NL Bots on Full Tilt

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
what part of it being a "system" don't you undestand. We created it together, and studied it together. And then we try to give each other advice during our sessions...all of this will create identical numbers...and all of this is allowed by FTP T&C

[/ QUOTE ]


DOESN'T EXPLAIN POST-FLOP. ANSWER THE [censored] QUESTION ADDRESSED TO YOU EARLIER ON THIS!

[/ QUOTE ]

I will not discuss post flop strategy for obvious reasons. You are asking me to tell you how we play. That will never happen

[/ QUOTE ]


Another nice dodge. I am only asking how you can account for identical post-flop play when the number of total situations is greater by orders of magnitude than just pre-flop ones. Of course it serves your case better not to give an obvious lie and just refuse to answer.

[nlnut]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
what part of it being a "system" don't you undestand. We created it together, and studied it together. And then we try to give each other advice during our sessions...all of this will create identical numbers...and all of this is allowed by FTP T&C

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm obviously not nearly as smart as you guys, but I'm always willing to learn. Could you please elaborate on the post-flop part of your shared strategy that seems to have nothing to do with the actual cards on the board, the number of players in the pot or the pre-flop actions of the players?

[/ QUOTE ] We can not and will not discuss our strategy. Would you tell your possible opponents your strategy????

[ianisakson]

[ QUOTE ]
So you guys have a "staking agreement" where each of you gets told exactly how to play by "The System" on your yellow notepad, and have identical stats on everything over 100k+ hand samples, while the sweatshop owner helps with big decisions, with your preflop folding "scripts" (basically a bot, not a human controlling preflop), and you honestly believe nothing is wrong with this?

If this is allowed, online poker is on its way to being over as we know it.

[/ QUOTE ]

this is what i'm saying, I don't think it's fair for someone to write this system "program" that I have x amount of people "bots" playing while I stand over their shoulder and watch. they way you guys are set up you might as well be bots because you're definately not playing poker, you're following some system in which requires 0 thought and could just as easily done by robots.

[Fat Nicky]

triumph, you have made this thread infinitely better.

[IRuleYouHard]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
(sigma) = squareroot( (sumation((x-change of x)squared) divided by n-1

[/ QUOTE ]
I have no idea what I am talking about... I was just excited to use that formula [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you explain what (x-change of x) means? It sounds like the formula for standard deviation, except n-1 should also be square rooted.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes you are correct.. that is hard to type on the innanets.
x is the mean of all the data and the change of x would be how far from the mean it is. so you take for each point of data the distance from the mean and square it... then add all those up.
divide by 1 less than the number of data points you have.
take square root of that for sigma (standard deviation)

[cwar]

I would feel infinitely better if nation were to admit that given the information in this thread we at the very *minimum* have a right to be suspicious about the situation. Furthermore I think BluffThis is doing a fine job, you may disagree with it or dislike him personally nation but if you focus on this you are doing your friends a disservice in proving their innocence because as I said before as a community we have the *right* to be suspicious about this situation.

[warlock]

Introductory Computer Science courses will sometimes make you run a simple program by hand. Which is to say, instead of compiling and running it on the computer, you go through with a pencil, work through each line of code, update the variables accordingly, and then eventually check the result you got by hand is the same the computer spews out.

A poker bot is just a program, a set of instructions to execute based on input data. If a human follows the exact same set of instructions, with the same perfect accuracy as the bot, then i guess it does create something of an existential problem, as described by this thread. It would also be relatively easy (using the same techniques you use in programming in fact), to organise a play book to support this activity, and the end result should, theoretically at least, be identical to what the bot itself would do.

However, OP's other evidence on the play timing, etc. is pretty daming in and of itself.

[VanVeen]

bluff,

no, i'm not. if they simply ignore those variables their post-flop stats will converge at a much faster rate.

what we know is true:
a) all four players are using the same strategy;
b) that strategy is relatively simple.

we don't know anything else. in fact, we cannot know anything else.

[KotOD]

[ QUOTE ]
Chuck,

With very very extensive history between us, why did you let me keep reraising you for weeks without taking a stand?.....

I will not discuss our strategy/reasoning for obvious reasons

[/ QUOTE ]

el

oh

el

[DWarrior]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Dwarrior, this just takes into account VPIP. I think the more relevent information here is the astounding similarities between every single stat (vpip being one of the least complex).

[/ QUOTE ]

But VPIP is the one that has the biggest sample size, and one most susceptible to botting, won't you agree? There were 3 theories being thrown: 1) two players just learning together 2) player using bots for PF and then taking over post-flop 3) bot playing almost exclusively with the player only jumping in in rare situations. Only #2 and #3 are illegal and involve botting, and the VPIP in both of these situations would be 100% determined by the bot pre-flop.

My test proves, with almost 99% certainty, that the VPIP of the four accounts in question was not the same, meaning that they did not have the bot playing them. Once you disprove this, doesn't the whole botting argument fall apart?

[/ QUOTE ]


The onus is on you to prove that VPIP is both necessary *and* sufficient along to prove/disprove botting, and thus that there aren't one or more stats which are more indicative.

[/ QUOTE ]

The reasoning is pretty straight forward. Decisions affecting VPIP are the most frequent decisions in poker (so there is an obvious benefit in automating them). They are also the most mechanical and thus easiest to program, hence the existence of post-flop charts.

Post-flop decisions are most likely to be human-made and are hardest to program successfully because of the many variables involved. Hence the lack of post-flop charts.