Fulltilt froze my account with 47 grand in it

[gaming_mouse]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Is rakeback such a benefit that people would play on such a shady site over earning FPPs at Stars?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes? I'm about to deposit at either Stars or Full Tilt and I really was leaning toward FT because of the rakeback. FPP?? I don't want anything out of some online store. I want cash.

Anyway, now I don't know what to do...

[/ QUOTE ]

You can buy cash from the FPP store.

[/ QUOTE ]

You know offhand what percent rakeback the cash rewards would turn out to be? My guess is not very high but I'm not sure.

[Jeffage]

You can? Link?

Jeff

[Leader]

nm

[MicroBob]

Should this be taken to some Stars thread instead?
We're still talking about sillysal and bots and FT's professionalism and stuff like that.

[gaming_mouse]

[ QUOTE ]
You can? Link?

Jeff

[/ QUOTE ]

http://www.pokerstars.com/vip/gold/fpp/

For example, 25K FPP = $285

[_dave_]

[ QUOTE ]

You know offhand what percent rakeback the cash rewards would turn out to be? My guess is not very high but I'm not sure


[/ QUOTE ]

Depends on what games you play. there are many threads in this forum debating the % values. Generally between 20%-40% for a reasonably high volume player (after attaining SuperNova status). Potentially >100% if you believe OnlinePro and play 1/2 FR limit games.

[ QUOTE ]

You can? Link?


[/ QUOTE ]
http://www.pokerstars.com/fpp/store/...l/vip-bonus-1/

[jukofyork]

I just found the post explaining how this was accomplished (see here):

[ QUOTE ]
Some questions about Sparbot were raised in another forum,
regarding the aggressiveness settings, and about occasional
bizarre plays by the bot. Here is the reply I posted.

...<mike@a...> wrote:
>
> Sparbot has an aggression bar you can set.
>
> Am I to assume that no matter how you set this aggression bar
> (e.g. either most passive setting, or most aggressive setting),
> it's "objective EV" will be the same (or very very close)?
>
> something tells me the answer is no, because:
>
> I ran a ~25,500 hand simulation of Sparbot (i.e. the bot at the most
> passive setting) vs. Sparbot2 (its aggression bar is approximately
> 66% of the most aggressive you can set it to). The results were
> alarming. Sparbot ended up winning 0.102 sb/hand! Not only that,
> it achieved +EV even when it was in the BB (i.e. out of position)!
>
> Anyone care to explain? Aaron? Darse?


When the linear programming (LP) solutions were computed,
they had the same objective EV. However, the resulting strategy
is only a crude approximation of an equilibrium strategy, and
a good player can find serious flaws and exploit them.

The aggressive solution takes more risks, and is thus more
vulnerable to being soundly beaten. It turns out that when
they play against each other, the more passive Sparbot (the
original version) is well-suited to exploiting the errors of its
cousin. However, the more aggressive version is much more
appropriate against the vast majority of human opponents.

The difference isn't as large as your results suggested, but
yes, one bot does beat the other. One data point against
one particular opponent is neither here nor there.

There are also small residual probabilities of making some
bizarre actions, due to numerical stability issues in the LP
solution. The mixed strategies in certain situations might
have a 0.001% chance of calling with an extremely weak
hand, or of folding a very strong one. The more aggressive
solution had more of these problems than the original, but
we never took the time to clean up the solutions after the
fact, since it has only a slight effect on the bottom line.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Sparbot2 was solved to have the same objective EV as Sparbot1 in the abstract game that we use as a model for real poker (with the additional constraints that it is more aggressive). Since there is a mapping procedure from the abstract game to the real game of Hold'em it is hard to know which one is closer to optimal in terms of the real game (the game that they actually play and that you play against them).

[/ QUOTE ]

Juk [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[crystalallen]

[ QUOTE ]
Should this be taken to some Stars thread instead?
We're still talking about sillysal and bots and FT's professionalism and stuff like that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry. I just stumbled on this thread. I haven't read it all but I went from: Wow this poor poster, FT's taking all her money, maybe I shouldn't sign up with them. to Hey maybe she's a cheater. Good job FT.
Now I'm back to Poor poster. This really really looks like a witch hunt.

[toutatis70]

I'm glad the bot statistic trolls have shown up to analyze some of this stuff, cause it appears neither party has given us enough evidence so far.

[_dave_]

[ QUOTE ]

Should this be taken to some Stars thread instead?


[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed Bob. I feel a strange compulsion to inform those that think there is "no rakeback" on Stars [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Where is Sillysal ?????

Where is FTP ?????

Do we have anything other than similar stats? is the use of advisory application OK unless you actually win?