NL Bots on Full Tilt

[ShaneP]

[ 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 ]

I did a few quick calcs...not sure if this is 100% accurate, but I used the correct formula for SD of percentages (it is sqrt( p*(1-p)/n ). The null hypothesis was that they all came from the same distribution, with the mean being the weighted average of all four preflop players (the last line is the sum of all of them). First two columns are the VPiP and number of hands, the third is the individual percentage VPiP. The fourth is the SD using the number of hands of each individual player, and the last is the number of SD away from the mean (13.93% VPiP).

VPiP #Hands pct SD SD away
from mean
14376 | 105366 |0.136438699 | 0.001066697|-2.675179739
15840 | 112514 |0.14078248 | 0.001032258|1.443606827
11683| 82577 |0.141480073 | 0.00120493|1.815679571
5721 | 41414 | 0.138141691 | 0.001701445|-0.676257655

47620 |341871 |0.139292306

So only the first (one4thethumb I believe) is statistically different than 13.92, at the 95% level, but that's not really a result to hang one's hat on. The others are within 2 SD of the mean.

The greater than 4 SD different is adding the two SD from the first two players.

However, add to the SD above slight tweaks to code (assuming they're running bots) or human play that changes things slightly, and I can't reject the null hypothesis that these results weren't generated from the same process (the same mean).

Shane

[dp13368]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, they are hiding the automation process, I thought this was obvious?

[derosnec]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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 ]

I did a few quick calcs...not sure if this is 100% accurate, but I used the correct formula for SD of percentages (it is sqrt( p*(1-p)/n ). The null hypothesis was that they all came from the same distribution, with the mean being the weighted average of all four preflop players (the last line is the sum of all of them). First two columns are the VPiP and number of hands, the third is the individual percentage VPiP. The fourth is the SD using the number of hands of each individual player, and the last is the number of SD away from the mean (13.93% VPiP).

VPiP #Hands pct SD SD away
from mean
14376 | 105366 |0.136438699 | 0.001066697|-2.675179739
15840 | 112514 |0.14078248 | 0.001032258|1.443606827
11683| 82577 |0.141480073 | 0.00120493|1.815679571
5721 | 41414 | 0.138141691 | 0.001701445|-0.676257655

47620 |341871 |0.139292306

So only the first (one4thethumb I believe) is statistically different than 13.92, at the 95% level, but that's not really a result to hang one's hat on. The others are within 2 SD of the mean.

The greater than 4 SD different is adding the two SD from the first two players.

However, add to the SD above slight tweaks to code (assuming they're running bots) or human play that changes things slightly, and I can't reject the null hypothesis that these results weren't generated from the same process (the same mean).

Shane

[/ QUOTE ]

i'll be honest with the forum: i didn't read any of that

[DWarrior]

[ 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 ]

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.

[/ QUOTE ]

The thread should end at bots.

This "sweatshop" you speak of (which is the first time I heard the term used ever on 2+2, but I don't read a lot of Zoo), is basically impossible to disprove without taking their word for it. You're basically saying "ok, so it's not a bot, it's a person directing their play, so that's why there is human error involved"

Sure, having X players memorize the same strategy and follow it almost exactly is far-fetched. But I think the idea of a poker sweatshop is far more far-fetched.

And now some people have basically resorted to personal attacks..."you're idiots if you can play 300k hands and not make adjustments to improve bb/100". That is a pointless accusation. Props to them for having the endurance to grind that much and I wish I had the discipline to do that.

[ianisakson]

[ 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 ]

I think you've hit the nail on the head sir. This is a glaring contradiction coming right from the horses mouth. how do you actively talk through hands if you're playing a "system" that doesn't increase it's winrate, or change it's stats over huge sample sizes.

[MinRaise]

[ 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 ]

Why would any Triple-A player want to go to the Majors?

Can you answer any of the following questions?

1. Why did you not adjust at all for a while to the OP exploiting you, then all of the sudden make plays like the turn check-raise? Why didn't these anomaly plays come up more often in the data?

