NL Bots on Full Tilt

[DWarrior]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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

[/ QUOTE ]

The reason there were 4 different formulas is because I believe 2 people used wrong ones. Also the two I gave were for slightly different questions.

Here is the test to show that VPIP of 1forthethumb (14376/105366 or 13.64) differs from that of full_tilting(15840/112514 or 14.07):

p1 is VPIP of 1for, p2 is VPIP for full_tilting, p is their combined vpip (weighted average of the two). n1 and n2 are the sample sizes.

(p1-p2)/sqrt( p*(1-p)*(1/n1 + 1/n2) )

This comes out to -2.93, so I overestimated it (the other equation where I got 4 was for a different question). The probability of these results differing by chance is 0.0017.

In case you're wondering, this is Two Sample Hypothesis Test of the difference of two Population Proportions.

[dp13368]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
chuck, it's pretty obvious you're dodging questions that the answer will in some way give away your "secret system". If I have to, i'm going to put together my own sweatshop of players to sit in position on your players and outplay the living daylights out of their terrible poker playing [censored]'s. The fact that you have not given a good argument as to why you guys don't even try to improve is enough for me to find you guilty.

[/ QUOTE ]


Actually the bigger question is why, even playing sub-optimally and assuming their story is 100% true, they haven't quickly moved up to much bigger stakes.

[/ QUOTE ]

...because Fullring above 200nl is basically dead. Nation can't beat above 200nl fullring online, and he said so himself.

That and these guys obviously lack intelligence/common sense to raise winrates above an average of 1.2ptbb/100. Not to mention, can you imagine what they think/feel about themselves after being in this "farm." What a life, LOL

[SukitTrebek]

Chuck,

In December (after you indicated you had started your team play), you asked in this post if anyone had a Mouseclicker script for Stars. Have you or any of the other team members played on Stars since?

Why did you delete your original post in the thread you started about your account being suspended ? If you were innocent you could have rallied the support of 2p2 to affect a change like has happened repeatedly before.

[BrandonJoseph47]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
it would not be hard to come up with a way of having the preflop numbers agree - not hard at all.

to one raise, call/raise these exact hands and no others - allowing for certain hands in certain positions

to two raises, call/raise these exact hands and no others

follow these things exactly. how hard is that?


[/ QUOTE ]

I just don't think you could get human beings to follow something so precisely, even preflop. Sooner or later, there would be deviations. Also, when you consider how strange some of the reactions were to the OP's actions, it seems strange a human would stick to the script so long when it is obvious he is being exploited.

Presumably, all of the people involved had previous poker experience. Just think how strange it is that none of them seemed to make any elementary adjustments.

[/ QUOTE ]


We make money from the tables and rakeback, why adjust? We're not millionaires, but comfortable. Despite what he says, SukitTrebek wasn't floating and destroying me. Or any of my friends. It wasn't some super-glaring issue with him. You're assuming Trebek was killing us, and that couldn't be further from the truth..

[ianisakson]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Nicho,

Even if your explanation is true, which doesn't seem likely, nlnut and nation have given a different story. There is a lie in those stories somewhere and that's the point.

[/ QUOTE ] link me too the lie.... i missed it.

[/ QUOTE ]


The lie is all of your story not adding up, not accounting for all the stats, and especially for post-flop play. Your explanation simply is unproven and unreasonable for you to be both not botting and not running a sweatshop or playing all those accounts yourself at the same time in some way.

[/ QUOTE ] What is the definition of a sweat shop. I'm sorry but i never used the word before. So if i'm sitting in front of a computer (in the middle) with 2 friends on each side of me and were discussing hands/decisions is that a sweatshop...if so I am guilty.

[/ QUOTE ]

I will define a sweatshop as a group of players that are playing together under the direction of a single person directly or indirectly through a program/playbook/set of rules, whatever you want to call it.

[nation]

because the strategy is so simple it wouldnt work at higher stakes genius.

[DMoogle]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Nicho,

Even if your explanation is true, which doesn't seem likely, nlnut and nation have given a different story. There is a lie in those stories somewhere and that's the point.

[/ QUOTE ] link me too the lie.... i missed it.

