NL Bots on Full Tilt

[PBJaxx]

Bump

[1p0kerboy]

[ QUOTE ]
Bump

[/ QUOTE ]

Beacause it fell to second on the front page instead of first? [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[Alobar]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
someone explain to me how these stats would prove they are bots anyway. Wouldn't it just prove they all know the system equally well and follow it exactly?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, that's what it would prove.



nlnut's contention is:

At some point they sat down with a pen and paper and wrote down a system, then spent a week memorizing it and threw away their notes. Then 3 people, through the power of sitting next to each other, managed to execute this strategy PERFECTLY, with so little deviation, that their stats matched exactly over, what, half a million hands and half a year.

They also discussed tough decisions, but these decisions did not create any perturbation in the stats (on the river no less). These discussions didn't create any deviance from the system, not even a beneficial one. They also made changes to the strategy and communicated them to all players instantly and with 100% compliance.

Also, at one point one of the team members left, and a new team member was brought in. Without the use of ANY written or electronic aids this person was taught the system so that they instantly and without a learning curve could generate the same stats.



My contention is:

Does not compute.

[/ QUOTE ]

They are SUPER tight and playing basically a fit or fold strategy, I dont see why its so unrealistic to think that whatever system they have is simple enough that they are all capable of playing the same way. Its not like they are going to have anywhere close to the same number of decisions as your typical player.

PF is insanely easy, I dont get at all why people are even using VPIP as any sort of bot "proof". Of course they all have the same VPIP they are all following the exact same starting hand guidelines. Same way as if I never changed my starting hand requirements my VPIP would be the same across DBs, and if its not its because of variance, which would be the exact same variance a bot would face.

When you arent playing many hands post flop is easy to. They obviously follow something like "if you raised PF then bet the flop", if you called, unless you flop a set fold." If you get raised fold unless your hand is greater than 2pair. blah blah blah. Obviously we think this is stupid because it means you wouldnt be playing very good poker. But its been shown they dont play very good poker. They just play breakeven poker, playing a very stringent tight set of guidelines, stacking of weak unadjusting unnatentive fish and playing so tight they dont bleed away all their profits to the good players. which to me doesnt seem out of the realm of possibility that its simplistic enough that real people could follow them exactly. So again, what does any sort of statistical analysis proof? Other than proving they definitely arent bots (well doesnt even prove that, since you;ll just be able to say "well the humans took over for a while" or "well they changed some code")

Im long since past the point of caring anymore, this thread is now just arguing for the sake of arguing, and everyone has already made up their mind anyway. We might as well go to SMP and argue about religion.

[bobbyi]

One of the things that has surprised me about this from the beginning: Regardless of whether they are bots or humans, why were they able to make money with such a predictable, exploitable strategy?

I would think it would work for a while and they would do okay against fish, but I would expect that the regulars would have been massacring them once they figured out their game plan. I've never played full ring (lol) 1/2, but I have played plenty of FTP 1/2 6-max and the games are filled with regular pros (admittedly, I play the dayshift [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]). Isn't full ring the same way? If so, were those guys all asleep at the switch?

I would think that if guys who played this mechanically were in my game, I would be targetting them and stealing pots from them left and right (even though I probably would not have guessed that they were bots). They were apparently the most prolific opponents, so why weren't people trying to figure out how to beat them?

[King Spew]

...because they suck the easy money off the table?

[pokerrn72]

we did beat them. but playing so tight preflop and postflop and not tilting and playing very aggressive from position, it is not so easy to crush them. plus, most people at 1/2 nl fr suck, so it's much easier to target others.

[pokerrn72]

exactly. i'm wondering if those that are doubting you could devise a simple system for 1/2 nl fr that was marginally profitable and easy for just about anyone to follow have played hundreds of thousands of fr hands. it is not that hard.

raise from in position. cbet 100%. call down with tptk or better. fold everyting else. there's your complicated "playbook".

[Chump Change]

[ QUOTE ]
Nation,

If they were three different players that "adjust for the regulars" why would all three accounts insta-sit out when OP logs in?

