NL Bots on Full Tilt

[ianisakson]

[ 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 ]

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????

[/ QUOTE ]

the fact that you keep dodging this question is only making yourself look worse IMO. I think full tilt needs to re-address this case. obviously it's hard to find you guys guilty of breaking any of the rules, but I don't think the burden of proof lies on full tilt. I think you guys need to prove to us how 4 "people" all playing the exact same over a huge sample size isn't cheating.

[derosnec]

I've always been suspicious of the army of players from Mar de la Plata at Stars micro NL. Much of my PT db is on my laptop, but I do have roughly 120k hands (sadly) on my desktop. Here are just a few of these players (all from Mar de la Plata). Yes, it's not thousands of hands, but I can't datamine at Stars. These players never chat or sit at the same tables (and I 12-table mostly). I blocked out their names. (i'm not very good at MS Paint).

[Cry Me A River]

[ QUOTE ]

you are absolutely retarded if you don't think it's possible for players playing a limit and level the exact same way to accrue the same stats by working together on postflop decisions, especially when they're playing right next to each other.


[/ QUOTE ]

Just how many players are we talking about here? We know of at least two, nlnut and BrandonJoseph47. How many total players and how many accounts?

Do they always play the same account or do they switch accounts between them (ie nlnut might play 1forthethumb one day and 0_Drunkenboxer the next)

Here's the thing... Even pro atheletes don't execute 100% of the time. Somebody runs a wrong route. Somebody misses coverage. [censored] happens. But we are to believe that these four accounts, and possibly more, all managed to play virtually identical poker over a (combined) 300K hands? Hell, most real player's stats don't match that closely week to week over a single account.

Do they actually have a printed script or flowchart like a telemarketer or 911 operator?

There are a couple key points from the OP that haven't really been addressed by nation/nlnut:

[ QUOTE ]

I proceed to use my expert strategy for 3 hours, playing 20-30 hands specifically against the bots without them adjusting. I even started doing goofy stuff like bot opens, I minreraise, bot calls. I cbet 1/3 of the pot, bot folds. Next orbit, bot opens, I minreraise, bot folds. I’m going to be rich.

[/ QUOTE ]

If these guys are all sitting in a room discussion post-flop on almost all hands, why did it take them 3 hours to adjust to the OP targetting them?

[ QUOTE ]

-The bots would “think” excessively long times to make every single decision, even trivial ones. One hand: bot limps utg, fish minraises, six calls, back around to bot who takes 15 seconds before finally deciding to call getting like a million to one. Also, they would cbet almost every single flop yet they would still think for 10-15 seconds before they made the cbet, every single time.


[/ QUOTE ]

I play 12 tables too. This is not an explanation for constantly taking so much time to make easy decisions.

Unless they're actually playing way more than 12 tables at once. Is that what's really going on here? These four (or more) accounts are being multied by one guy in order to circumvent the limit on the maximum number of tables and is playing a very simple, straight-foreward system in order to manage so many tables?

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
nation,

Nice dodge of the critical issue in assessing the stats. You have no non-laughable answer so you and your bud aren't going to reply.


Van Veen,

You are ignoring the far greater number of postflop siutations that have to take into account:

1) hu or mulit-way
2) board texture
3) betting on multiple streets
4) stack sizes.


There are infinite variations.

PLUS if they do in fact have all that figured out, then why aren't they on 10/20 instead of 1/2?

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually I think it could be quite simple: just don't take account for the majority of optimal postflop play. Just play ABC (based on your 2 hole cards, sometimes not). Their system isn't that complicated and I doubt they win as well as they could be if they made adjustments on their own. Still, cutting down on overall variance isn't a terrible cause either.

[/ QUOTE ]


It's still more complicated post-flop than you are making it out to be (and you are actually addressing the issue they won't). Fit-or-fold works mainly facing bets or raises. But throw in calls or odd bets like min-raises and post-oak bets, and it gets *far* more complicated. At least to any human playing manually, no matter how many tables he is playing.

[nation]

"Even pro atheletes don't execute 100% of the time."

of course, but we're talking about a huge sample size here. you're not going to see these aberrations when we're talking 300k hands.

[tautomer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Let's not forget the tournament they played together. One confirmed, how many other times did this happen? I assume there's a site with full tournament records.

[/ QUOTE ]
Is there anything wrong with playing MTT with your friends? I am being serious.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you're in the same room, playing the same tournament, using pooled money, and wind up at the same table...I can see a few potential issues there.

[Cry Me A River]

[ QUOTE ]

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


[/ QUOTE ]

Yes.

This is 2+2. That's what we do here.

[primetime32]

[ 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 ]

Hoenstly, i was not one of those that immediately thought you were running a bot. But the above statement really bothered me.

If this is a "system" and you have played hundreds of thousands of hands each, using the exact same system, why do you need to be in the same room/area when you are playing? Why the need for "advice." If your play really does remain the same, there should be no need for specific game advice.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]


The bolded part is my point. Now of course you are maintaining that the stat VPIP is in fact very different for the four. But even if it is in fact the most significant, you have to prove it is sufficient alone to make a determination of botting, instead of merely being the most heavily weighted factor. This whole issue is probably a good subject for a separate thread.

[delta k]

JUST GOT AN EMAIL FROM FULL TILT

VIGORISH IS THE BOT