[/ QUOTE ]


The lie is all of your story not adding up, not accounting for all the stats, and especially for post-flop play. Your explanation simply is unproven and unreasonable for you to be both not botting and not running a sweatshop or playing all those accounts yourself at the same time in some way.

[/ QUOTE ] What is the definition of a sweat shop. I'm sorry but i never used the word before. So if i'm sitting in front of a computer (in the middle) with 2 friends on each side of me and were discussing hands/decisions is that a sweatshop...if so I am guilty.

[/ QUOTE ]
One thing that you have been VERY inconsistent about is that you keep claiming that your group is constantly discussing hands and decisions, but you ALSO claim that you guys DON'T actively try to improve your play and winrate. Why are you discussing the hands then? To laugh off bad beats and bad plays? A group of three players putting in the hours/hands you claim to and constantly discussing hands and decisions should have become EXCELLENT no-limit players by now. However, you've claimed multiple times that you're NOT trying to improve your play and winrate.

This doesn't make any sense whatsoever to me.

[SukitTrebek]

BrandonJoseph,

Which of the players listed are you? In your first post, why did you say that you had chatted with the bot accounts personally?

[ianisakson]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
it would not be hard to come up with a way of having the preflop numbers agree - not hard at all.

to one raise, call/raise these exact hands and no others - allowing for certain hands in certain positions

to two raises, call/raise these exact hands and no others

follow these things exactly. how hard is that?


[/ QUOTE ]

I just don't think you could get human beings to follow something so precisely, even preflop. Sooner or later, there would be deviations. Also, when you consider how strange some of the reactions were to the OP's actions, it seems strange a human would stick to the script so long when it is obvious he is being exploited.

Presumably, all of the people involved had previous poker experience. Just think how strange it is that none of them seemed to make any elementary adjustments.

[/ QUOTE ]


We make money from the tables and rakeback, why adjust? We're not millionaires, but comfortable. Despite what he says, SukitTrebek wasn't floating and destroying me. Or any of my friends. It wasn't some super-glaring issue with him. You're assuming Trebek was killing us, and that couldn't be further from the truth..

[/ QUOTE ]

still though, how can you be satisfied with such a small winrate when your opportunity to increase it through simple discussion is right at your fingertips, assuming you are all sitting in 1 room playing at the same time, which has already been asserted. you can't honestly be that retarded to think you can't make more money expoiting the table for it's weaknesses. the only logical explanation for you guys not trying to improve is that you CAN'T. You guys are hiding something, out with it already.

[dp13368]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Nicho,

Even if your explanation is true, which doesn't seem likely, nlnut and nation have given a different story. There is a lie in those stories somewhere and that's the point.

[/ QUOTE ] link me too the lie.... i missed it.

[/ QUOTE ]


The lie is all of your story not adding up, not accounting for all the stats, and especially for post-flop play. Your explanation simply is unproven and unreasonable for you to be both not botting and not running a sweatshop or playing all those accounts yourself at the same time in some way.

[/ QUOTE ] What is the definition of a sweat shop. I'm sorry but i never used the word before. So if i'm sitting in front of a computer (in the middle) with 2 friends on each side of me and were discussing hands/decisions is that a sweatshop...if so I am guilty.

[/ QUOTE ]
One thing that you have been VERY inconsistent about is that you keep claiming that your group is constantly discussing hands and decisions, but you ALSO claim that you guys DON'T actively try to improve your play and winrate. Why are you discussing the hands then? To laugh off bad beats and bad plays? A group of three players putting in the hours/hands you claim to and constantly discussing hands and decisions should have become EXCELLENT no-limit players by now. However, you've claimed multiple times that you're NOT trying to improve your play and winrate.

This doesn't make any sense whatsoever to me.

[/ QUOTE ]\

It is obvious alot of their "actions" are very automated, which equates in the exact same statistics (.0017% chance or whatever was stated a few posts ago), and if they strayed from this automation they would be playing less tables/hands and thus less rakeback and cut for each of the mongrels in the sweatshop. They are satisfied with their cuts from rakeback and their modest winrates through nations "yellow pad" system, so why would the change?