NL Bots on Full Tilt

[Klompy]

adanthar,

It doesn't max out at 2bb/100, but it takes a "decent" player to beat it for that. Having a bot that can beat it for that playing long hours 12 tabling= huge amounts of cash for very little work. The rakeback from this would be amazing too.

I was under the impression that these bots aren't making 2bb/100 though.

[RedManPlus]

Good post, but...

[ QUOTE ]
The point you're missing is that most players play recreationally...

[/ QUOTE ]

It's the opposite.
I'm defending Recreational players.

They get abused for 10% rake by the casino...
Then they get abused for another 10% "rake" by the 2 Pros at their table...
And then maybe they get nicked by a Bot or two.

From a casino financial point of view...
Only the recreational player is profitable...
And should be protected.

[ QUOTE ]

Eventually, there is no doubt that bots, especially if allowed by the sites, will become sophisticated enough to beat good poker players.


[/ QUOTE ]

The above idea is a myth.
The AI field is advancing VERY slowly...
And world class AI in rogue Bots is many years away.

Why?
Because the best minds are NOT working on Poker Bots.

I build trading systems for a living...
Of the same complexity as the FTP Bot room...
And, people, you have to SCRAP the ** fantasy **...
Of stand-alone Bots running 24/7 without supervision.

The reality is like that FTP Bot room this thread is about...
With several Humans MANNING several Bots.

This thread is like a course in what NOT to do...
And a better designed Man + Bot combination is 100% undetectable...

So Casino has choice:

(a) Allow Pros and Bots
(b) Ban Pros and Bots, limit all money-makers

[mack848]

Not all that many hands, I know.

[RIIT]

RedManPlus: There is no way a site can make a rule against winning and survive. That would effectively be announcing to all players that they should not deposit if they plan on winning.

winning ban = deposit killer

Such a site would quickly be known as the "Ima-Loser" site or the "Nota-Winner" site. Pause for a moment and consider 2+2 threads from these players:

[ QUOTE ]
Hello,

I play at IL ....
(insert hh text)
Did i make the correct play on the turn here?

Thanks,

ICantWin

[/ QUOTE ]
Wouldn't any "winning" advice from this community be directly against the TOS of the IL/NW site?

[RedManPlus]

[ QUOTE ]
RedManPlus: There is no way a site can make a rule against winning and survive. That would effectively be announcing to all players that they should not deposit if they plan on winning.

winning ban = deposit killer

Such a site would quickly be known as the "Ima-Loser" site or the "Nota-Winner" site. Pause for a moment and consider 2+2 threads from these players:

[ QUOTE ]
Hello,

I play at IL ....
(insert hh text)
Did i make the correct play on the turn here?

Thanks,

ICantWin

[/ QUOTE ]
Wouldn't any "winning" advice from this community be directly against the TOS of the IL/NW site?

[/ QUOTE ]

I did not say anything like "rule against winning".

RIIT, you take my posts...
And then dummy them down to an IQ level of about 75.
You must own a very sophisticated "Artificial Stupidity" generator.

[RIIT]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
RedManPlus: There is no way a site can make a rule against winning and survive. That would effectively be announcing to all players that they should not deposit if they plan on winning.

winning ban = deposit killer

Such a site would quickly be known as the "Ima-Loser" site or the "Nota-Winner" site. Pause for a moment and consider 2+2 threads from these players:

[ QUOTE ]
Hello,

I play at IL ....
(insert hh text)
Did i make the correct play on the turn here?

Thanks,

ICantWin

[/ QUOTE ]
Wouldn't any "winning" advice from this community be directly against the TOS of the IL/NW site?

[/ QUOTE ]

I did not say anything like "rule against winning".

RIIT, you take my posts...
And then dummy them down to an IQ level of about 75.
You must own a very sophisticated "Artificial Stupidity" generator.

[/ QUOTE ]

RedManPlus: Yes I understand you didn't use that exact wording. Nevertheless, the resulting conditions are the same as if you had.

No site is going to make a policy against winning.

Take your entire argument and translate that into any context within a land-based casino and ask yourself if their gaming license would not be immediately threatened.

Here is an appropriate theme song for your site:

Casino California
(sung to Hotel California by The Eagles)
"...
Last thing I remember, I was
Running for the door
I had to find the passage back
To the place I was before
'Relax,' said the night man,
'We are programmed to receive.
You can cash-out any time you like,
But money never leaves!'
...
Welcome to Casino California ..."

[mbpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
Because the Top Bots are MANNED by high level players...Who step in and make the 5% most tricky decisions...And can defeat any "human tests".


[/ QUOTE ]

And how will they defeat the tests for 95% of the time?

[PLO8FaceKilla]

I read this whole damn thread this week and as far as i can tell, FULL TILT only replied once and said they would be back.

Did they ever reply a 2nd time and address this b.s.?

[Klompy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Because the Top Bots are MANNED by high level players...Who step in and make the 5% most tricky decisions...And can defeat any "human tests".


[/ QUOTE ]

And how will they defeat the tests for 95% of the time?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm so confused what this post even means? You understand that he was talking about poker and not bot tests right?

[Some9]

Ive read like 40 pages and theres a lot of good discussion going on. But unfortunately also a lot more of nonsense. If someone could just make some lengthy cliff notes it would be awesome.


I think the accused persons have found a reason against every piece of reasonable evidence.

Why would a botter have multiple accounts and not just one? Earlier someone said b/c FT only allows 8 tables. But at the same time he said that one could request more. Do you really think a botter would set up 3 accounts instead of one? I dont think it makes much sense.

The scenario that there are 3 people that just play according to set rules 15 hours a day does fit the picture of the stats. I think this sounds more like east europe or asain child sweatshopping, but its at least plausible.

And that they never at the same table: same IP address so wouldnt be allowed anyway.




So it all makes sense. I still don't believe its the full truth. I have thought about different ways to get this into a picture where its just 1 person botting but it all doesn't totally fit.

So far all I can say we cant prove they are bots, although its so extremely suspicious.