Official Full Tilt Poker Response to Bot Thread

[Bobo Fett]

[ QUOTE ]
This begs the question...is it really possible to ever prove a player is 100% a bot? Seems impossible to me unless if they come out and admit it OR if they are using some confirmed bot software which i'm sure might be used by only a small percentage of botters.

Personally I think the proof (statistical evidence) of a bot is as great in this case as you'll ever see. Fine cant prove it 100%, let them keep their money but at least change the T&C and ban them from your site.

I guess what I am asking is what proof is needed to determine a bot?

[/ QUOTE ]
I think you answered it...an admission and/or finding the software is about it.

In the face of overwhelming evidence but no proof, they can go one of five ways.

1) Do nothing.
2) Do nothing to the player(s), but step up the monitoring.
3) Place restrictions on the player(s) and step up the monitoring.
4) Give them back their money and show them the door.
5) Seize everything and show them the door.

I would hope most of us could agree that 1 and 5 are unacceptable. Hopefully FT has gone the way of 2 or 3 in this case. I think any of the options from 2-4 is acceptable (3 would be my ideal), but I doubt many sites will be happy to impose 4...that's a lot of money to send out the door.

[William]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This begs the question...is it really possible to ever prove a player is 100% a bot? Seems impossible to me unless if they come out and admit it OR if they are using some confirmed bot software which i'm sure might be used by only a small percentage of botters.

Personally I think the proof (statistical evidence) of a bot is as great in this case as you'll ever see. Fine cant prove it 100%, let them keep their money but at least change the T&C and ban them from your site.

I guess what I am asking is what proof is needed to determine a bot?

[/ QUOTE ]
I think you answered it...an admission and/or finding the software is about it.

In the face of overwhelming evidence but no proof, they can go one of five ways.

1) Do nothing.
2) Do nothing to the player(s), but step up the monitoring.
3) Place restrictions on the player(s) and step up the monitoring.
4) Give them back their money and show them the door.
5) Seize everything and show them the door.

I would hope most of us could agree that 1 and 5 are unacceptable. Hopefully FT has gone the way of 2 or 3 in this case. I think any of the options from 2-4 is acceptable (3 would be my ideal), but I doubt many sites will be happy to impose 4...that's a lot of money to send out the door.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is in fact quite funny. Based on the many, many threads complaining about FT, they precisely specialize in doing 1 and 5.

[_dave_]

[ QUOTE ]
You're right, #4 is a type of program that I assumed would be banned (even if it is for novice players).

[/ QUOTE ]

As did I, until I did a spot of research before posting in the main thread [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

I think it is just as telling that Party does not liston on the "unfair advantage" list - they kind of endorse anything not explicitly banned, whereas Stars at least lists things that are OK.


I think it is fair to say that if true (although I don't believe so, based on nlnuts AHK posts indicating somewhat of an AHK n00b) if he made an app that parsed a text file containing the Pre / Flop / Turn / River rules of the "system" (added to this they deny the existance of such written records.... my drones do it all from memory lol), then flashed up a big red "FOLD", green "CALL" etc., this would be allowed (on Stars at least).

And I kind of agree. an indicator is just that - an indicator. A bot physically does the actions for the player... now, the ring-master may well have a hold over the dorones, i.e. reducing pay / punishment for deviating from instructions - but so long sd the actual human still has the oppurtunity to deny the instructions snd think say "FFS, he is FOS.. I push!" against recommended strategy - that player cannot be clasified as a bot - and because of this (human emotion can override recommendation at any time) is nowhere near as dangerous to the game as a real, emotionless fully automated bot.


Thoughts?


[ QUOTE ]
It's still too illogical to think that a place that outlaws datamining would allow humanbotting, and that it was an oversight when they made the rules. I would imagine we'll see an update to Stars rules soon.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd like an update to Stars terms to remove such "intra-hand advisor" applications. Although I'd far rather they opened up so called "datamining"... as this is the way we are alerted to such strange behaviour in the first place.

Added to which datamining is very easy for those that don't care to follow t&c and will datamine anyway, we honest players are at a significant disadvantage with the current status quo [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

dave.

[ClubChamp04]

[ QUOTE ]
2+2,
I’m sorry for the delay in posting to the bot thread. We felt it was very important to thoroughly review the investigation notes and findings again before commenting and I should have just posted a quick message to let you guys know we were looking into it.

We were definitely aware of the importance of this situation and held a series of meetings to discuss our established policies as well as the terms of this specific case. While I am unable to discuss the specific details of the investigation, I will make some general comments.

We take bots very seriously, and for obvious reasons cannot go into the details of our policies, procedures and detection methods. Our meetings served to further refine these policies and processes in general terms, and also with regards to this investigation specifically. Having said that, if Full Tilt Poker Security confirms the use of a bot by any player, all accounts involved would be permanently closed and all funds remaining in the accounts could be subject to seizure.

After doing our due diligence in this case, we came to the following determinations:

• During the investigation we found the evidence to be inconclusive in supporting either determination (human or bot).

