Fulltilt froze my account with 47 grand in it

[gehrig]

from those screens i just posted the most curious stat is the check flop after pre flop raise stat. checking 12% is very uncommon

[jukofyork]

[ QUOTE ]
Glad you weighed in here Juk.

And this is exactly my point - under the current status-quo, these realtime advisory apps *are* allowed.

I do nnot believe this is a good thing - for reasons you state - but I believe it is key to these cases.

If there is a chance you can have your funds confiscated / account closed for using these - it must be made clear.

If it is fine to use these sort of programs - well, FTP better have much more significant evidence than "similar stats".

Where the line is drawn is currently very unclear, it must be addressed.

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree - If the sites are clearly allowing any type of realtime advisor application (even the output from a pseudo-optimal LHE HU bot) then stats are not in anyway helpful in deciding if a player is using automated software or not.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

but was surprised at the level of apathy and the number of people who seem to think it's fine to use poker AI so long as "you click the buttons yourself".


[/ QUOTE ]

This is an interesting field. Particularly for games which may be prety much "solved" with current hardware (SNGs, HU Limit, Shortstack NLHE)

Are we to really consider that the primary problem with bots is their expert play? Why not therefore punish winners?

This is probably a subject for a different thread, lol [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]
I bumped my old thread to see if it sparks any new discussion about this.

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

[Leader]

[ QUOTE ]
Leader your point falls down when you consider the two people have likely been playing a different cross section of people.

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe I pointed that out in the OP. However, no one knows the nature of that variation or how much effect it has. The point of the stats is that it shows that these players are the same. I think most people that understand how these stats converge would be uncomfortable with that conclusion. That is not to say it necessarily shows the opposite because of the number of factors that effect the variation.

[gehrig]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Pokergirl z
Pre-flop played %
65

grego777
Pre-flop played %
66

Daurgman
Pre-flop played %
68

[/ QUOTE ]

It's very unlikely that these stats in particular came from the same player/bot. If the player's true stat is 65, then after 62K hands they will be within that ~.4 of the 65 95% of the time. It's about a one in ten million event that this player would have a 66 stat. It's virtually impossible for the stat to be 68 over the samples discussed. Of course, this type of analysis assumes things that may not be true such as static game conditions/inability of the bot to adjust. It also assumes that MH or FT didn't round 65.4 to 65 and 65.6 to 66. Even so, I felt it necessary to point out that appearances here maybe deceiving and that it's possible to draw the opposite conclusion from the data then is obvious from just looking at it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Leader,

It seems as if this new batch of bots learned from their old mistakes and are taking precautions. It's well known now that the sites (and many concerned players too) are making stat comparisons as a way of identifying potential bots.

It would be very easy to make the bot configurable so that stats don't converge exactly, even though the underlying logic is essentially the same. Think, for example, of making small adjustments to stealing and defending ranges that will have very little impact on your bottom line.

[/ QUOTE ]
theres three groups of players

1) the old school bots which were really obvious to spot and all got banned a long time ago except daurgman
2) the new bots which are trickier to find and seem to play a little different from the old bots
3) the accounts used by the bot maker/buyer who is a competant but not very good player.

i dont think the bots ever ran on the third group

theres a stat profile for each group and all the accused accounts fit in smugly into one of the three. pretty much nobody else has a stat profile that looks much like those three

[Leader]

[ QUOTE ]
It's very unlikely that these stats in particular came from the same player/bot.

[/ QUOTE ]

This was a bad way of putting what I meant here. These players could easily be the same person. The stats posted by MH however are not good evidence of this.

[gehrig]

[/IMG]



rooster, daurgman and cenizo have never played each other in my database. two of them have played me and i'm the best, and the one that hasn't has played other big winners.

man this is easy, i haven't even bothered to look in my database the last couple months for more bots

[crystalallen]

[ 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...

[jukofyork]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Pokergirl z
Pre-flop played %
65

grego777
Pre-flop played %
66

Daurgman
Pre-flop played %
68

[/ QUOTE ]

It's very unlikely that these stats in particular came from the same player/bot. If the player's true stat is 65, then after 62K hands they will be within that ~.4 of the 65 95% of the time. It's about a one in ten million event that this player would have a 66 stat. It's virtually impossible for the stat to be 68 over the samples discussed. Of course, this type of analysis assumes things that may not be true such as static game conditions/inability of the bot to adjust. It also assumes that MH or FT didn't round 65.4 to 65 and 65.6 to 66. Even so, I felt it necessary to point out that appearances here maybe deceiving and that it's possible to draw the opposite conclusion from the data then is obvious from just looking at it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Leader,

It seems as if this new batch of bots learned from their old mistakes and are taking precautions. It's well known now that the sites (and many concerned players too) are making stat comparisons as a way of identifying potential bots.

It would be very easy to make the bot configurable so that stats don't converge exactly, even though the underlying logic is essentially the same. Think, for example, of making small adjustments to stealing and defending ranges that will have very little impact on your bottom line.

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree with this. Just looking at PokerAcademy's "Sparbot" it's obvious how this could be accomplished. Basically they created two different "Sparbots":

a) The first "Sparbot" has no preference for choosing a fold, call or raise action in any given state.

b) The second "Sparbot" uses the idea that humans tend to make the most mistakes when faced with aggressive play so if both a call and a raise action have the same EV, then it will always choose the raise, etc.

The two models play quite differently, yet both are still approximating the NE solution and I guess would have quite different stats. You can then combine the mixed F/C/R output (ie: probability triples) of the two systems using a weighted average (eg: 30% SparbotA + 70% SparbotB) to create all sorts of different "hybrid" bots.

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

[gaming_mouse]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's very unlikely that these stats in particular came from the same player/bot.

[/ QUOTE ]

This was a bad way of putting what I meant here. These players could easily be the same person. The stats posted by MH however are not good evidence of this.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, obviously that evidence alone is not good at all. It is suggestive though and I am sure used by FTP only as a starting point to determine accounts that need further examination. That's my guess anyway.

[_dave_]

[ 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.