Mr. Gatorade’s Lies cost me over 70k at Full Tilt

[WarmonkEd]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I haven't read the last 100 or so posts in this thread, but I support *some* sort of habeus corpus,

[/ QUOTE ]

That word doesn't mean what you think it means - you are looking for "due process"

Habeas is to get your body (corpus) out of jail.

[/ QUOTE ]

lololol. awesome. just awesome.

[Josem]

[ QUOTE ]
Do you think if a Vegas casino thought you were cheating they would let you walk out and say thanks, please don't come back, thanks so much?

Your chips would be siezed and your tapes sent to Nevada Gaming Commission. Theonly differrence here is that there is no governing body to do the investigations.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's a pretty big difference - in fact, that difference is the whole point of this thread.

FTP should take action against accused bot users, and other accused cheaters. At the same time, it should be possible for the accused to defend themselves.

There appears to be no way that the OP can possibly prove his innocence.

[StellarWind]

[ QUOTE ]
There appears to be no way that the OP can possibly prove his innocence.

[/ QUOTE ]
It's looking more and more like there is a very good reason for that [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img].

[ QUOTE ]
At the same time, it should be possible for the accused to defend themselves.

[/ QUOTE ]
A lot of people in this thread seem to agree with you. FTP should do "something" to give OP a fair chance to defend herself. Very few of them are willing to explain exactly what that something should be.

Gildwulf has made it clear enough that FTP has something really damning. Something that if true would end the argument immediately. Unless the OP can refute this evidence she has no chance.

The only possible way to give OP a fair chance or any chance at all is to disclose this evidence to her in detail. Otherwise there is no possible way she can make a convincing case. After all, if she could prove her innocence without seeing the evidence she would have done so by now. Certainly she has written plenty of emails and posts trying.

Let's try on some samples just to get the feel of what useful disclosure means:

1. We found the bot running on your computer. [And we will not discuss how we bypassed the expensive commercial security software we both know you are running. It's a good product and you should keep using it.]

2. We have a database of betting patterns for over 1000 good players. The six of you are almost exactly alike in 35 different points of comparison. No one else is even remotely similar.

3. All six of you always time out and fold when you river a straight flush.

4. All six of you "good Americans" who "don't know each other" use SpeedyPayments online wallet and regularly access their web site from the same IP address in Kazakhstan. [We swear Speedy didn't snitch on you!]

5. One night after we suspected you we sabotaged your system's window manager. You kept playing flawless poker for 15 minutes even though you couldn't possibly see the table.

Getting the picture? This is what disclosure means. None of these charges could be explained or refuted without FTP disclosing the evidence. This is what you are really asking for when you say FTP should give OP a chance to defend herself.

Do you really believe that due process is so important here that FTP should compromise this type of information and expose itself to the next wave of bots? If so I respect your position but I totally disagree with it. I'm not willing to give the botters the keys to the gates on the remote chance that OP is falsely accused and can prove it. Your way will cost honest players much more than my way. You are just spreading it around differently.

For the rest of you who keep saying "something" should be done to give her due process without damaging disclosure, my answer is put up or shut up. Come up with something truly meaningful that FTP could safely do that would give her a real chance to prove her innocence.

Otherwise quit the intellectual dishonesty, stop demanding to have it both ways, and pick a side.

[Josem]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There appears to be no way that the OP can possibly prove his innocence.

[/ QUOTE ]
It's looking more and more like there is a very good reason for that [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img].

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps that's true. I don't know.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
At the same time, it should be possible for the accused to defend themselves.

[/ QUOTE ]
A lot of people in this thread seem to agree with you. FTP should do "something" to give OP a fair chance to defend herself. Very few of them are willing to explain exactly what that something should be.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here are two ideas in 10 seconds of consideration:

1) Employ a retired US judge who is attracted by the idea of spending their latter years in the Caribbean, and get him to judge this (a large number of western-Pacific Islands use this for their criminal legal system, using Australian & New Zealand judges)

2) Establish an independent, expert, "bot judging authority", possibly in conjunction with other sites. Have seven directors - Three nominated by poker sites, three nominated by players*, and an independent chair approved by six other directors.