• After careful consideration, the evidence did not warrant the seizure of funds and permanent account closure.

• We stand by our decision. Having said that, re-opening an account after an investigation such as this one does not mean we have made an irreversible decision. We will continue to reevaluate this situation.

It is our responsibility to ensure a level playing field for all of our players. As evidenced by this thread, some situations are not as clear cut as they first appear and require additional refinement of established policies and procedures. We are working on additional measures to detect any activity that compromises the integrity and fairness of our games; this is of paramount importance and will never be taken lightly.

Sean

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for coming on and "explaining" the situation to the community, but that post really doesn't say anything!


Is it really statistically possible that 4 people could have stats like this over 100K hands? Can you show us the math that determines your "inconclusive" proof on this?

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm afraid this whole situation is very unsatisfactory. As a c50k a month hand player with accounts at multiple sites, I will certainly look to migrate business elsewhere.

I think the key issues are:
1) The concept of allowing multiple users at one location is not ethical in my opinion. This may not be covered by the terms and conditions, and therefore can't be acted on, but this is merely an argument for updating terms and conditions.
2) Almost everyone believes there is a degree of decision automation here which goes beyond basic charts. The statistics are too similar across all 3 streets. There is debate about the degree of this automation. Again your terms & conditions do not appear tight enough - apparently you operate to a binary is a bot/isn't a bot definition.
3) I would agree that to confiscate funds you need evidence beyond reasonable doubt. But there is a lot of circumstantial evidence here, which suggests on the balance of probabilities these guys are botting. In my opinion this is enough to ban accounts and return funds.

The simple question to ask is whether if you convened a meeting of all your customers whether they would approve or disapprove of the outlined operation (even that agreed by DLNUT as fact). The answer would overwhelmingly, in my opinion, be that they would be disgusted by such practices.

I will be extremely angry to face any of these players again (yes, I have lost a stack to Full_Tilting), irrespective of my views of their capabilities.

Full Tilt faces a choice. It can seek to sweep the inevitable continued issue of bots under the carpet, with complicit acceptance from winning players, until their profits are eroded away. This has two issues 1) Customers do have the ability to switch away to other sites, and integrity can be a point of competitive advantage) 2) It gives your business a limited lifespan before profits are competed away on your bot infested tables

Alternatively you can work with your core customer base (yes, here is a good place to start) to tackle the issue head on.

Currently, your stance is clearly that of see no evil hear no evil. Don't underestimate the power of viral marketing in your business. If your business loses momentum it will not recover. I for one would be a part of that negative publicity generation, unless you up your game.

[/ QUOTE ]


The above is indeed a very good response, and Sean needs to answer its points to have any credibility. I would like to emphasize a couple of those points and add to them.

1) Same IP play

You can come up with all the excuses you want for this, from college dorms to small towns to wifi or whatever, but it is a huge issue and one that touches on collusion. Some players might have to be limited in their play options or indeed given no options, in order to insure game integrity for the vast majority of players.

2) Over-enablement of software aides

Now this doesn't just apply to FT. But allowing HUDs and datamining undermines the integrity of the game in the minds of the casual players, and allows a hyper-predatory decimation of losing players when the emphasis should be on the long-term goal of keeping the games going, instead of focusing on short-term gains that risk the long-term viability of the games. Choose the long-term viability of the game for both your business and the players over short-term gains and desire of some players here to over-fish the waters heedless of its consequences.

3) FT needs to see the many alternatives in these situations, and have several alternative responses to match them, instead of just making it only 2 choices.

This means that it's not just botting or not botting, with "inconclusive" always being a win for the investigated account. As pointed out in the main thread, a mix of botting and regular play to cover same has to be considered.

And it means that there is more than one response to an investigated player. It's not just guilty and funds seized, or innocent/inconclusive and keep on as usual. The third option as noted by others is to say it is inconclusive but doesn't smell right, and return their funds and close their accounts.

4)*Pro-active* means need to be taken to root out botting and collusion.

This means not hiding behind the valid but ass-covering response of "we can't divulge our methods" stuff, and making a public committment to datamining the hand history database to find these things yourself instead of it being on the players mostly as a default. If FT (or any other site) isn't willing to expend some computing and investigating time on such pro-active means, then any statements that they do take botting and collusion seriously are bald-faced lies. Taking seriously = using *effective* means.


Finally I would like to commend FT and Doug and Sean for their ongoing communication with 2+2'ers. I realize it's not always easy and you face lots of tough questions. And that you two aren't the owners and have constraints on what you can say. But a substantive response to the points raised here is necessary for FT's future credibility.

[grando]

FT just lost my 10K MGR

[lemming]

Imo SukitTrebek has pretty much said it all in his post:

[ QUOTE ]
Yikes. We all knew that a non-substantive response was likely, but that was pretty bad after all of what's already transpired. Hopefully, you'll be at least a little more forthcoming in the future.

I wasn't going to post too many details from the emails I traded with FT, but because of this lack of response by FT it seems necessary. I realize you're not going to answer many of these questions but I'll ask anyways.

