Official Full Tilt Poker Response to Bot Thread - Page 21

Adde · #**201** 05-12-2007, 06:25 PM

[ QUOTE ]
The problem is you do not understand statistical significance. The more hands you play, the smaller of a difference statistical tests can detect between your stats. That means with a large sample as presented in this thread, the numbers given would have to be increasingly close together to conclude that they are using bots. And that is exactly what we found

[/ QUOTE ]

I do understand, and I think we both agree to some extent: the statistics tell that these numbers, to a significant degree, come from the same source. Right?

What I don't get is how you concur that this source is produced by a bot, and not by humans playing the exact same strategy?

GrannyMae · #**202** 05-12-2007, 06:51 PM

hiya adde!! long time.

i think you know i respect your opinion TREMENDOUSLY. that being said, quick question for you;

you said

[ QUOTE ]
I do think they got themselves lost somewhere in trying to explain, making it more suspicious than it is.

[/ QUOTE ]

how do you square this in your mind? i.e. if they are being 100% truthful, how would they get 'lost'?

fwiw, i do not think it is bots per se, but i do think there is something artificial driving their decisions.

Adde · #**203** 05-12-2007, 07:19 PM

[ QUOTE ]

hiya adde!! long time.

i think you know i respect your opinion TREMENDOUSLY. that being said, quick question for you;

you said

[ QUOTE ]
I do think they got themselves lost somewhere in trying to explain, making it more suspicious than it is.

[/ QUOTE ]

how do you square this in your mind? i.e. if they are being 100% truthful, how would they get 'lost'?

fwiw, i do not think it is bots per se, but i do think there is something artificial driving their decisions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Heya, old lady, good to see you again. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

I'd say an innocent lie, not really important in the grand scheme, may have caused another innocent lie, and so forth and the web is spinning. Happens to everybody in life. I guess Nation saying that nlnut couldn't configure his own anti-virus stuff could be such an innocent lie. He tries his best to defend his buddy, and happens to stretch the truth. This tech inability then rhymes bad in peoples ears when they hear that he used AHK scripts.

Adde

(BTW, how you doing money wise on AI this year? For several years I have planned to get your back on that betting, but I always end up forgetting about it.)

William · #**204** 05-12-2007, 09:36 PM

BOTS will be on the increase on FTP because they obviously don't have the kohonas to do anything about it.

I didn't know MicroBob was poker manager at FullTilt

taobot · #**205** 05-12-2007, 09:52 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A person is just not going to play the exact same way as another person over that many hands, as a system does not account for all factors, especially in NL due to the practically infinite bet sizings.

[/ QUOTE ]
With Teddy's theory, which someone else actually came up with as well several hundred posts ago, all that would be required would be for each player to play consistently themselves...oh, and for each account to be divided up fairly evenly between the three of them. Far-fetched, perhaps, but possible.

[/ QUOTE ]

I really don't think so, they could split up but I don't see why that would even matter. They are still going to have different stats, because even if you play a certain system, that system will not account for every possible situation in the game. It is those situations where they will deviate.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's trivially easy to design a (simple or complex) system that will account to every possible situation on the game.

cardcounter0 · #**206** 05-12-2007, 10:16 PM

[ QUOTE ]
It's trivially impossible to design a (simple or complex) system that will produce the stats these players had.

[/ QUOTE ]

BigF · #**207** 05-12-2007, 10:17 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The problem is you do not understand statistical significance. The more hands you play, the smaller of a difference statistical tests can detect between your stats. That means with a large sample as presented in this thread, the numbers given would have to be increasingly close together to conclude that they are using bots. And that is exactly what we found

[/ QUOTE ]

I do understand, and I think we both agree to some extent: the statistics tell that these numbers, to a significant degree, come from the same source. Right?

What I don't get is how you concur that this source is produced by a bot, and not by humans playing the exact same strategy?

[/ QUOTE ]

Hahaha exactly dude. This is what I have been saying. The mob's answer is that humans can't possibly do that (strictly follow a set of rules). Why not? Nobody knows. They just know for a fact that humans can't do that.

cardcounter0 · #**208** 05-12-2007, 10:21 PM

[ QUOTE ]
They just know for a fact that humans can't do that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Humans have two weakness. Hungry and sleepy.

gogogogo

Adde · #**209** 05-12-2007, 10:45 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
They just know for a fact that humans can't do that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Humans have two weakness. Hungry and sleepy.

gogogogo

[/ QUOTE ]

If playing the same system, in the long run they all would get hungry and sleepy and make mistakes at an even rate, making their numbers look similar.

cardcounter0 · #**210** 05-12-2007, 10:54 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
They just know for a fact that humans can't do that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Humans have two weakness. Hungry and sleepy.

gogogogo

[/ QUOTE ]

If playing the same system, in the long run they all would get hungry and sleepy and make mistakes at an even rate, making their numbers look similar.

[/ QUOTE ]
Only if they were written by the same programmer.

gogogogo