NL Bots on Full Tilt

[Alobar]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Also, regarding the timeouts.

They would occasionally timeout in places most people wouldn't, like in a hu pot. The other player would donk the river or something, and it would think and think, then timeout. (And often immediately get up from the table)

I can't remember once them timing out in the more traditional manner where there is a five way pot, they have nothing, got sidetracked on a different table, and forgot to hit check/fold.

IMHO, FT should be able to run through their thousands of hands and find that they timed out way way less than other players who play 6-8 tables.

[/ QUOTE ]

This piece of evidence is meaningless. Why would a bot not act?

[/ QUOTE ]

seriously, if anything its more proof they arent a bot.

[Our House]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Also, regarding the timeouts.

They would occasionally timeout in places most people wouldn't, like in a hu pot. The other player would donk the river or something, and it would think and think, then timeout. (And often immediately get up from the table)

I can't remember once them timing out in the more traditional manner where there is a five way pot, they have nothing, got sidetracked on a different table, and forgot to hit check/fold.

IMHO, FT should be able to run through their thousands of hands and find that they timed out way way less than other players who play 6-8 tables.

[/ QUOTE ]

This piece of evidence is meaningless. Why would a bot not act?

[/ QUOTE ]

seriously, if anything its more proof they arent a bot.

[/ QUOTE ]
I guess you guys missed the part of the theory that talked about how humans sometimes took over during bot play.

[DWarrior]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Also, regarding the timeouts.

They would occasionally timeout in places most people wouldn't, like in a hu pot. The other player would donk the river or something, and it would think and think, then timeout. (And often immediately get up from the table)

I can't remember once them timing out in the more traditional manner where there is a five way pot, they have nothing, got sidetracked on a different table, and forgot to hit check/fold.

IMHO, FT should be able to run through their thousands of hands and find that they timed out way way less than other players who play 6-8 tables.

[/ QUOTE ]

This piece of evidence is meaningless. Why would a bot not act?

[/ QUOTE ]

seriously, if anything its more proof they arent a bot.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, *obviously* the players take over sometimes.

[DWarrior]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Also, regarding the timeouts.

They would occasionally timeout in places most people wouldn't, like in a hu pot. The other player would donk the river or something, and it would think and think, then timeout. (And often immediately get up from the table)

I can't remember once them timing out in the more traditional manner where there is a five way pot, they have nothing, got sidetracked on a different table, and forgot to hit check/fold.

IMHO, FT should be able to run through their thousands of hands and find that they timed out way way less than other players who play 6-8 tables.

[/ QUOTE ]

This piece of evidence is meaningless. Why would a bot not act?

[/ QUOTE ]

seriously, if anything its more proof they arent a bot.

[/ QUOTE ]
I guess you guys missed the part of the theory that talked about how humans sometimes took over during bot play.

[/ QUOTE ]

See, this is precisely the reasoning that keeps repeating over and over and over in this thread. You guys bring up extremely shaky evidence and evidence that contradicts your argument. When that gets disproved, you guys use the "well, sometimes" excuse to lay that to rest. Then you bring it up 3 pages later.

I think this thread should be locked now, obviously everybody else is locked into their opinions by now.

Nothing these guys say can ever prove them right, if they start announcing their strategy I really don't see how that will have any effect on any side of the argument.

When statistical evidence shows they aren't using the same strategy, it's dismissed because of changing conditions. When it matches, it's obvious proof (even though this is even more affected by changing table dynamics, etc, and could easily be the result of chance as well).

Then we have the guys who keep saying these guys are changing stories "a million times", when this couldn't be farther from the truth.

FTP did an investigation, but what does FTP know?

A mod says they didn't do it, obviously the mod sucks, lynch him.

Anyone whose opinions differ from your own is an idiot.

etc, etc, etc.

EDIT: oh yeah, and now the whole world will hear about from newspapers. That will certainly accomplish a lot and will shed a lot of light on this investigation.