I find it hard to believe that any three players would have such identical stats no matter what proximity or shared strategies.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, sorry if this has been posted as I slog through the thread, but why is it a given that OP told the truth about EVERYTHING. Even subconsciously, unintentionally, the truth cant get muddied.

Save for posting about rehosting the picture, OP has not replied in the thread by now, the mid way point, which is just as egregious as FT not doing so.

[ShaneP]

[ QUOTE ]
neverforget,

Can you address this?

[ QUOTE ]
These statistics alone are not enough to "prove" that they are from the same player. You can't use a "simple" hypothesis testing procedure like a chi-squared test, and that won't indicate anything. A statistician examining the likelihood they are from the same player needs to have to other peoples stats and see how they behave. How much do these stat differ across 100k+ hands tight-nitty players?

There is a second issue with that there may be some correlation in some of the variables. For example, the "flop aggression", "bet flop", "raise flop" and "c/r flop" are connected to each other and a player with a high "flop aggression" will reasonably have high stats in the other 3 categories. An analysis of the likelihood they are the same player must have any correlation effect isolated. How these correlated variables behave in reality can be examined by studying the correlation of other 100k+ hands players.

Extreme care must be taken to conduct any probability tests and it is too easy to use a poorly-designed statistical test that does not consider the matters I outlined above. This is a formidable full-time task and should be undertaken by somebody with a solid postgraduate education in statistics (or having similar experience). I am not defending anybody here, but it is too easy to get carried away and it is easy to "prove" they are from the same player, but such test would lack mathematical rigority.

I'm not a statistician/mathematician but these are just my views.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

I know you asked Neverforget, but this is sort of what I had been saying earlier (brings up a new thing since I was only talking about VPiP though). I've done a few things like this before.

The big thing is that these 'statistical tests' most people used in this thread assumed IID distributions. That is, Independent and Identically Distributed. With that, the correct formula for SD is sqrt (P * (1-P) /N). So if we're looking at how many ones we roll on a six sided die in 1000 rolls, we can use the formula above, since the die doesn't remember the previous roll or is affected by anything outside (the day, what someone else rolled, etc...)

Now, with these poker stats, in most of them both I's are violated. Taking VPiP first--one enters with different hands from different positions. Thus the picks are not from identical distributions...early position might be a pick from a distribution with a 7% chance of success, and on the button it might be 20%. Thus the above formula for SD is incorrect (but probably somewhat close--that's why I used it and adjusted my interpretation of the results)

The independence comes in on any post-flop stat, and combinations of pre-flop stats. With these many numbers, a lot of people (and a good test) would be to look at groups of numbers to test them to see if they all could be so close. However, post-flop stats are affected by the pre-flop decisions (and so aren't independent of them) and other stats are also correlated. For a simple example, PFR <= VPiP. So statistical tests that combine several stats like that (or just look at later tests) also will not have independence.

So what do people do in cases like that? Well, if they have a model, they'll simulate it thousands or millions of times and look at the distribution that results. The simulations (if they consider everything) will take into account all the correlations--in this case, if we said to raise with TT from middle position, we'd account for the correlation with 'raise after the turn if we've got an overpair or better' automatically. From the distributions that were generated, 5% and 1% (or whatever % you want) bounds can then be constructed (5% of the data lies further away from the mean than that point) and then you can test the data. What the person above is suggesting is similar; instead of simulate, just get a lot of people who play similarly (tight aggressive set miners, it looks like) and see what their numbers look like.

Hope this helps, and hope I haven't stepped on neverforget's toes (or reply).

Shane

[RiverFenix]

Didnt read much past when he posted the pic setup but two things.

Im not sure if the resolution is high enough but can someone zoom in on the desktop background to see if they have any damning bot related program names? I can see that the desktops all have a different amount of icons on them but cant tell anything beyond that.

Can chuck post his transaction history with the 35 other players he made transfers to? Would be interesting to see some datamined stats on some of the other player names since it would be much easier to fund new bot accounts through transfers instead of creating new neteller/epass/etc accounts.