2. If you were following such an ironclad system, as a human, why did you never adjust in situations when you knew more money could be made? Everytime someone asks about this, you guys answer with something like "Why bother when we are making money already?" I guess no one should aspire to move up in life then. This alone kills the whole argument in my opinion. I have never met a winning poker player that does not wish to improve.

[cwar]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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 ]

I think you've hit the nail on the head sir. This is a glaring contradiction coming right from the horses mouth. how do you actively talk through hands if you're playing a "system" that doesn't increase it's winrate, or change it's stats over huge sample sizes.

[/ QUOTE ]

[KotOD]

[ QUOTE ]
3) Why did it take so long to adjust to the OP targetting them if they're discussing all these hands in real time? (as opposed to just following a script, or they're a bot, neither of which would make any adjustments until over-ridden) ........cant discuss since its part of our strategy

[/ QUOTE ]

Post flop strategy: Allow us to be exploited repeatedly. Do not change for several days.

[DWarrior]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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 ]

I did a few quick calcs...not sure if this is 100% accurate, but I used the correct formula for SD of percentages (it is sqrt( p*(1-p)/n ). The null hypothesis was that they all came from the same distribution, with the mean being the weighted average of all four preflop players (the last line is the sum of all of them). First two columns are the VPiP and number of hands, the third is the individual percentage VPiP. The fourth is the SD using the number of hands of each individual player, and the last is the number of SD away from the mean (13.93% VPiP).

VPiP #Hands pct SD SD away
from mean
14376 | 105366 |0.136438699 | 0.001066697|-2.675179739
15840 | 112514 |0.14078248 | 0.001032258|1.443606827
11683| 82577 |0.141480073 | 0.00120493|1.815679571
5721 | 41414 | 0.138141691 | 0.001701445|-0.676257655

47620 |341871 |0.139292306

So only the first (one4thethumb I believe) is statistically different than 13.92, at the 95% level, but that's not really a result to hang one's hat on. The others are within 2 SD of the mean.

The greater than 4 SD different is adding the two SD from the first two players.

However, add to the SD above slight tweaks to code (assuming they're running bots) or human play that changes things slightly, and I can't reject the null hypothesis that these results weren't generated from the same process (the same mean).

Shane

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know if you've gone about it correctly.

Also, you're failing to reject the null without specifying any criteria...one of your results differs significantly from the mean (Z of -2.67 and with a 105366 sample size) and you somehow fail to reject. You realize -2.67 has a 0.0038 probability of occurring by chance? That should be very strong evidence for rejecting the null hypothesis)

[nlnut]

[ QUOTE ]
A couple things that really worry me in no particular order...

1. Nation going out of his way to insinuate that Chuck is a complete novice with computers and as it turns out, this is far from the truth........ A novice with virus and firewall yes.....however i do know my way around a computer I just donlt know how to keep other people (hackers) from geting in.

2. OP's claim that the 3-4 accounts logged off simultaneously as soon as he signed in to FTP, as opposed to actually sitting at their tables......... Only thing I can think of is that we took a dinner break from 5pm-6pm and we all left the tables...or we quit for the night and we all left the tables. We do not play alone because we rely on each other to help reduce variance...stress....tilt....etc

3. Overall inconsistencies and evolution of stories. (IE group of friends getting together to play poker and splitting profits----> dude running sweatshop.) please link to this accusation.

4. Even with a very simple strategy and such a low VPIP, it just really doesn't make sense for these guys to play poker so methodically and equivalently, over countless hundreds of thousands of hands, and only earn 1.5bb/100 at low stakes without desiring to tweak the system in minor ways to improve winrates......... Are you aware of the rakeback amounts we receive on top of the 1.5bb/100. We make a comfortable living.....do the math

Those are just a couple off the top of my head. I'm not saying the whole sweatshop thing isn't possible, but I guess as a poker player I've trained myself to put stories together, and this just really doesn't add up.

[/ QUOTE ]