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

[StellarWind]

[ QUOTE ]
FTP could easily have evidence that makes this suggestion completely pointless.

what if the bot has, say, 10 different exact timing delays and it varies its timing between these 10 at random? so the bot makes one move in 0.322 seconds, the next in 0.255 seconds, then back to 0.322, etc.? could she magically disprove the use of a bot? no, thus it would be completely useless for this to ever happen.

[/ QUOTE ]
And how are you making these timing measurements? Certainly not at your server because the variable internet delay would be a joke. You would have to write a piece of software that ran inside the poker client on the user's PC. A client that shares the PC with dozens of other Windows processes. Maybe all you really measured is the times when the Windows scheduler allowed your process to run. Or maybe you have a software bug that only occurs in a few special environments. PCs are like snowflakes--no two are exactly the same. No matter how much testing you did it was never on a machine quite like hers. That's one of the reasons that so many new poker client releases crash after they are released.

The preceding paragraph was purely an example but it is amazing how easily certainty can slip through your fingers when dealing with computers.

When I'm not playing poker I develop and troubleshoot large software-intensive systems. I wish I had a nickel for every time an engineer told me something was impossible which later proved to be actually happening. Software is full of unexpected interactions and hidden flaws. Human analysts overlook things and make logic errors. I really feel for the PokerStars guy who was 100% certain Teddy's Mom was a bot. Almost eveyone doing real system work makes a horrible analysis mistake eventually. You just pray it doesn't come at a bad time.

If beatme1 can multitable thousands of hands in a controlled online environment and produce the exact statistical betting patterns of the "bot" that would be nearly iron-clad proof that she wasn't a bot.

If you continue to ignore evidence like that then you are a fool. The only reasonable reaction with conflicting "proofs" is to tear all the evidence apart and reexamine it until you figure out which of your conflicting 100% certain facts is actually flawed. Failing that you say "reasonable doubt" and give her money back.

PS: A live play exhibition would be pretty useless. It would be strange if her live and online games were identical. Any good player is going to be influenced by physical tells and other psychological factors. Even if she could somehow ignore live factors her opponents couldn't.