[ QUOTE ]
Gildwulf has made it clear enough that FTP has something really damning. Something that if true would end the argument immediately. Unless the OP can refute this evidence she has no chance.

[/ QUOTE ]

But OP can't refute evidence if OP doesn't know what the evidence is!

However, even Gildwulf's role in this gives me (and, judging by the comments in this thread, some others) a little confidence. He adds value because he is perceived as independent. Formalising this process would add further value to both players and sites.

[ QUOTE ]
The only possible way to give OP a fair chance or any chance at all is to disclose this evidence to her in detail. Otherwise there is no possible way she can make a convincing case. After all, if she could prove her innocence without seeing the evidence she would have done so by now. Certainly she has written plenty of emails and posts trying.

[/ QUOTE ]

Correct.

[ QUOTE ]
Let's try on some samples just to get the feel of what useful disclosure means:

1. We found the bot running on your computer. [And we will not discuss how we bypassed the expensive commercial security software we both know you are running. It's a good product and you should keep using it.]

[/ QUOTE ]
OK. Presumably, the bot is found by recognising a particular pattern of programming in a particular code.

It is feasible that another, non-bot, program shares this code. OP could then simply provide a copy of that software to verify this.

[ QUOTE ]
2. We have a database of betting patterns for over 1000 good players. The six of you are almost exactly alike in 35 different points of comparison. No one else is even remotely similar.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK. So say this... and have it considered by an independent "judge"

[ QUOTE ]
3. All six of you always time out and fold when you river a straight flush.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK. So say this... and have it considered by an independent "judge"

[ QUOTE ]
4. All six of you "good Americans" who "don't know each other" use SpeedyPayments online wallet and regularly access their web site from the same IP address in Kazakhstan. [We swear Speedy didn't snitch on you!]

[/ QUOTE ]

Knowing each other (or having other connections to other players) is not illegitimate. More substantially, there are a number of people who access sites using unsual methods (most obviously in the case of PartyPoker, I have "heard" of Americans who use a VPN in Canada to access the site) of accessing poker sites, possibly for their own security purposes, or to bypass corporate security services etc.

[ QUOTE ]
5. One night after we suspected you we sabotaged your system's window manager. You kept playing flawless poker for 15 minutes even though you couldn't possibly see the table.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your sabotage didn't work because I have a custom hack on the Windows UI because I have difficulty with my eyesight. Thus, your hack didn't work.

[ QUOTE ]
Getting the picture? This is what disclosure means. None of these charges could be explained or refuted without FTP disclosing the evidence. This is what you are really asking for when you say FTP should give OP a chance to defend herself.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I agree with this.

[ QUOTE ]
Do you really believe that due process is so important here that FTP should compromise this type of information and expose itself to the next wave of bots? If so I respect your position but I totally disagree with it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I do believe that due process is important here, and respect your disagreement. You obviously think carefully about the issue, and your logic is top notch. We just value different things differently - I value due process and clearing innocently people more highly than catching bots. It's perfectly valid to value bot catching more highly.

Most people in the world value live in criminal systems based upon similar lines of guilty until proven innocent. They have values different to mine. I'm not sufficiently confident in my own moral judgement to be able to impose it upon others in most cases.


However, one opportunity to find a compromise is by having a trusted, independent, third party consider the evidence. I feel while this would not be "perfect" to either party, it would be a significant improvement.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not willing to give the botters the keys to the gates on the remote chance that OP is falsely accused and can prove it. Your way will cost honest players much more than my way. You are just spreading it around differently.

[/ QUOTE ]
That's possible - however, we'll never know the cost on innocent players of the current method as there is no independent verification or publication of the numbers of people caught using current processes and systems.

[ QUOTE ]
For the rest of you who keep saying "something" should be done to give her due process without damaging disclosure, my answer is put up or shut up. Come up with something truly meaningful that FTP could safely do that would give her a real chance to prove her innocence.

Otherwise quit the intellectual dishonesty, stop demanding to have it both ways, and pick a side.

[/ QUOTE ]

I suspect that either of the options listed above are possible compromises. Sites currently pay $x,000 per annum for Kahnawake Gaming Commission "certification." Instead of throwing that money down the tube for that [censored] organisation, invest it in giving players certainty.

