NL Bots on Full Tilt

[Drignatio]

just got home from work... a few things:

1.) has a Full Tilt representative said anything about this yet?

2.) Is it possible that nlnut = nation
these two posters are actually the same person (just registered on 2+2 twice, under 2 different emails?) CHECK internet IP

3.) Just because Full Tilt cleared his account for play doesn't mean he wasn't using bots... Full Tilt does not = FBI and it is definitely possible that they made a mistake and SHOULD have banned the accounts.

All the account clearing means is that for some reason they didn't have enough evidence to ban his account or he took manual control over the bots often enough to make it look normal to FT.

4.) PT numbers that similar on the later streets would be impossible to replicate over that sample size. I don't care who you guys are, but there is NO possible way that with four people sitting around playing together (all playing 4+tables) that you would be able to discuss a currently playing hand and determine the right course of action.

Even if you could, this would have to occur thousands upon thousands of times for more complex, later street decisions. There inevitably would be times where maybe 2 or 3 of the poker group would run into a tough spot, and the absence of sufficient advice would be enough to throw the PT numbers off much more than what they actually are.

5.) Anyone who spends that much time playing that many hands of poker, and has absolutely NO interest in improving their play one bit, is an idiot.

"I didn't want to fix what wasn't broken." BS. At that winrate at those stakes, there would be OBVIOUS changes you could make to your game that would have NO negative potential and only positive potential.

GL botting on your new site/ screenames... you WILL be caught again full_tilting/Charles Kuruzovich

[KotOD]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Let's say for the sake of argument that there is a super detailed "playbook" out there that all of these people are executing. You would think nlnut would be willing to provide some sort of evidence this exists.

[/ QUOTE ]

And how do I do this without giving you the strategy. How can I do this? please advise.

[/ QUOTE ]

How about this? You don't have to give away any of the system. Just tell me what your training process is. To get the data so close, you must have to go through some training. Surely one of your "friends" is naturally a 18/10 player or something like that. What is the process for getting at least four people to conform so perfectly to this system. Plus, if one of you was a winning player of a different style before this current setup, why convert to a nit? Why not just keep playing your style from before?

There just really is no way you could get this kind of uniformity to a written playbook in my opinion.

[/ QUOTE ]

it would not be hard to come up with a way of having the preflop numbers agree - not hard at all.

to one raise, call/raise these exact hands and no others - allowing for certain hands in certain positions (haven't really looked over the numbers, don't know if there's any serious deviations)

to two raises, call/raise these exact hands and no others

follow these things exactly. how hard is that? you're looking at it from the perspective of a guy playing a game, not a guy doing a job. if your job included cleaning out certain machines in an exact way, you'd do that. if your job was to run oats in a straight line at 5:30 AM each morning, you'd do that. if your job included not playing KQo to a raise in late position, you'd fold it.

[/ QUOTE ]

And postflop? All you seem to talk about is preflop, but the devil is in the details of the postflop play.

Bet River:

2497/575 = 0.230276332
961/216 = 0.224765869
2403/538 = 0.223886808
1836/411 = 0.223856209

Listen here, Scrappy Doo, "they listen to my well-honed playbook" doesn't make numbers like these, on the river.

[DWarrior]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
minraise,

have you ever met a guy with a wife and 3 young kids that would rather take the easy grind money over taking chances by moving up and taking shots with his roll? maybe thats why he's fine with grinding 1/2 for good money.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL, this a fine argument why to not move up. But how does this explain the fact that the style never changed, or the fact that nlnut said they often discuss hands, yet never change style?

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe he's satisfied with making $40-$50/hr and has moved on to other stuff?

[BrandonJoseph47]

[ QUOTE ]
OK, so according to Chuck, BrandonJoseph47 is a member of the group, right? That means he was lying...

Here:
[ QUOTE ]
Investigate me all you want. I have one account on FullTilt with 260 dollars in it. I play one or two tables at .10/.25. Good luck,and like I said,isolate the free thinkers.

[/ QUOTE ]
Here:
[ QUOTE ]
No. This was at Party Poker two years ago. I still keep in touch because he gives me poker advice. That is how I know they aren't bots.

