NL Bots on Full Tilt

[DWarrior]

[ QUOTE ]

5) 4 players can execute such a system to 99% precision;

[/ QUOTE ]

Their stats are not identical to 99% precision...

[marlboro8425]

myturn2raise, i stated that in a previous post, saying people should accept they might be playing against more than 1 person.

[robinsons]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
man ....
these guys suck out of the blinds

[/ QUOTE ]

yeah, but somehow they are very good in LP

[/ QUOTE ]

people at 1/2 FR can't defend their blinds? OMG!

[/ QUOTE ]


Explain to me how defending a 2 dollar blind(i.e. calling a raise with K2 offsuit) is +EV? This isn't a tournament. That arguement makes no sense whatsoever..

[/ QUOTE ]

my point wasn't that people fold too often against a steal, but that most people at 1/2 fr play poorly from the blinds which is why you are losing that much in the blinds and making that much in LP

[nlnut]

[ QUOTE ]

Let's say for the sake of argument that there is a super detailed "playbook" out there that all of these people are executing. You would think nlnut would be willing to provide some sort of evidence this exists.

[/ QUOTE ]

And how do I do this without giving you the strategy. How can I do this? please advise.

[KSOT]

Can someone summarize this thread and link me to the botters post/s?

[dp13368]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
the problem is that he shouldn't post his playbook to 2p2

games have a lot of 2p2ers and we can think at a deep enough level to exploit the hell out of a playbook

hell, this thread is already a disaster for them given the street by street and position stats of their playbook

[/ QUOTE ]

c'mon, the playbook is completely meaningless and any NL player worth a damn could come up with it on their own - it's the fact that these players simply don't tilt and don't deviate at all from it that makes it work. i mean really, here, i'll give you the playbook.

raise AQ+/99+ PF, call pocket pairs and some connectors

cont bet 100% of the time, regardless of flop

post-flop: get all in with an overpair, get all in with a set, get all in with a combo draw (e.g. overcards/flush draw, straight draw/flush draw).

there's some finer points which would need to be ironed out, but this is not some brilliant plan.

if you want to make $40,000 a year having no soul, it's there for the taking, and it's always been there

[/ QUOTE ]

Tri- HU4rolls, me vs your "system on a notepad" let us gooo

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Let's say for the sake of argument that there is a super detailed "playbook" out there that all of these people are executing. You would think nlnut would be willing to provide some sort of evidence this exists.

[/ QUOTE ]

And how do I do this without giving you the strategy. How can I do this? please advise.

[/ QUOTE ]


nlnut,

We've already heard this excuse from you that you can't account for the similarity of post-flop statistics without divulging your exact strategy. If that's all the more you have to say you might as well go to bed.

[fluorescenthippo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
- I argue that the reason all of the data is so similar is that he is playing on all of them. Think about this: Take 400k hands and split them up into four 100k chunks. Won't the data for each of these 100k hands be very similar to each other?

[/ QUOTE ]

But VPIP, which should obviously be identical across the board, is statistically different between the 4 accounts listed.

[/ QUOTE ]

How about this: At some time t0, he decided he wanted to adjust something in the strategy. He has four accounts with x1, x2, x3, anx x4 hands each. But say they're all different # of hands. The stats for each of those will be different based on how many hands he played at his strategy before t0 and the number of hands he plays with the new strategy after t0.

Example:

Set1: 110
Set2: 111100

Both have average of .67.

Change strategy to play all hands. Add 1 to each

Set1: 110 1
Set2: 111100 1

Average for 1: 0.75
Average for 2: 0.71

Same strategy, different averages, hmm. Maybe theres is a lesson here? [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

A valid point.

However, two of the accounts have basically the same number of hands (105k hands and 112k hands), so we can assume they were datamined at the same time. How come their VPIPs are so significantly different then? (13.64% and 14.08%) That difference is over 4 SDs

[/ QUOTE ]

has it been confirmed that the true deviation is over 4SDs? earlier there were like 4 formulas people were trying to use. if true this fact needs much more attention as it has the greatest chance of clearing them

[DWarrior]

[ QUOTE ]
1. Assuming his story is 100% true, isn't this repeated and flagrant violation of the unofficial "1 player to a hand" rule?

Obviously online such a rule is informal and having a friend at your PC for a hand or two every now and then is standard, but this is willful and repeated violation of it? Uh?

[/ QUOTE ]

Is this actually against the T&C to begin with? I hear people throw the "ought to be", and now "only if it occurs constantly"

[ QUOTE ]
2. No NL system can be so precise to account for all scenarios, to the point where 35 people can all memorize and utilize it. NL is way too dynamic.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not 35 players. The number 35 is just the accounts that got frozen due to having transfers. As others have said, this is very possible (trading, rb, sidebets, etc)

[ QUOTE ]
3. The whole story just stinks to high heaven.

We're supposed to believe that a player will sit down and memorize a system to make X amount per hour, but then only take a cut of that himself? After you memorize the "system" why not just leave and go make the full amount, without giving the house it's cut?

[/ QUOTE ]

Is this actually happening? As I understand it it's X guys just sharing their wins/losses to even out variance.

[Triumph36]

ps - the reason why it would take so long for basic decisions is perhaps because these players have unlearned how to actually play poker, and are thus consulting the magic playbook for very simple things, not wanting to make an error. (or also playing other tables and making decisions there, or maybe contemplating suicide in between every ennui-inducing point and click)