NL Bots on Full Tilt

[landmass]

Why does is it seem that the fish are "reserved" for the on-line poker junkies but shouldn't be made available to "bots". In another words many poker on-line players are using poker odds calculator's, shark scope and other computer poker software to gain an unfair advantage over fishes that they wouldn't be able to use in live play.

You play on-line you should have to play against anyone, including bots.
Everyone has to have the same advantage or none of you do.

[neverforgetlol]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If someone who actually understands statistics could actually explain the important of their stats converging and explain why players using a similiar system or working together would be unable to reach this level of convergence over the sample we have we can just end this thread, and make a new one about hating bots right? What am I missing?

[/ QUOTE ]

That would be nice to see. Unfortunately, all the people using stats so far (myself included) don't seem to have enough experience to be considered trustworthy experts.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm mostly an expert, I have a masters' in stats.

What I can say, at least, is that if you consider testing equivalance of proportions, is that n is large which means you are more likely to reject Ho: p1=p2, etc. If you did not reject, say at the .01 level, that would be pretty damning evidence that these were bots. You would have a very powerful test meaning that the probability of Type II error (not rejecting Ho, when Ho is false) would be very low. This quantity however is difficult to calculate precisely.

[happyhappyhappy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If someone who actually understands statistics could actually explain the important of their stats converging and explain why players using a similiar system or working together would be unable to reach this level of convergence over the sample we have we can just end this thread, and make a new one about hating bots right? What am I missing?

[/ QUOTE ]

That would be nice to see. Unfortunately, all the people using stats so far (myself included) don't seem to have enough experience to be considered trustworthy experts.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm mostly an expert, I have a masters' in stats.

What I can say, at least, is that if you consider testing equivalance of proportions, is that n is large which means you are more likely to reject Ho: p1=p2, etc. If you did not reject, say at the .01 level, that would be pretty damning evidence that these were bots. You would have a very powerful test meaning that the probability of Type II error (not rejecting Ho, when Ho is false) would be very low. This quantity however is difficult to calculate precisely.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hey nflol, would you mind putting that into laymans terms for people like me?

[Methodz]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If someone who actually understands statistics could actually explain the important of their stats converging and explain why players using a similiar system or working together would be unable to reach this level of convergence over the sample we have we can just end this thread, and make a new one about hating bots right? What am I missing?

[/ QUOTE ]

That would be nice to see. Unfortunately, all the people using stats so far (myself included) don't seem to have enough experience to be considered trustworthy experts.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm mostly an expert, I have a masters' in stats.

What I can say, at least, is that if you consider testing equivalance of proportions, is that n is large which means you are more likely to reject Ho: p1=p2, etc. If you did not reject, say at the .01 level, that would be pretty damning evidence that these were bots. You would have a very powerful test meaning that the probability of Type II error (not rejecting Ho, when Ho is false) would be very low. This quantity however is difficult to calculate precisely.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hey nflol, would you mind putting that into laymans terms for people like me?

[/ QUOTE ]lol agreed.

[rgold79]

If somebody wants to do some real detective work, they should dig up the guy's credit card records. There should be hundreds of dollars in takeout food being delivered to his address every week.

Unless, you know, there aren't really 3 people working there full time.

[neverforgetlol]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If someone who actually understands statistics could actually explain the important of their stats converging and explain why players using a similiar system or working together would be unable to reach this level of convergence over the sample we have we can just end this thread, and make a new one about hating bots right? What am I missing?

[/ QUOTE ]

That would be nice to see. Unfortunately, all the people using stats so far (myself included) don't seem to have enough experience to be considered trustworthy experts.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm mostly an expert, I have a masters' in stats.

What I can say, at least, is that if you consider testing equivalance of proportions, is that n is large which means you are more likely to reject Ho: p1=p2, etc. If you did not reject, say at the .01 level, that would be pretty damning evidence that these were bots. You would have a very powerful test meaning that the probability of Type II error (not rejecting Ho, when Ho is false) would be very low. This quantity however is difficult to calculate precisely.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hey nflol, would you mind putting that into laymans terms for people like me?

