NL Bots on Full Tilt

[neverforgetlol]

[ QUOTE ]
someone explain to me how these stats would prove they are bots anyway. Wouldn't it just prove they all know the system equally well and follow it exactly?

[/ QUOTE ]

They wouldn't prove it, just show that it is really unlikely it is humans instead of bots.

[pyedog]

[ QUOTE ]
someone explain to me how these stats would prove they are bots anyway. Wouldn't it just prove they all know the system equally well and follow it exactly?

[/ QUOTE ]
Bots can never be proven then. So let's all just agree to allow bots and say goodbye to internet poker.

[Chump Change]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't get why this guy would want to use multiple bots rather than just using one and having him multitable, unless the program somehow doesn't work for more than one table.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm surprised nobody catched on this yet.
He does it for the Rakeback. Breaking even is enough.

You do the math...

[/ QUOTE ]

If you multi table you don't get rakeback? Your post makes no sense.

[/ QUOTE ]
He does multi table. Let me spell it out for you, since you are so quick and sharp. If all your botting activity was on one account, and that bot got busted -- good-bye rakeback, good-bye cash in the account. But if you have three (3) bots, each one multi-tabling, then if one (1) of the bots gets busted you only lose 1/3 of your rakeback and cash. Sounds almost simple, doesn't it? Surprised you couldn't figure that out.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is where i'm at in the thread (about 2/5 through) and while I generally am against posts like mine, asking a question that is probably answered in the vast area of thread I haven't read, 2 things are gnawing at my brain.

1, the OP never mentioned mulit-tabling, not once. I reread twice because I was sure I missed it and still nothing. If I still did miss this, well egg on my face. Everything he said seemed there wasn't multi-tabling going on and I found this very strange.

2, coupled with the above, the definitive evidence against the bot-programmer/operator (and yes, I think they are probably bots and the operator is a total moran) is the synchronization of the bot accounts. Without this, you have just another set-mining full ring nit that plays questionable/bad postflop.
Somebody mentioned occam's razor, and this is such a bizarre case in that occam's simultaneously proves the existence and non-existence of the bots.
There is no explanation, much less a complicated one, to explain the synchronization besides the fact they are bots.
However, while the case is weaker, there is no complicated explanation (the quote above is a paradox; anybody with any foresight would not prevent bot detection by doing the only thing that would give definitive proof that there were bots to be detected) for why the programmer/operator would do the only thing that would raise red flags, a bot team, other than they're not bots, save for one flaw. The only flaw in this is occam's razor showing us that common stupidity/lack of foresight would explain such a lapse. Still, a stretch under most circumstances.

Apologies if this has already been addressed, I just had to write down some thoughts I was having. The whole thing is very wow.

[KurtSF]

[ QUOTE ]
someone explain to me how these stats would prove they are bots anyway. Wouldn't it just prove they all know the system equally well and follow it exactly?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, that's what it would prove.



nlnut's contention is:

At some point they sat down with a pen and paper and wrote down a system, then spent a week memorizing it and threw away their notes. Then 3 people, through the power of sitting next to each other, managed to execute this strategy PERFECTLY, with so little deviation, that their stats matched exactly over, what, half a million hands and half a year.

They also discussed tough decisions, but these decisions did not create any perturbation in the stats (on the river no less). These discussions didn't create any deviance from the system, not even a beneficial one. They also made changes to the strategy and communicated them to all players instantly and with 100% compliance.

Also, at one point one of the team members left, and a new team member was brought in. Without the use of ANY written or electronic aids this person was taught the system so that they instantly and without a learning curve could generate the same stats.



My contention is:

Does not compute.

[bigalt]

My impression was that people were trying to use the stats to prove that they weren't bots-- if their VPIPs are [statistically] significantly different, they are therefore not all played by the same entity.

However, I think most of those vastly overestimate the sample size and underestimate the standard deviation-- each hand is not an independent test with (VPIP)% chance of being played-- obviously all AA will be played and all 27o will not.

[.Alex.]

neverforget,

Can you address this?

[ QUOTE ]
These statistics alone are not enough to "prove" that they are from the same player. You can't use a "simple" hypothesis testing procedure like a chi-squared test, and that won't indicate anything. A statistician examining the likelihood they are from the same player needs to have to other peoples stats and see how they behave. How much do these stat differ across 100k+ hands tight-nitty players?

There is a second issue with that there may be some correlation in some of the variables. For example, the "flop aggression", "bet flop", "raise flop" and "c/r flop" are connected to each other and a player with a high "flop aggression" will reasonably have high stats in the other 3 categories. An analysis of the likelihood they are the same player must have any correlation effect isolated. How these correlated variables behave in reality can be examined by studying the correlation of other 100k+ hands players.

Extreme care must be taken to conduct any probability tests and it is too easy to use a poorly-designed statistical test that does not consider the matters I outlined above. This is a formidable full-time task and should be undertaken by somebody with a solid postgraduate education in statistics (or having similar experience). I am not defending anybody here, but it is too easy to get carried away and it is easy to "prove" they are from the same player, but such test would lack mathematical rigority.

I'm not a statistician/mathematician but these are just my views.

[/ QUOTE ]

[taobot]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
someone explain to me how these stats would prove they are bots anyway. Wouldn't it just prove they all know the system equally well and follow it exactly?

[/ QUOTE ]

They wouldn't prove it, just show that it is really unlikely it is humans instead of bots.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not even that, since we haven't seen any data comparing the results of a bot executing a script to a human following the same script.

Problem is that we don't know how these factors affect the results:
a) in bot's case
randomness of the shuffle
differences in opponents play
b) in human's case
randomness of the shuffle
differences in opponents play
human errors

I guess we need an answer to some kind of a reverse Turing test for online poker: Can a group of fullring nits play in such a way that they are virtually indistinguishable from a simple bot?

[KurtSF]

I think the statistics question is, were these stats (results) generated by the same "player"? That is, what is the likelihood this is a "script" with no or little deviation.

Statistics will not tell us how likely it is for 3 or 4 people to run a script as efficiently as a computer program.

[Chump Change]

[ QUOTE ]
FT could just close the bot's RB deals. That would take care of the matter.

[/ QUOTE ]

Lolz I thought about this but it'd still be just a tourniquet. Even if a suffered a very marginal lossrate, the experience of using the bots in a real situation and the knowledge to further refine them would be invaluable.

[Bellagibro]

FTP sux ballz