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

[blackize]

[ QUOTE ]

American Heritage Dictionary
steal
v. tr.
To take (the property of another) without right or permission.

[/ QUOTE ]

If a bot isn't allowed to play per the T&Cs then isn't every dollar it wins stolen under this definition?

[NFuego20]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
you'd rather have 50 bots stealing money from people at the tables than deal with this situation as it has been dealt with ...

[/ QUOTE ]

Please provide the link or quote that states

"I want to be robbed while I play online"

Your characterization of the opposing view is igorant at best, malignant at worst, as evidenced by your usage of the word steal:

American Heritage Dictionary
steal
v. tr.
To take (the property of another) without right or permission.

Nobody wants to be robbed and furthermore it's not possible for one player to rob another in a hand of poker if the game mechanics at the site are fair and honest (regardless of who or what is playing). A robot player does not somehow gain some magical power over the game whereby it can just reach into your stack and take chips.

I understand that you don't want to play against bot players (and you're not alone here), but when you demonize the issue with words like "steal" then you're drawing attention toward a false notion and more importantly you're drawing attention away from the entity that really does have the power to take our property without permission - namely the site itself.

A robot player must play poker with me to get access to my stack. Depending on our skill levels the bot may or may not have edge against me (in most cases I will have edge on the bot so I'm not worried), but either way, it's not theft.

In contrast to this, a site can rob an entire account at will with but a single mouse click.

[/ QUOTE ]

Alright you know what, spare me with your quotes from the dictionary. It was cute the first time, now it's just antagonistic.

A person using a successful bot is stealing from his opponents. He is creating a situation where the playing field is not level and using that unfair advantage to take money from opponents over the long haul. The fact that the money may not be taken in one swoop or all from one player at once doesn't change the intent of the person using the bot. And certainly if a bot is ever "perfected", that money will be disappearing even faster, regardless of the fact that the bot has to play the game of poker to collect the money.

Just because my opinion is different from yours, it certainly isn't ignorant. My side of this argument is well thought out, as is yours. And if we want to keep going back and forth in this pissing match any further I doubt we're going to accomplish much at this point. As long as we're being super duper technical, "igorant" is not a word.

And although a site perhaps could rob a player of his entire online bankroll with one click, I have ZERO reason to believe this is happening or even makes sense to happen. If it were, the site's reputation would be severely tarnished and it would hurt their business. Heck, what was done in this particular case appears to be very much justified (regardless of the argument of whether or not the player should be allowed obtain the evidence to present a case to defend himself). Clearly no matter how justified Full Tilt is for their actions, they are still getting a ton of bad PR for this whether right or wrong. Sometimes you just have to take a step back and use some common sense. Like I said this isn't a court of law. Full Tilt is facing a difficult situation, and obviously you and I disagree (strongly) on how the process should be handled.

[RIIT]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

American Heritage Dictionary
steal
v. tr.
To take (the property of another) without right or permission.

[/ QUOTE ]

If a bot isn't allowed to play per the T&Cs then isn't every dollar it wins stolen under this definition?

[/ QUOTE ]

According to the definition, it is not theft in any situation where fair poker mechanics separate the two stacks. A robot player cannot just "take" your chips; it must play poker with you.

I'm not defending bots here; I am intentionally challenging an over zealous demonization of the subject because such propoganda invites everyone to turn their attention toward a false notion and away from the larger more important issue of policing the sites themselves.

What would be great is if FT voluntarily chose to police themselves here and publish all of the evidence so that those with bankrolls in the 5 figures range can breathe a little easier knowing that FT's motives seem to be healthy.

Once this happens we can all turn our attention toward the issue of minimizing the effects of winning robot players.

I'm all in favor of finding a way of abusing any player I cannot beat (robot or human). I just want to know that the process involved cannot be errantly used against me.

[RIIT]

My apologies for the typo - the correct spelling is "ignorant"

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...age=0&vc=1

I do not fear robot players as much as you do. I'm much more worried about unchecked god-like power and so I want FT to demonstrate a willingness to be accountable by simply agreeing to publish their evidence.

The view that the evidence should remain hidden in order to save online poker is actually even more of a reason to inform everyone about the truth of the matter if indeed such evidence is that significant. Hiding something that important would be similar to a government hiding foreknowledge of impending doom.

I want everyone to know the truth.

[NFuego20]

I guess time will tell which of the two concerns deserve the most attention. Perhaps I'm too trusting a person but I am much more willing to give a responsible business the benefit of the doubt, than provide people who are trying to cheat the system with easy workarounds.

[RIIT]

[ QUOTE ]
I guess time will tell which of the two concerns deserve the most attention. Perhaps I'm too trusting a person but I am much more willing to give a responsible business the benefit of the doubt, than provide people who are trying to cheat the system with easy workarounds.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now this is a very fair comment on your part. Yes you seem to be more trusting than I am. I'll be glad to "give a responsible business the benefit of the doubt" but before I do they need to go out of their way to act responsible. FT has not yet done this IMHO.

If there are "easy workarounds" then that information cannot remain hidden forever - it will come out eventually. So this cover up strategy is not secure and in fact it's very much like any encryption scheme where the strength of the cyper is entirely dependent on hiding the encrypt/decrypt algorithms.

If there's a problem then let's bring it out in the open and find a solution. If it really is an unsolvable problem then I think the whole world should know sooner rather than later.

[sethypooh21]

As an aside, I'm guessing that many of those most concerned with the "process" here are those with the most training and/or experience with the legal system. Not sure what that means, just interesting is all.

[StellarWind]

[ QUOTE ]
If there are "easy workarounds" then that information cannot remain hidden forever - it will come out eventually. So this cover up strategy is not secure and in fact it's very much like any encryption scheme where the strength of the cyper is entirely dependent on hiding the encrypt/decrypt algorithms.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is an accurate observation.

[ QUOTE ]
If there's a problem then let's bring it out in the open and find a solution. If it really is an unsolvable problem then I think the whole world should know sooner rather than later.

[/ QUOTE ]
Bots are a very serious problem and anyone who pays attention is well aware of that already.

There is no bot-detection equivalent of the strong encryption algorithms that can withstand public scrutiny. Bots are detected when the bot-makers screw up. As the bot-makers learn from their mistakes and perfect their craft it will become increasingly difficult to detect them.

The whole encryption analogy is backwards. The botters are the ones trying to develop "strong encryption" to hide their bots. The sites are the "hackers" who want to crack the security systems protecting the bots. Public disclosure just accelerates our progress toward the apparent end-state in which the botters have developed near-perfect security and the rooms can do nothing about it.

[Ross2021]

hi

[RIIT]

[ QUOTE ]
As an aside, I'm guessing that many of those most concerned with the "process" here are those with the most training and/or experience with the legal system. Not sure what that means, just interesting is all.

[/ QUOTE ]

Or those who need to know there is zero chance of a false positive confiscation on a 5 figure account.