After I saw the bots reappear and sent an email that read like the end of my OP, your representative replied indicating that there are many different actions that FT can take when an investigation is completed. That if complete guilt can't be shown, restrictions are placed on the accounts or continued monitoring takes place. In your OP, you acted as if the accounts were completely exonerated after a lack of proof was found. You don't have to go into detail about whatever double-secret-probation you placed the accounts on. But please answer directly, did you completely exonerate the accounts or did you take some level of action?

In justifying how the bots were likely human grinders, your rep alluded to how they had a significant chat history. This seems pretty frightening. Can you confirm or deny that this was used as evidence that they weren't bots?

Did you use the fact that most days one tournament was played in addition to the 16 or so cash game tables as proof it wasn't a bot?

Why have I been thanked over and over and over for my help, if I have misunderstood the situation? FTPDoug even thanked me for my vigilance in posting the OP. Seems pretty weird to thank someone who created a firestorm of negative publicity if you believe that they've misunderstood the situation?

In my original email, I offered to help in any way I could, discussing the bots' tendencies or whatever. No one ever took me up on it. Do you think that was a mistake?

Did you come up with an explanation why human grinders would get up from the tables when I logged in? Did you look at timestamps to confirm this did or didn't happen?

In the emails, your rep would refer to the stat picture I sent itself as a piece of evidence. I assumed that upon beginning the investigation you would have created your own versions of the stat pictures with access to all hand histories. Thus you'd have created stat summaries using 300-500k hand samples for each player. Can you please confirm that you have the ability to do this? It won't be giving away any secrets, we all assume (hope) you can.

Hopefully, you'll at least discuss hypotheticals. Hypothetically, if you had concrete proof that players were using a computerized decision making system with humans inputting the actions, was this allowed previously? Is it allowed in the future? Have any policies changed on what players are or are not allowed to do?

Hypothetically, if you were to have hand samples of hundreds of thousand of hands for several players, is there any level of precision with which the convergence of the stats would by itself be enough proof that robotic decision making is being made?

This is just one guy's opinion, but my impression from the emails was that your investigation was indeed less detailed than my OP. It seems that you very likely did think they were bots, but did not have the level of sophistication at poker to prove it (even with access to all kinds of info, hh's, timestamps, whatever). You then placed some kind of vague restriction on the accounts, my post erupted, you realize you've made a mistake, and are now hoping that conclusive proof comes out in the main thread. Thus allowing you to finally reverse your decision and move on. Am I close?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think if we can get (at least partly) satisfactory answers to all these questions, this situation would calm down a great deal...

The question remains, whether you (FTPSean/FTP) are able to and/or are willing to answer all these questions in order for many 2+2 users, frequent player on your site, to calm down. Don't get me wrong on this one, but I doubt you will.

Your turn now...

[morello]

Well I'm certainly glad that you used the last two days to review the situation at hand and provide us with such an informative, detailed post on the issue. Rather than provide some statistical information that may be analyzed independently, you choose to sidestep the issue with vague hand-waving notions of "we can't disclose our methods!" I truly appreciate the hard work you do on this front, and I'm sure that if the issue involved credit card fraud, you would have been just as diligent in finding a solution.

Further, I'm glad to see a company that rakes hundreds of millions of dollars is able to respond in the timely manner of 87 days to the initial poster. Your consistency in this regard is truly outstanding, for it seems like every week I'm reading a post detailing the sheer speed at which FullTiltPoker's customer service is able to respond to inquiries, allegations, and investigations. Your ability in this area is truly at the top of the industry. Why wait to hear Pokerstars tell me something in 2 days when I can get the same reply from FullTilt in 8 weeks? Bravo, customer service at its finest.

A+, will continue to play there again and again.

[William]

FT will never give an answer to those questions because by doing so (in a way we find acceptable) it would admit mistakes on their side.

True story: I know some people that owned a (quite) popular poker site for a few years. Once (that I know of) the site was hacked and many players lost a few dollars each (like 10/20 each). The site knew perfectly well it had been robbed but never admitted nor refunded the stolen money. To them it was more important to say "Your money is 100% safe with us" than being honest and admitting the security breach. It even sent out false account statements to the concerned players. The only thing that was important was not sending out the message that they were not a safe place.

PS. please don't ask the name of the site, I won't tell.

[RikaKazak]

Serious post time:

Anyone who thinks that nlnut isn't using bots is either stupid, ignorant, or doesn't understand poker very well. It's obvious he's using a bot...or his team is using bots. Now, while I concede there may not be enough evidence to warrant seizure of funds, it certianly seems that at least closing their accounts and mailing them a check for the funds is at LEAST the very minimum that should be done.

How can someone seriously argue that those post flop stats are "based off of a secret strategy"...give me a break. Either Full Tilt doesn't care and just wants the rake money, or their fraud team is headed by a bunch of morons. (I highly doubt they'd risk everything by allowing bots, so I'm assuming that their security team is just retarded)

Step it up guys, this level of incompetence is highly unacceptable.