[/ QUOTE ]
I realize this is actually lying, but it's very misleading.
He claims to practically know nothing about Chuck here:
[ QUOTE ]
Like I said, keep pressing. I chat with ONE person occasionally on-line. I consider him a friend. Maybe he runs these bots, I don't know. I believe that he doesn't. Once again my OPINION. Sorry for having one.

[/ QUOTE ]
Claims that Chuck is not a 2+2er here:
[ QUOTE ]
They would if a friend was being slandered all over the internet, and wasn't a previous 2+2 forum member. Like I said, I don't waste my life in chat rooms..

[/ QUOTE ]

So you'll forgive me for saying that your group doesn't have all that much credibility.

[/ QUOTE ]


Actually my wife does have a FullTilt account with $260 that she plays those stakes at home. Yes, the other stuff was a lie. That's pretty obvious. I just wanted to defend him while trying to stay anonymous. Now that we all know who I am, it doesn't seem very relivant does it? I was talking about MYSELF not being on the 2+2 forum before today..

[ShaneP]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
- I argue that the reason all of the data is so similar is that he is playing on all of them. Think about this: Take 400k hands and split them up into four 100k chunks. Won't the data for each of these 100k hands be very similar to each other?

[/ QUOTE ]

But VPIP, which should obviously be identical across the board, is statistically different between the 4 accounts listed.

[/ QUOTE ]

How about this: At some time t0, he decided he wanted to adjust something in the strategy. He has four accounts with x1, x2, x3, anx x4 hands each. But say they're all different # of hands. The stats for each of those will be different based on how many hands he played at his strategy before t0 and the number of hands he plays with the new strategy after t0.

Example:

Set1: 110
Set2: 111100

Both have average of .67.

Change strategy to play all hands. Add 1 to each

Set1: 110 1
Set2: 111100 1

Average for 1: 0.75
Average for 2: 0.71

Same strategy, different averages, hmm. Maybe theres is a lesson here? [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

A valid point.

However, two of the accounts have basically the same number of hands (105k hands and 112k hands), so we can assume they were datamined at the same time. How come their VPIPs are so significantly different then? (13.64% and 14.08%) That difference is over 4 SDs

[/ QUOTE ]

has it been confirmed that the true deviation is over 4SDs? earlier there were like 4 formulas people were trying to use. if true this fact needs much more attention as it has the greatest chance of clearing them

[/ QUOTE ]

I did a few quick calcs...not sure if this is 100% accurate, but I used the correct formula for SD of percentages (it is sqrt( p*(1-p)/n ). The null hypothesis was that they all came from the same distribution, with the mean being the weighted average of all four preflop players (the last line is the sum of all of them). First two columns are the VPiP and number of hands, the third is the individual percentage VPiP. The fourth is the SD using the number of hands of each individual player, and the last is the number of SD away from the mean (13.93% VPiP).

VPiP #Hands pct SD SD away
from mean
14376 | 105366 |0.136438699 | 0.001066697|-2.675179739
15840 | 112514 |0.14078248 | 0.001032258|1.443606827
11683| 82577 |0.141480073 | 0.00120493|1.815679571
5721 | 41414 | 0.138141691 | 0.001701445|-0.676257655

47620 |341871 |0.139292306

So only the first (one4thethumb I believe) is statistically different than 13.92, at the 95% level, but that's not really a result to hang one's hat on. The others are within 2 SD of the mean.

The greater than 4 SD different is adding the two SD from the first two players.

However, add to the SD above slight tweaks to code (assuming they're running bots) or human play that changes things slightly, and I can't reject the null hypothesis that these results weren't generated from the same process (the same mean).

Shane

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know if you've gone about it correctly.

Also, you're failing to reject the null without specifying any criteria...one of your results differs significantly from the mean (Z of -2.67 and with a 105366 sample size) and you somehow fail to reject. You realize -2.67 has a 0.0038 probability of occurring by chance? That should be very strong evidence for rejecting the null hypothesis)

[/ QUOTE ]

First, I said it fell outside the 95% hypothesis. But I think my results are a bit better than cherrypicking the two most dissimilar results and comparing just those--the issue is with all four of them. And I've dealt with enough tests to know that 2.5SD while according to the 'book' is enough to reject, especially with other issues going on. It reminds me of a quote from a physics prof here (about physics results): "half of all three sigma results are wrong".

