NL Bots on Full Tilt

[Our House]

[ QUOTE ]
FFS, fold your small blind everytime guys. I'm serious....I saw your winrate in that position.

[/ QUOTE ]
LOL @ giving these guys (or bots) strategy advice.

[Jehaim]

[MyTurn2Raise]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
FFS, fold your small blind everytime guys. I'm serious....I saw your winrate in that position.

[/ QUOTE ]
LOL @ giving these guys (or bots) strategy advice.

[/ QUOTE ]

if they paid me enough, I could dramatically improve their results in a week with a few easy implementable tweaks.

[pyedog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Now there would be a similar case for every hand and position. If one player followed these actions at a LAG table with average stats of 25% VPIP and 15% PFR for 100K hands then his personal VPIP and PFR stats would be drastically different than someone who played with these actions at a rocky table with average stats of 15% VPIP and 4% PFR.

[/ QUOTE ]
But over large sample size they are going to play equally much on rocky and laggy tables.

[/ QUOTE ]
Well that's true in general, but the table conditions still won't be completely equal for all 4 accounts.

Basically I'm refuting DWarrior's claims that they can't be bots based on minute differences in VPIP of about 0.5%. He claims that this is over 3 standard deviations which would make it mathematically improbable. However, differences of 0.5% in VPIP could be based partially on different table conditions for some of the accounts.

100K hands is a large sample size. You will probably get dealt KQo close to the expected number of times. However, when you start to break it down by KQo on the button, it becomes more specific and the sample size shrinks. Then if you break it down to KQo on the button after everyone folds, or after a 3bet, or after a bunch of callers, then it becomes so specific that the sample size is no longer that big. And this will affect the VPIP and PFR values for any bot that uses other actions to determine the best play.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding DW's calculations. But I just don't see how he could have incorporated the randomness of the other player's actions in his VPIP STD calculations. Surely this would have some kind of effect on the numbers?

We can't expect 4 bot accounts to have VPIPs of exactly 14.7326718% to within an accuracy of 10E-9 over 100K hands. Or can we?

[Our House]

[ QUOTE ]
This is the Pix of our computer setup.




If someone knows how to resize the pix bigger please do so. I don't know how.

[/ QUOTE ]
[nit]How come the big chair is on the right? Wouldn't the head boss want to sit in the middle to supervise the operation? [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img][/nit]

[fusting4321]

The biggest thing, to me, that stands out is how all these people are posting all these reasonable questions that deserve answers and have facts to back them up, yet all of the defenders of the "botter" pick and choose the easiest, and most pointless things to answer.

Even after people quoting themselves, asking multiple times for answer to the REAL questions, "botter" and his party keep choosing the retarded ones that no on actually cares about, or making person attacks.

[billxo1b]

since each bot only plays 1 table (NL200),
3BB/100= $12/100

so for full-ring nl200, each bot makes $8 per table hour.

is it worth to open a sweatshop since the bot owner(s) seem to be a competent player?

[CybrPunk]

[ QUOTE ]


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm no genius but having worked in the computer industry for 15 years I can say I've never seen a setup like this designed for 3 people. There is absolutely zero comfort level in this setup and it's hard to beleive three guys who make the amounts of money you do would confine themselves to such a small workspace. I'd imagine you can at least afford seperate desks for the three of you @ roughtly $49 retail from OfficeDepot. In my experience, setups like this are designed for use by one person. Reference any MMOG multi-accounting thread on the internet and you'll find many similar setups.... all of which are designed and setup to be controlled by one person.


edit to add that if you look closely at the legs of these chairs you'll note that none of them is free to move in any direction due to the fact that they are so close together. It almost seems that you couldn't lean back in the middle chair without it affecting the other 2. I'm hard pressed to believe that three guys who netted $20k+ between profit and rakeback would work in this environment by choice.

[Our House]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
FFS, fold your small blind everytime guys. I'm serious....I saw your winrate in that position.

[/ QUOTE ]
LOL @ giving these guys (or bots) strategy advice.

[/ QUOTE ]

if they paid me enough, I could probably write them a program that varies stats without sacrificing winrate.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ShaneP]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Now there would be a similar case for every hand and position. If one player followed these actions at a LAG table with average stats of 25% VPIP and 15% PFR for 100K hands then his personal VPIP and PFR stats would be drastically different than someone who played with these actions at a rocky table with average stats of 15% VPIP and 4% PFR.

[/ QUOTE ]
But over large sample size they are going to play equally much on rocky and laggy tables.

[/ QUOTE ]

BTW, I didn't write that example, but I did agree with it (or more exactly, with the effects on the SD)

Do (or just think) about this:

Case 1: 100k Bernoulli trials, with a success % of 14%.

Case 2: 50K trials at 13% (loose tables, folding more often), 50k trials at 15% (tight tables).

The SD calcs used (by me and others) assume case 1. However, reality is more like case 2. Table, position, etc all affect VPiP, and so you're really pulling trials from several different distributions, as in Case 2.

Now, if there's four runs of either case, the means should be the same. But the SD in Case 2 will be larger than the SD in Case 1.

I was just refuting the claim that because someone put the data into some goodness of fit calculation and got an almost 3SD result it proved they weren't bots. And the reason I was refuting it was because I claim the calculations misunderestimated (maybe I shouldnt' use this, plenty of tangents already, sorry) the actual SD that should be used.

A better calculation would use the VPiP by position that was posted earlier to account for one source of variation, and an even better one would need even more--breaking the situation down further with regards to raisers, limpers, etc...