUOTE ]

But what does this have to do with the issue of legalizing online poker in the USA? US regulations (and US operated sites) would give players the choice of sites, and would take away the "unchecked powers of offshore operators."

You seem to be arguing against US regulations and legalization, but that would go a long way to solve the very things you're against.

So, what specifically do you propose with regards to the US government's policy?

[/ QUOTE ]

It has to do with the issue in this thread. I think all online players need to wake up and see that any site with confiscatory wording in their TOS is a very bad site and cannot ultimately be trusted to deliver a clean game period.

A site cannot prove to me that they are not skewing decks or hinting house players - if I want to play at that site then I have no other choice than to just trust them - and these 2 factors alone constitute trust at a near break point for many players. The players I talk to are much more worried about the god-like power that a site has to take your chips at will. They are far less concerned about what opponents can do; opponents must play poker with you; a site can steal chips at any time and never ever get caught (pause for a moment and compare these 2 evils). It is very sad that threads like this work toward the advantage of the site due to the irrational fears of the average internet player who is more focused on the behavior of opponents rather than constantly questioning the practices of their site.

I am not bothered because the OP's accounts were closed. I am very bothered that the money was taken by the site. That money is gone from the game and will never be returned to any player - the site considers that money to be it's property now.

The site should have declined to take the money - it looks very bad. I do not care if this means that the OP can open new accounts and continue. I care very much that the site accepts it's role to remain as neutral as possible and to focus on ways to get more evidence out to players that they are not skewing and hinting - ask yourself how much time and effort they spend toward this?

[RIIT]

[ QUOTE ]
One would think that if Governments are able to regulate and monitor the fairness of computer programs used to operate slot machines, the same Governments are able to regulate and monitor the fairness of computer programs used to operate online poker games.

[/ QUOTE ]

Josem: If you and I have the highest level of control/access for our poker server computer then we win regardless - the size of the entity policing us is not an issue because we have god-like power over that entire computer. We can undo and/or manipulate anything on that machine.

The typical comeback here from the uninformed is to suggest that the policing organization have the highest level of control/access; but if that's the case then they are then the operator of the game and are no longer fit for the policing job.

[Josem]

RIIT,

No system is ever risk free. It's poker for goodness' sake.

The point is that there will always be risk. I believe (and, I suspect, the consensus on these boards believes) that there is a lesser risk of a dodgy operator under a government regulated system than under a non-regulated system.

Perhaps it's the socialist deep inside me (which rarely comes out) but I believe that. There's no obvious way of proving this either way, so if you believe that the risk of a player getting diddled is higher under a regulated system, so be it.

[RIIT]

[ QUOTE ]
RIIT,

No system is ever risk free. It's poker for goodness' sake.

The point is that there will always be risk. I believe (and, I suspect, the consensus on these boards believes) that there is a lesser risk of a dodgy operator under a government regulated system than under a non-regulated system.

Perhaps it's the socialist deep inside me (which rarely comes out) but I believe that. There's no obvious way of proving this either way, so if you believe that the risk of a player getting diddled is higher under a regulated system, so be it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Josem: I think you misunderstand me here. The probability of a skewing/hinting operator goes down in any scenario involving a major gaming jurisdiction (I never claimed otherwise) - but the possibility exists nevertheless. The real question is would they be able to skew/hint without being detected. No policeman can prevent a car from speeding but they can certainly detect the event.

So I am pleased about the possibility of regulating site operators in a very real way because they represent the largest potential threat to my bankroll. I don't fear my opponents as long as I can track them.

But I want nothing to do with any scenario where my government would get involved in policing my behavior from my living room while I play online poker. I like the freedom afforded to me by the internet and I find myself favoring genetic pruning for those who are more inclined towards "socialism" or "fascism" just so they can control the behavior of their opponents.

[Josem]

heh. even in a government regulated world, i have no doubt that you would be able to find sites online that were unregulated. i guess if that floats your boat, i (and, presumably, most others) don't really have any particular gain out of forcing you to play on a regulated site.


that said, i think it is fair to assume that your position is a minority one. given a choice between a regulated operator and an un-regulated operator, i'm going to go for the regulated one - because FTP's continued shonky service is a perfect example of the pitfalls of the regulated one.

presumably, a regulated system is also likely to be taxed - perhaps a percentage of the rake, I don't know. keep in mind that the current system is also "taxed" by shonky operators creating impediments to cashing out and confiscating accounts.

[CrushinFelt]

haha, this thread is still going