What I'm saying is that 'rejecting' a 2.5 SD result while technically correct is a little quick. A slight tweak or human intervention a little bit could cause this difference, and thus just isn't convincing in my mind.

In slightly other words, yes, 2.5 SD looks good, but I believe the SD is being (slightly) underestimated for various reasons. Had the results been 4+SD, then we're talking. Otherwise, I don't see convincing evidence from VPiP

Oh, and I think you have an extra 0 in there? 3SD is 99%, so shouldn't that be 0.03, not 0.003?

[nlnut]

[ QUOTE ]
Chuck,

In December (after you indicated you had started your team play), you asked in this post if anyone had a Mouseclicker script for Stars. Have you or any of the other team members played on Stars since? .......occasionally, but not that much. maybe 2% of the hands

Why did you delete your original post in the thread you started about your account being suspended ? If you were innocent you could have rallied the support of 2p2 to affect a change like has happened repeatedly before....we decided to allow FTP to handle the investigation and keep 2+2 players out of it since I had no credibilty on 2+2.

[/ QUOTE ]

[revg]

Buddy was prolly googling his name to see if anyone was onto his botting.... lol.

http://fulltiltvirge.blogspot.com/20...post-hand.html

Cheers,
Greg

[ianisakson]

I never played much on FT anyway, they don't need my business because they obviously don't want it enough to come defend themselves. I can't believe we haven't heard a response from them yet, makes me wonder wtf they are doing.

[Nichomacheo]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm sorry for re-stating this, but I think its relavent and I didnt see any responses to it.

Why isn't it possible that this is one person playing on many accounts at once? Here's my argument for it:

- His P5 profile stated "I then got a program called pokerstat to analyze my game and plug the leaks. And I did. I then switched over to Pokertracker and am still using that to this day." I see him having one or several large PokerTracker databases that he uses to set the data for a HUD.
- He is good with scripts that enable him to play faster. See his previous posts in other threads to confirm this.
- I argue that the reason all of the data is so similar is that he is playing on all of them. Think about this: Take 400k hands and split them up into four 100k chunks. Won't the data for each of these 100k hands be very similar to each other?
- The reason he might be slow sometimes is because he could be playing 30 tables at once and, although scripts help, he can't be quick on all of them
- The reason for some stupid moves is because he plays a load of tables at once. As someone previously mentioned, if someone 3-bets you preflop and you have junk, sometimes you're just folding without much thought into what the raise size is. Similar reasoning applies to later streets.

The "team" idea is a good excuse so that he can't get in trouble for violating the TOS. But what is more likely, that he plays on multiple IPs/computers at once or that he has a team that follows very specific algorithms for each street?

I do admit there are holes in my theory:
- How does he not sit at the same table? I think its possible that he has a script to open up tables for him too. Opening up tables on a site is hard enough, but even harder when you're playing 30 tables. There might be some central database of what tables are currently open and it makes sure, when opening up new tables, not to open up one that is already set up. This would be easy to do with a few networked computers.
- Psychologically, it seems very difficult to pull of 30 or 40 tabling or whatever. But, that doesnt mean someone can't do it.
- How does the mouse operate?

Cliff notes: Imagine someone sitting in front of four monitors with a HUD on all of them + some software he programmed that lets him quickly act on all the tables. He uses the information from the HUD plus some simple tight strategy to meak out a small profit.

[/ QUOTE ]

No one has made an argument stating why this isnt the most reasonable explanation.

[KotOD]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
chuck, it's pretty obvious you're dodging questions that the answer will in some way give away your "secret system". If I have to, i'm going to put together my own sweatshop of players to sit in position on your players and outplay the living daylights out of their terrible poker playing [censored]'s. The fact that you have not given a good argument as to why you guys don't even try to improve is enough for me to find you guilty.

[/ QUOTE ]


Actually the bigger question is why, even playing sub-optimally and assuming their story is 100% true, they haven't quickly moved up to much bigger stakes.

[/ QUOTE ]

...because Fullring above 200nl is basically dead. Nation can't beat above 200nl fullring online, and he said so himself.

That and these guys obviously lack intelligence/common sense to raise winrates above an average of 1.2ptbb/100. Not to mention, can you imagine what they think/feel about themselves after being in this "farm." What a life, LOL

[/ QUOTE ]