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

[KurtSF]

[ QUOTE ]
Bringing this in relations to bots: Maybe there are bots out there who can circumvent all detection mechanisms and earn cash easily. Making the detection mechanisms public would definitely help the not-so-elite bot-coders but it would not matter much to the best bots as the coders were aware of those mechanisms.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe, maybe not.

I recently spent some time at a botting forum to educate myself somewhat. There were some botters that were getting caught and had no idea how. Maybe these are just the "script kiddies", but I was certainly left with the impression that there is a legitimate cat-and-mouse game going on between sites and botters, each trying to get one step ahead of the other. I don't like FTP making unilateral decisions without oversight that just feed their bottom line screwing over their customers, but I like the idea of clueing in the botters as to how to be undetectable even less.

Do I have to pick my poison?

Also, what's the ration of script kiddies to black hats? If there's twenty to each one, do you really want the number of undetectable bots to increase by a factor of 20? Talk about killing the games.

[sethypooh21]

[ QUOTE ]
Also, what's the ration of script kiddies to black hats? If there's twenty to each one, do you really want the number of undetectable bots to increase by a factor of 20? Talk about killing the games.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a pretty key question - not just the ratio of skillful vs. unskillful botters, but the absolute number of bots - I'll be the first to admit that the larger the magnitude of the problem, the harsher the measures I'm willing to put up with. But this is an empirical question that I don't feel that we have a good handle on, and so much of the rhetoric in favor of the maximal security argument is appeal-to-emotion demagoguery and fear mongering.

Someone with some experience in epidemiology can probably explain this better than me, but the usefulness of tests for many diseases which are especially rare is pretty low - even if the % of false positives and negatives is low, as the sheer weight of the 'uninfected' population is so much large than that of the infected.

As a completely made up example, say there are 100k players, 10 of whom are bots. The detection methodology is 100% effective at detecting bots, but also has a .1% chance of reaching a false positive. The site will ID ~109 people (10 actual bots and 1/1000 of the other players) as bots, less than 10% of whom actually are. Even if the test became twice as accurate, it would still only be 50/50.

[RIIT]

[ QUOTE ]
2. Bots are a very serious problems that cost honest players an enormous amount of money

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a blanket statement that addresses either "All Bots" or "Some Bots"

It would have been better if you formed two statements that began with:

"All winning bots are ... "
"All losing bots are ... "

If we assume the following:
winning bots remove money from the economy
losing bots add money to the economy

Then the only way your "very serious problem" statement can be true is if the money being removed exceeds the money being added. And I for one do not believe this to be the case by a long shot. The act of getting rid of "All Bots" would hurt the poker economy and I don't think I'm the only one with this view.

Yes sites have policies against "All Bots", but in actual practice the real policy is against "Winning Bots".

Would we even be having this discussion if the player in question was $70k in the hole? No we would not.

If FT does indeed plan on performing a full distribution of the $70k then doesn't FT do best for the poker economy by redistributing the cash to losing players? The losers will just put it back into the game right?

For all we know the current FT behavior could be an actual instance of their long term economic health plan in action:

a) Determine a winning player with a large roll.
b) Declare them to be a bot.
c) Detain the account balance.
d) Decline to publicize the evidence.
e) Distribute funds to losers.

The failure to publicize evidence puts every large bankroll at risk.

[blane]

[ QUOTE ]
For all we know the current FT behavior could be an actual instance of their long term economic health plan in action:

a) Determine a winning player with a large roll.
b) Declare them to be a bot.
c) Detain the account balance.
d) Decline to publicize the evidence.
e) Distribute funds to losers.

The failure to publicize evidence puts every large bankroll at risk.

[/ QUOTE ]

Unrelated to the question whether bot detection mechanisms should be disclosed, this is -- i am sorry -- nonsense.

This is more like a suicide plan for any poker site. A site pulling that trick jeapordizes itself of exposure. When that happens, the player base is lost and the company basically bankrupt. The risk is imminent since if they really operate in that way there will be evidence. It's just a matter how/when it is disclosed, maybe by a disgruntled ex-employee.

No, by means of revenue the poker sites couldnt care less whether the bot pays the rake or a human player. But any serious site cares about their integrity because they need their players to believe in it to proceed operating a successful business.

[RIIT]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
For all we know the current FT behavior could be an actual instance of their long term economic health plan in action:

a) Determine a winning player with a large roll.
b) Declare them to be a bot.
c) Detain the account balance.
d) Decline to publicize the evidence.
e) Distribute funds to losers.

The failure to publicize evidence puts every large bankroll at risk.

[/ QUOTE ]

Unrelated to the question whether bot detection mechanisms should be disclosed, this is -- i am sorry -- nonsense.

This is more like a suicide plan for any poker site. A site pulling that trick jeapordizes itself of exposure. When that happens, the player base is lost and the company basically bankrupt. The risk is imminent since if they really operate in that way there will be evidence. It's just a matter how/when it is disclosed, maybe by a disgruntled ex-employee.

No, by means of revenue the poker sites couldnt care less whether the bot pays the rake or a human player. But any serious site cares about their integrity because they need their players to believe in it to proceed operating a successful business.