[morphball]

[ 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 ]

LOL - the 100K hands on each of you already tells us a lot about your "system"; but you cannot explain how all these "humans" apply it so consistently.

[teddyFBI]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Also, regarding the timeouts.

They would occasionally timeout in places most people wouldn't, like in a hu pot. The other player would donk the river or something, and it would think and think, then timeout. (And often immediately get up from the table)

I can't remember once them timing out in the more traditional manner where there is a five way pot, they have nothing, got sidetracked on a different table, and forgot to hit check/fold.

IMHO, FT should be able to run through their thousands of hands and find that they timed out way way less than other players who play 6-8 tables.

[/ QUOTE ]

This piece of evidence is meaningless. Why would a bot not act?

[/ QUOTE ]

seriously, if anything its more proof they arent a bot.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, *obviously* the players take over sometimes.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, here's what we've got: the NLnut sweatshoppers, in conjunction with the Nation saucer people, under the supervision of Brandon Joseph's reverse vampires are forcing our parents to go to bed early in a fiendish plot to eliminate the meal of dinner. We're through the looking glass, here, people...

[brendanb438]

and




Oh noooooessssssssss!!! Robot's be procreating. This is only gonna get worstestesterss...

-Brendan

[ShaneP]

[ QUOTE ]


When statistical evidence shows they aren't using the same strategy, it's dismissed because the statistical tests were done incorrectly

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP

(always wanted to do a FYP [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] )

As a further note, I don't know why it's that important...their cover story (if they were botting) is that they tried to play exactly the same, so showing they're playing exactly the same isn't really contradicting something.

But, there is no correct and valid statistical evidence showing they're playing differently from each other.

[DWarrior]

OK, for people seriously following this argument:

Here is my thought on the convergence of late-street stats. I think we can safely dismiss 100% botting across all accounts because as others have said, these players time out, which is evidence that at lest some of the time humans are playing.

I also agree that it is very tough for 3 human players to have stats that match so closely. One person even said this is difficult for one player over 3 DBs.

Additionally, we agreed that changing table conditions increase the variance of player stats. I think we can also agree that the variance of late-street stats is influenced a lot more by table conditions than pre-flop stats.

Also, we can be fairly sure that this is multiple players, playing one person per account. If this is not true, then the only violation is one player multi-accounting (since he's never playing on the same table, I don't see how this is unethical, albeit it violates FTP's rules)

Now, if we agree that human players play at least some of the time, and we also agree that it is impossible for 3 players to have stats that converge. How is it that all these stats look so identical? If these players do, indeed, play on these accounts, then there should be variation in these stats because different people are playing at least some of the time, and the variance of late-street stats is high.

This does not seem to fit together.

On a side note, if these players do, in fact, discuss late-street decisions together before making them, do you see why their stats would have a much higher likelihood of convergence?

[WordWhiz]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Also, regarding the timeouts.

They would occasionally timeout in places most people wouldn't, like in a hu pot. The other player would donk the river or something, and it would think and think, then timeout. (And often immediately get up from the table)

I can't remember once them timing out in the more traditional manner where there is a five way pot, they have nothing, got sidetracked on a different table, and forgot to hit check/fold.

IMHO, FT should be able to run through their thousands of hands and find that they timed out way way less than other players who play 6-8 tables.

[/ QUOTE ]

This piece of evidence is meaningless. Why would a bot not act?

[/ QUOTE ]

seriously, if anything its more proof they arent a bot.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, *obviously* the players take over sometimes.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, here's what we've got: the NLnut sweatshoppers, in conjunction with the Nation saucer people, under the supervision of Brandon Joseph's reverse vampires are forcing our parents to go to bed early in a fiendish plot to eliminate the meal of dinner. We're through the looking glass, here, people...



[/ QUOTE ]

"Remember the time he ate my goldfish, and you lied to me and said I never had any goldfish? Then why did I have the bowl Bart? Why did I have the bowl?"