Perhaps why you should care about bots and cheats

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Guess you missed part of the conversation.

Currently affiliates are liable for any and all charge backs at almost anytime. Any information they receive is generated by the poker site.

Hence the affiliates are totally off the hook and as a matter of fact spend a good deal of their "convention" time discussing security and the best interests of keeping poker alive time!


Thanks for playing,



D$D

[indianaV8]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Am I that unclear or are you that obtuse?

[/ QUOTE ]

You're that unclear. You've said a few times that you're proposing regulation. Can you summarize what exactly it is you're proposing?

[/ QUOTE ]

FT only distributing the seized account money in a proven bot account after 2+2'ers found the bot on their own and reported it to FT is chicken$hit, IMPO!

Given only the information I see from the report on my own rake back account I could with one data base sort seperate the casual poker players from any bots.

Give me a look at FT's daily information and I could seperate well over 50% of the multi-tabling grinders and bots with another database type sort or filter.

I don't know enough about the full "poker" accounting, but can imagine given the information in my rake back account AND an inside look at FT's security information eliminating 95% of humans from bots can't be that hard. A few phone calls and some faxed documentation or even an affiliate vouching for accounts IMPO would get us 100% of the way to a workible solution.

At the very least the time and programing cost to FT including giving every player twice what they paid out in this case is worth 100 times or more in less regulatory burden that might be imposed by my "imagined" future hearings.

I am asking FT to stop just looking at this week's or this quater's bottom line but look at the multi-year profits. Show congress, the anti-gambling nuts, and me they have the best interests of poker at heart.

Even if FT ultimately got a free pass in "my imagined" congressional hearings write it off to good will.

But don't expect me to hold my tounge when we are asked to suggest that the industry is self regulating and a free market rewards the best poker site in response to the crap the anti-gambling nuts will pull. I'll do what I'm told but hey in my mind I'm going to be saying "I told you so!"


D$D

[/ QUOTE ]

Why should bots be reported at all?

[Taylor Caby]

D$D,
This seems downright silly. I'm all for eradicating bots, but doing something that is going to severely inconvenience the affiliates' best customers is not good for business and will never be implemented.

This would be like putting the burden of policing credit card fraud on store owners. Yeah, the store owners are liable in certain chargeback situations (fraud, unhappy customers, etc.,) but it isn't their job to police the situation. This would be like asking them to submit a list each month of "suspicious individuals" and have their credit cards frozen until an investigation takes place. Just seems pretty silly when you think about it.

I understand where you are coming from, but you need to take a step back and think about all of the implications your plan would cause.

tc

[frommagio]

[ QUOTE ]


I'll second this.

[/ QUOTE ]

Have you achieved 235 posts with one-liners cheering TheEngineer? There are certainly worse ways to go about it, but come on man - he doesn't need it, so why waste the space?

Do you have any original thoughts you'd like to share with us?!?!??

[CountingMyOuts]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


I'll second this.

[/ QUOTE ]

Have you achieved 235 posts with one-liners cheering TheEngineer? There are certainly worse ways to go about it, but come on man - he doesn't need it, so why waste the space?

Do you have any original thoughts you'd like to share with us?!?!??

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I have not achieved 235 posts with one-liners cheering TheEngineer. Of course, you would have known that had you done a little research on my post history rather than waste some space with your petty post.