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

[bouglas]

When amount that large is taken from you, it's enough to make you want to eventually wash your hands of the whole experience (if the OP is innocent of course). It's not entirely surprising to me that they have not posted again.

[River_Mitt]

I'm most certainly against any computer assistance that players use to their personal advantage, however, data mining is so prevelent that it seems to now be acceptable by the vast majority, so be it.

My problem with what happened here is that FTP states they only confiscate funds when they are 100% sure of a violation. Yet, the original email states, "It has come to our attention that you are attempting to defraud players on Full Tilt Poker.". I'd be alot more comfortable if they had accused her of "defraud", rather than "attempting to defraud", before taking the funds.

What is "attempting to defraud"? Is that like bluffing? Is bluffing "defraud"? Man, it's a fine line.

Now, the implications of collusion, in heads up, implies things like sharing centralized databases and such. Yet, even when people stated that they would sit at a table to block a players access to a "fish", no mention of collusion is brought up. Wow, seems like collusion to me that those fish were so well marked, that that activity was occurring. If two seperate entities, make a similar conclusion about a single player, that could falsely look like collusion.

And finally, if someone knows 100% that a player is a bot, have a 100% way to identify bots and they despise bots openly, why the heck are they playing against them anyway.

Peace

[qpw]

Or the matter could be sub-judice?

I missed this thread.

After a little investigation of the WinHoldEm robot system a few weeks ago (as a result of another thread on this forum), it became clear that ANY site that is serious about getting rid of robots could ensure that no WHE robots EVER play on their sites.

There is an absolutely cut and dried technical method for doing so.

The fact the there is a thriving community of WHE botters demonstrates that none of the sites are taking a diligent pro-active approach.

From what I read, the site that is most anti-robot would do nothing until the botter tried to cash out, at which point they would confiscate their money. Even then, it seems, if the player played manually for a while (to 'clear the logs'), before cashing out they could still get their money.

Any robot that does not address a couple of details is GUARANTEED to leave an unmistakable signature. So if BeatMe1 was a robot, it is quite possible that FT could be 100% certain of that fact.

The interesting question is why they actually allowed the alleged robot to defraud their other customers out of 70k before taking action.

[AKingdom]

I'm curious as to whether or not FTP has credited any players
who were the victims of bots or suspected bots as Stars has done. Haven't seen any posts to this effect myself.

[Josem]

[ QUOTE ]
There is an absolutely cut and dried technical method for doing so.

[/ QUOTE ]

What was the response by the sites when you shared your method?

[qpw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There is an absolutely cut and dried technical method for doing so.

[/ QUOTE ]

What was the response by the sites when you shared your method?

[/ QUOTE ]

"Thank you for your interest. We take the fair use of our site very seriously and have a department dedicated to ensuring that everyone plays on an even footing. We are constantly investigating new ways to detect unfair play and are satisfied that our current techniques are adequately protecting our players".

Pretty much as expected.

This technique is not rocket science and I'm sure that any competant programmer would be well aware of it - given the sophistication of the programming required to run a poker site it would be almost incredible if it was not known to their programming departments.

Since we know that several of the poker sites monitor these forums, if they have the slightest interest in removing a slew of robots, we can expect the site representatives to comment on this thread.

I have mentioned this matter before and they have remained strangely (yeah, right) silent.

[Josem]

there are two possibilities to explain qpw's post:

Option 1
An anonymous internet forum poster knows a technique for stopping bots that:
a) every "competant (sic) programmer" should know;
b) yet none of the many full-time professional online gaming security experts employed by internet poker sites know about; and
c) all of the sites are engaged in a bizarre conspiracy (without a motive) to not use this technique

or

Option 2
An anonymous internet forum poster is talking [censored].




As a betting man, I reckon that Option #2 is far more likely.

[DeliciousBass]

[ QUOTE ]
Josem: If you and I have the highest level of control/access for our poker server computer then we win regardless - the size of the entity policing us is not an issue because we have god-like power over that entire computer. We can undo and/or manipulate anything on that machine. Until said policing entity catches us and takes away our license, poker server computer, and levies an enormous fine on top of our idiot heads. But then maybe we could write a book about the fastest way to kill a golden goose.

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP

Yeah, regulation will be unpossible...onaccounta it's not a live game.

[qpw]

There are three possibilities to explain Josem's post:

Option 1
An anonymous internet forum poster is a botter who's trying to goad information that might be useful to him.

Option 2
An anonymous internet forum poster works for a poker site (whilst claiming to be an Australian civil servant), and wants to discredit anyone who throws light on the slightly suspect practices the sites have with respect to robots.

Option 3
He's just fulfilling his job as site buffoon.


Anyone with an ounce of sense and the slightest capability for logical thought can see that the way the sites treat robots is at least slightly suspect.

Any 'tell' for a robot is almost certain to be something that involves computer analysis of data held by the site, rather than assigning a human to check out their actions. As such they should be continuously monitoring that data and turfing the robots off(or instigating further checking) as soon as they are detected.

So if the sites are being diligently pro-active, how did OP build up a 70k stash without getting caught (accurately or otherwise)?

And why is it that the denizens of the WHE forums are only really worried about the robot detection on one of the sites?

And why does even this site only inform them that they are robots when they try and cash out (once again allowing them to create rake and amass a nice little wodge of cash that they can confiscate)?


This is not a complaint along the lines of 'this site is rigged because I had a run of bad luck'. There are clear logical inconsistencies between the site's claim that they do all they can to prevent robots and their behaviour.

I've no objection to anyone pointing out errors in my logic, or points that I may not have considered that would mitigate in the site's favour.

Trying to play down a point by referring to it's maker as 'An anonymous internet forum poster' (which I parody above) is a rather pathetic tactic, though, and one I hope intelligent readers can see through.

[qpw]

Just to go through Josem's post to demonstrate the logical and other errors for anyone who can't be bothered:

[ QUOTE ]

An anonymous internet forum poster knows a technique for stopping bots that:
a) every "competent (sic) programmer" should know;
b) yet none of the many full-time professional online gaming security experts employed by internet poker sites know about;

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, Josem, you haven't even made a stab at logical thought here.

The whole point is that the site's experts almost certainly do know of the technique but choose not to use it.

[ QUOTE ]

c) all of the sites are engaged in a bizarre conspiracy (without a motive) to not use this technique

[/ QUOTE ]

Now you seem to be being deliberately stupid.

There is no conspiracy, any more than you could say all the merchants in the world were 'conspiring' to make money by charging customers more for goods than they payed for them.

The actions of the sites is not 'bizarre' - it's simply doing what they do to maximise profit.

The motive is simple and obvious to understand.

Robots generate rake just as human players and the also build up balances that can be confiscated if they become too noticeable and action has to be taken because other players report them. So the sites unquestionably profit from the robots.

Only a small and very vocal minority of their customers care about robots at the moment and so the sites do a balancing act, taking just enough action against robots to be seen to be doing something whilst not going hell for leather and damaging a significant revenue stream.


If you want to have a sensible discussion, fine, but your little rant above is just a poor attempt at schoolboy rhetoric, nothing more.