Perhaps why you should care about bots and cheats

[sethypooh21]

[ QUOTE ]
In an internet environment, the computer assisted player is very normal and natural. There is not an adjective to correctly describe the mindset that expects these types of players to not exist within online poker - the best word I can think of is "backward".

[/ QUOTE ]

Word.

Also, I *Strongly* dispute D$D's claim that he can very easily segregate the bots from the multi-tabling grinder, and he's completely delusional if he thinks any site will blithely live with any significant 'false positive' in bot detection that catches a lot of these high MGR players.

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
"backward".

RIIT

[/ QUOTE ]

Congrat on your 100th post.

Good luck with your life.

D$D

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In an internet environment, the computer assisted player is very normal and natural. There is not an adjective to correctly describe the mindset that expects these types of players to not exist within online poker - the best word I can think of is "backward".

[/ QUOTE ]

Word.

Also, I *Strongly* dispute D$D's claim that he can very easily segregate the bots from the multi-tabling grinder, and he's completely delusional if he thinks any site will blithely live with any significant 'false positive' in bot detection that catches a lot of these high MGR players.

[/ QUOTE ]


OK you disagree, that's fine.

At least you didn't doubt that there was a problem or that I was actually seeing a problem.

But I'll tell you I spoken to a number of rakeback affiliates and the job isn't near as hard as I thought it was a week ago.


D$D

[sethypooh21]

[ QUOTE ]


At least you didn't doubt that there was a problem or that I was actually seeing a problem.


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't doubt that there are bots and that this represents a problem. I have doubts as to the magnitude of the problem, and further the proper method of dealing with bots is highly dependent on their prevalence.

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


At least you didn't doubt that there was a problem or that I was actually seeing a problem.


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't doubt that there are bots and that this represents a problem. I have doubts as to the magnitude of the problem, and further the proper method of dealing with bots is highly dependent on their prevalence.

[/ QUOTE ]

With that logic I guess you'd agree the responsibility for finding, stopping, and preventing them is almost the sole job of the poker sites.

Would you further agree that if 2+2'ers found the bot, reported it to FT, and pushed FT to a decision to the point where FT got off it's ass and actually paid out damamges that perhaps Mason should get a collective bounty check in our names? I know $70,000.00 wouldn't mean much to Mason but it would send the right message to the current bot farmers and all the aspiring bot farmers out there.


D$D<--Mason really hates me!

[sethypooh21]

I have no earthly idea what the hell you're talking about now.

[CountingMyOuts]

[ QUOTE ]
I have no earthly idea what the hell you're talking about now.

[/ QUOTE ]

The bottom line is that he wants to have affiliates become part of the bot monitoring process, even though affiliates do not have the tools or data available to do it with 100% certainty (and he admits they do not). In his solution, if that means high volume multi-tabling players are sacrificed to meet his ends and some bots are caught in the process, he is fine with that.

He has had his idea slapped down by some of the biggest and successful affiliates around, like Jeremy Enke over at Poker Affiliate World. However, that hasn't stopped him from continuing to tilt at windmills.

[RIIT]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In an internet environment, the computer assisted player is very normal and natural. There is not an adjective to correctly describe the mindset that expects these types of players to not exist within online poker - the best word I can think of is "backward".

[/ QUOTE ]

Word.

Also, I *Strongly* dispute D$D's claim that he can very easily segregate the bots from the multi-tabling grinder, and he's completely delusional if he thinks any site will blithely live with any significant 'false positive' in bot detection that catches a lot of these high MGR players.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sethy',

Yes I agree. False positives are very bad. It's much better for a site to focus on their own honesty insofar as shuffling and privacy are concerned and then just get the hell out of the way and let the players do what is natural within the internet environment.

RIIT

[RIIT]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


At least you didn't doubt that there was a problem or that I was actually seeing a problem.


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't doubt that there are bots and that this represents a problem. I have doubts as to the magnitude of the problem, and further the proper method of dealing with bots is highly dependent on their prevalence.

[/ QUOTE ]

It would be better for sites to implement a tagging policy and let players decide for themselves instead deciding in advance for players.

If a site makes an accusation of "bot" and steals the player bankroll then that is technically an opportunity lost for others to try and win that money - the site has essentially raked the entire balance - sites like anti-botting policy because it represents free money any time they want to make an accusation. It's ok for somebody to want to not play against bots; but they should want the botters money to stay in play instead of having the site rake it away where it can never be won by others.

It would be less evil for site to tag players with symbolic icons and then let other players decide for themselves whether or not they want to sit and play at the same table.

I want an online world where there are less ways to move money from players pockets to the sites pockets. There is something highly grotesque about a site stealing an account balance.

RIIT

[RIIT]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


At least you didn't doubt that there was a problem or that I was actually seeing a problem.


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't doubt that there are bots and that this represents a problem. I have doubts as to the magnitude of the problem, and further the proper method of dealing with bots is highly dependent on their prevalence.

[/ QUOTE ]

With that logic I guess you'd agree the responsibility for finding, stopping, and preventing them is almost the sole job of the poker sites.

Would you further agree that if 2+2'ers found the bot, reported it to FT, and pushed FT to a decision to the point where FT got off it's ass and actually paid out damamges that perhaps Mason should get a collective bounty check in our names? I know $70,000.00 wouldn't mean much to Mason but it would send the right message to the current bot farmers and all the aspiring bot farmers out there.


D$D<--Mason really hates me!

[/ QUOTE ]

There is nothing wrong with an online player wanting to know the nature of their opponents.

There is something very wrong with the mindset that expects there to be no computer assisted players in an online environment.

There is something very wrong with the site mindset that seeks to steal account balances as punishment for botting instead of just simply tagging the account as such and let the players decide. Nobody is harmed if a player has a botters icon tag. If it's true that 100% of players don't want to play against the botter then no harm no foul - the botter gets zero action at the site. Keep in mind that this is less attractive to a site than current policies which essentially give them the right to steal by simply accusing anybody at anytime.

RIIT