Official Full Tilt Poker Response to Bot Thread - Page 19

noseeds99 · #**181** 05-12-2007, 11:02 AM

Bots or no bots, I will always love you Full Tilt.

codewizard · #**182** 05-12-2007, 11:23 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I have not played on Ful Tilt for about a year or so. I definately would not come back regardless of their decision on this issue.

The reason I stopped playing there was simple ... I could not win there. My BB/100 was something like -2.0 (I have to check My PT datatbase to be sure). I found other sites to be much more advantageous to my play. I really feel that one of the reasons I ran so bad there, and not on other sites, had to do with team play. Aside from this "bot" issue I belive that there is rampant collusion at FT and they either overlook this or simply do not have the tools or manpower to detect and deal with it. So I play elsewhere.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your post would have been shorter and more honest if you had said: "I can't win at FTP, so it must be cheating." The assumption being you are too good to lose in a straight game, and only a rigged game can defeat you.

Sorry I don't buy that. It's easy to blame others for your own bad play. Since you have PT maybe you should examine something meaningful like hands played in what position, and when you played past the point you should have been in the hand. I am guessing those would be painfully enlightening.

Oh! and those nickel and dime games can be pretty rough! Yea that's another area you might look at, the level you are playing at.

NoahSD · #**183** 05-12-2007, 11:50 AM

Not gonna read this giant thread, so maybe this has been mentioned already.

The biggest mistake FT made here was not finding these guys themselves (who clearly were suspicious enough to warrant an investigation). I mean... it's not the player's job to police this [censored], and FT has way more information than players do (or at least it should) to prevent this.

Basically, FT's security department has repeatedly shown everybody what a joke it is. God I hope this [censored] gets regulated soon.

Skallagrim · #**184** 05-12-2007, 01:07 PM

I think there is a consensus building here, and I think it begs for another FTP response, maybe a response from the whole industry:

1) These guys were not bots, or using bots in a manner that violates the T&C.
2) The level of consistency and coordination shown by these guys is unprecedented - calling them "human bots" seems appropriate.
3) There is nothing wrong with an individual playing a system by rote.
4) And there may well be nothing wrong or unethical about having a bunch of folks together playing the same system by rote (and/or aided by computer scripts to one degere or another).
5) But is that good for the game?

There is a reason live play mandates no computer assistance and one player per hand. The reason is to keep the "fish" playing. Amatuers and wannabes will not readily sit down and play against a bunch of people sitting with computer aids and a system and all helping each other stick to the system. Even good players and pros dont want to play against these types without knowing that that is what they are doing so they can respond accordingly....

I say, therefore, FIRST, stop picking on FTP and these guys. Whats done is done and no rules were clearly broken.

SECOND, lets start discussing WHAT THE RULES SHOULD BE.

If FTP (and the other sites) are going to allow folks to play in this manner, we all have to realize that once word gets out to the fish they will be afraid to play and online poker will become a battle of the systems, for the most part.

If we are not going to go that way, then we must come up with some enforceable rules that prevent this from occurring.

As a first thought, just how bad would it be to rule that folks cannot play simultaneously from the same IP? Or maybe make that a general rule and allow appropriate exceptions with proper documentation that precludes "sweatshops."

In sum, I agree its time to stop beating the dead horse and let these guys alone, but I dont agree that letting this style of play occur freely is good for the game at all.

Skallagrim

Adde · #**185** 05-12-2007, 02:21 PM

I'll throw in my support for that opinion too.

I don't think they are bots. I don't think they are using any automated software. I don't think they have done anything wrong. I don't think the numbers are that sensational.

I do think they got themselves lost somewhere in trying to explain, making it more suspicious than it is.

Also, the spin-doctorism [that should be a word!] used by some people are ridiculous; the suspiciously clean workspace for instance.

Adde

neverforgetlol · #**186** 05-12-2007, 02:25 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think the numbers are that sensational.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can only people that understand statistics try to make claims about whether the numbers comparison is meaningful or not? It's embarrassing.

Reef · #**187** 05-12-2007, 02:30 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't think the numbers are that sensational.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can only people that understand statistics try to make claims about whether the numbers comparison is meaningful or not? It's embarrassing.

[/ QUOTE ]

QFT

[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] stars

Adde · #**188** 05-12-2007, 02:33 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't think the numbers are that sensational.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can only people that understand statistics try to make claims about whether the numbers comparison is meaningful or not? It's embarrassing.

[/ QUOTE ]

It doesn't matter if I say how much statistics I've studied in my life (none or some or much), you will still say the same thing.

I don't think it's sensational for several people to play a simple strategy and get that close numbers.

Adde

neverforgetlol · #**189** 05-12-2007, 03:43 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't think the numbers are that sensational.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can only people that understand statistics try to make claims about whether the numbers comparison is meaningful or not? It's embarrassing.

[/ QUOTE ]

It doesn't matter if I say how much statistics I've studied in my life (none or some or much), you will still say the same thing.

I don't think it's sensational for several people to play a simple strategy and get that close numbers.

Adde

[/ QUOTE ]

It absolutely does matter, because we can test for statistically significant difference based on the data given and sample size. It's not like I just looked at the numbers and said "oh boy those look close enough, I guess they must be bots!" Apparently your judgment, however, was doing just that, looking at the numbers and coming to a conclusion that has absolutely no support behind it.

The chances 4 people could play on their own and get numbers that close, over that large of a sample is close to impossible.

cardcounter0 · #**190** 05-12-2007, 03:44 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think it's sensational for several people to play a simple strategy and get that close numbers.

[/ QUOTE ]

Some people "think" that AA vs KK gets dealt too often online. Luckily we don't have to "think" about distributions or chance or how close things are. There is a mathematical science to guide us.