I suspect that a genuinely fair disputes process would give players greater confidence in a site, and increase trust in the brand.

A reliable-looking** site did a survey of why older people don't gamble online. their reasons:
1) It is illegal (which sites can't really do anything about)
2) Moral or ethical concerns (which sites can't really do anything about)
3) No trust in the site (which sites can do something about)
4) Because it is not sociable (which sites can do something about, which I'll address later on)

So, to reasonably extrapolate this further, the biggest factor for customers to not gamble online that sites control is a lack of faith and trust in the site to be operated fairly.

It would seem self-evident to me as a business operator that, if the sites are treating customers fairly, they should do everything they can to prove it. Thus, I suspect that it would actually be financially rewarding to sites to do this.


Also, it was noted that some players don't gamble online because they don't see it as "sociable." One obvious solution is to use webcams and microphones to see/communicate with other players. Clearly, this would also be a nice marketing gimmick, and add an extra hurdle for bots to overcome.

*perhaps one of the directors nominated by 2p2, one nominated by P5s, one nominated by Cardplayer, if selection is a problem. this is just an idea/example without a great deal of thought. i'm confident that the brightest brains on the internet in BBV could find a better system than the site operators.

**it is connected to "drexler university." i don't know anything about drexler university, but it seems like an odd "con job" to run.

[sethypooh21]

SW and Josem win this thread, those are excellent presentations of both sides of the argument, though I would add that there's an empirical element that we just don't know - how big a problem in terms of quantity are bots? As I mentioned upthread, the problem with maximal security measures if the magnitude of the problem is very small is that we get lots of false positives, if bots are a a more significant percentage of players, the the utility of more stringent measures increases.

[Bobo Fett]

[ QUOTE ]
SW and Josem win this thread, those are excellent presentations of both sides of the argument

[/ QUOTE ]
Agreed. Seems like we're not going to get any further on this. I tend towards Josem's viewpoint, but SW makes some Stellar (pun intended) points as well. Of course, not knowing what the actual evidence is, we'll never know whether it's reasonable to expect them to provide the "accused" with said evidence.

[Apanage]

[ QUOTE ]
SW and Josem win this thread, those are excellent presentations of both sides of the argument,

[/ QUOTE ]

Yet it is so obvious that one of them is right.
A person is always innocent until proven guilty. And you can´t confiscate 70 000 dollars from someone without showing them evidence and give them a chance to prove that they are innocent.
If BeatMe1 wasn´t an american and went to court there is no way that Full Tilt could get away with this without presenting the evidence.
If we got 50 new bots playing perfectly as a result of that evidence being shown so be it.

[NFuego20]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
SW and Josem win this thread, those are excellent presentations of both sides of the argument,

[/ QUOTE ]

Yet it is so obvious that one of them is right.
A person is always innocent until proven guilty. And you can´t confiscate 70 000 dollars from someone without showing them evidence and give them a chance to prove that they are innocent.
If BeatMe1 wasn´t an american and went to court there is no way that Full Tilt could get away with this without presenting the evidence.
If we got 50 new bots playing perfectly as a result of that evidence being shown so be it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I guess we know where your priorities lie. Couldn't disagree more. It would be ideal if an independent third party could review the evidence behind the FT ruling and rule on it independently. The closest thing we have to that is the information being presented to Gildwulf.

If you'd rather put the integrity of the entire world of online poker on the line just so somebody can present a case despite the fact that the evidence is damning according to the site itself and a third party observer, I guess that's your prerogative.

I think that's a huge mistake. SW, that was a great post.

[Beavis68]

[ QUOTE ]
A person is always innocent until proven guilty. And you can´t confiscate 70 000 dollars from someone without showing them evidence and give them a chance to prove that they are innocent.


[/ QUOTE ]

Pretty obvious you are 100% wrong isnt it.


They werent charged with a crime.

[Apanage]

What an ignorant post. Maybe we should abolish defence lawyers. We just let the prosecutor present their cases for the jury (the independent third party)and then the jury make a verdict.
I really can´t believe some of you guys opinions.
I make a healthy amount of money playing poker but I´m not so greedy that I would sell out my fellow man to get rid of the poker robots.
I really think you should be ashamed of yourself.