[/ QUOTE ]

blane: Nonsense you say? Ok exactly which step a-e fails to describe the current FT behavior in this case?

As long as FT hides the evidence then it's open season on FT's motives.

I want to see the evidence. I could care less if public disclosure helps robot makers.

My need to know they did not wrongfully abuse a player supercedes my need to police robots.

When I consider the ease with which FT can usurp my bankroll compared to the ease with which a robot opponent can do the same - I'll take my chances with the bots tyvm

[Josem]

[ QUOTE ]
Online poker exists in a state of anarchy. There are no courts and no police. Talk of rights, obligations, contracts, and so forth is just that ... talk. These things don't exist.

In a state of anarchy people and organizations do what they want and things just happen

[/ QUOTE ]

SW, I think you are spot on and that every point you make is fair and reasonable.


I feel that in an unregulated, international, system (as currently exists) there is no protection for the consumer (compared to the protection you would expect in every other commercial transaction that you would take part in).


I suspect that it is unlikely to be fairly and properly regulated in the near future, so I suspect that the only solution is a market based one - establishing an independent "judge" on these things, and hoping that the impact on the market is sufficiently large for these operations to voluntarily submit themselves to independent and fair processes. I don't think that this is feasible in the short term... but hopefully in the long term.

I suspect that as the player base matures, the value of the site's brand (which is their largest asset) will depend on their reliability, public perception, and so on. Thus, I hope that it will be in their long term interests to get this stuff right.

[ QUOTE ]
This is more like a suicide plan for any poker site. A site pulling that trick jeapordizes itself of exposure. When that happens, the player base is lost and the company basically bankrupt. The risk is imminent since if they really operate in that way there will be evidence. It's just a matter how/when it is disclosed, maybe by a disgruntled ex-employee.

[/ QUOTE ]

I feel that this is fair as well. I will only play on PokerStars and PartyPoker because I <u>perceive</u> that they are "fairer" sites. I do not envisage playinging on Full Tilt Poker or Ultimate Bet without some significant changes to their operations.

Last week I was looking into transferring my non-insignificant volume of play from PartyPoker to another site - and was close to deciding on FTP. I chose not to because I do not have faith in their administration. I suspect that over a population wide sample, FTP's "fairness perception" costs them customers - I'm one.*

(*This could very well reduce player X's chance of playing on the site from 15% to 14% (these numbers are obviously the figment of my imaginations). Over a large sample size, this would have an effect on their bottom line and number of players.)

[sethypooh21]

Josem made a point I've been trying to make quite well - it's not necessarily that FTP 'owes' us anything, but it is in their interests to be perceived as dealing with these situations well. Can anyone really say that they have done so based on the information publicly available. Again, reaching the correct determination about beatme's botness is =/= handling the situation well (necessary but not sufficient, I would say.) As poker players, we should understand that it's the process rather than results which really matter in the long run, as long term, good process will necessitate correct results.

[El_Hombre_Grande]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm sure FT's T&amp;C's give them godlike powers over these sorts of issues

[/ QUOTE ]

FTP's T&amp;C's do not erode the user's basic rights to be treated fairly.

[/ QUOTE ]

ya, they do.

Anything FT has done up to this point after confiscating their money is icing on the cake, as far as I'm concerned. They viewed it as an important enough matter in the court of public opinion (ie 2p2) to come forward and address the issue. They have no obligation to do so whatsoever.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree. If this reaches an American forum in some fashion, they will have to say something other than "we seized it because we can," regardless of what the terms and conditions say. I think that the "We seized it because we can" argument is a loser in most American juridictions.

But, really who cares? Court procedure and process is not the issue here. The issue is whether there is an internal procedure predicated on fairness to the parties involved. I think its in their best interest to provide that, as well as an upfront explanation of the rights (if any) that account holders have with respect to the issue of seizure. If the answer is really, "no obligations whatsover," as you say, they simply perceive it as a unilateral right to seize accounts without explanation or an opportunity to be heard, that's unacceptable.

At least to me.

[Josem]

[ QUOTE ]
If the answer is really, "no obligations whatsover," as you say, they simply perceive it as a unilateral right to seize accounts without explanation or an opportunity to be heard, that's unacceptable.

At least to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that this is the key point.

No one has any power to "force" FTP* to be a good corporate citizen. The only lever that people have is to not use their services if their service is not up to scratch.


*Feel free to substitute the name of any other poker site here

[blane]

[ QUOTE ]
I disagree. If this reaches an American forum in some fashion, they will have to say something other than "we seized it because we can," regardless of what the terms and conditions say. I think that the "We seized it because we can" argument is a loser in most American juridictions.

[/ QUOTE ]

You may disagree and give a reason. Still it will not change reality, as StellarWind described it so eloquently. And even though it is not regulated (not saying lawless, really), it is still not quite like an anarchy. I don't want to bring politics into this, but sorry: You can choose to disagree with the foreign policy of your country (in a democratic system you theoretically even have the right to) but you will not be able to change it.

You can try to initiate a petition (this is what some of the posters try to do here), but usually it will not help you. You were born under your nations flag, you have its passport. As citizen you will need to follow their law.

Again, what SW said: You signed to the TOS of these poker sites, you agreed to follow their rules.