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess. You are interested in comparing two proportions, for example vpip for two of the suspected bots. Since we have thousands of hands to base these proportions on, any difference in them is very unlikely to be due to measurement error. So if we do not reject the null hypothesis that states that the two proportions are equal, that will be pretty strong evidence in favor of them being bots (equivalence means bots), since the true difference between p1 and p2 will be insignificant.

So if someone could repost those stats I can do some tests.

[Hellmouth]

[ QUOTE ]
Hammertime71 said:


[/ QUOTE ]
"They will never ban a bot until it starts costing them money."

[/ QUOTE ]

Obviously this is true, but Full Tilt must realize they will lose HUNDREDS (maybe even thousands?) of customers after the word that nothing was done about this spreads. I know numerous people on this thread have stated that they will cease to play at Full Tilt if there is not a legitimate response to this issue.

Hundreds of lost customers = obviously lost money for the poker site.

Which would they rather have, the four bots or hundreds of real players? I would think they would prefer the latter.

Plenty of reason for Full Tilt to ban the accounts, if they look at the statistics and come to the obvious realization that these four accounts are run from a bot like computer program.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe I am not a big fish but I have made FT about $500 in the last month. I am totally gone as soon as I figure out how to cash out if this turns out to really be botting at NL.

Greg

[Hellmouth]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
donktastic,

the fact that you think i should be removed as mod just because i'm defending chuck's actions (which are within the t&c) is so LOL.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nation

You have made many posts in this forum and I have read them all. Read mine if you like. You can defend your friend all you like and for that your position as a mod should not be questioned.
I do question your unprofessionalism in your posts. All your lol's sarcasm etc ... should be avoided in a thread such as this. Many of your posts were childish and rude to other members. As a mod you should have a higher standard. I think your reaction to many of the comments only serve to reduce the credibility of twoplustwo and other mods. If I was mangement I would require that improve your behaviour on this site.

[/ QUOTE ]

come on man. I've had mods treat me way worse than this. There is no higher standard. (Yesterday in the AI forum for one)

Greg

[Our House]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If someone who actually understands statistics could actually explain the important of their stats converging and explain why players using a similiar system or working together would be unable to reach this level of convergence over the sample we have we can just end this thread, and make a new one about hating bots right? What am I missing?

[/ QUOTE ]

That would be nice to see. Unfortunately, all the people using stats so far (myself included) don't seem to have enough experience to be considered trustworthy experts.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm mostly an expert, I have a masters' in stats.

What I can say, at least, is that if you consider testing equivalance of proportions, is that n is large which means you are more likely to reject Ho: p1=p2, etc. If you did not reject, say at the .01 level, that would be pretty damning evidence that these were bots. You would have a very powerful test meaning that the probability of Type II error (not rejecting Ho, when Ho is false) would be very low. This quantity however is difficult to calculate precisely.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hey nflol, would you mind putting that into laymans terms for people like me?

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess. You are interested in comparing two proportions, for example vpip for two of the suspected bots. Since we have thousands of hands to base these proportions on, any difference in them is very unlikely to be due to measurement error. So if we do not reject the null hypothesis that states that the two proportions are equal, that will be pretty strong evidence in favor of them being bots (equivalence means bots), since the true difference between p1 and p2 will be insignificant.

So if someone could repost those stats I can do some tests.

[/ QUOTE ]
If those were the Layman's Terms, I'm an idiot.

[questions]

[ QUOTE ]
Why does is it seem that the fish are "reserved" for the on-line poker junkies but shouldn't be made available to "bots". In another words many poker on-line players are using poker odds calculator's, shark scope and other computer poker software to gain an unfair advantage over fishes that they wouldn't be able to use in live play.

You play on-line you should have to play against anyone, including bots.
Everyone has to have the same advantage or none of you do.

[/ QUOTE ]

The same thought crossed my mind this morning.

Also, the post from way back where someone indicated that they were 100% sure that players against whom they were playing in limit games were bots but that they didn't say anything because they were exploiting them and making money off of them. Well, what about other real flesh players (like you) who are NOT successfully exploiting the bots, but losing money to them? Are they on their own? Well then, why should anyone else care about you?

Also, if news accounts about poker sites are true, FT makes many millions per year in rake. What's your $500 to them? In other words, unless you are a high stakes player, I'm not sure how much they care.