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

[Josem]

[ QUOTE ]
I think you did miss something, the only one of your points that I feel is valid 'no opportunity to defend themself', however this being said since the evidence was so damning I can see why this wasn't offered.

[/ QUOTE ]

I haven't seen this evidence that is so damning. I might just be a muppet and totally clueless, but I can't see it. Can someone please link me to it?

[ QUOTE ]
1.) As other have said this isn't court, a hearing doesn't apply.

[/ QUOTE ]

The fact that FTP is not a court makes no difference to this.

Here are links to disciplinary/dispute procedures at a few Australian organisations. I have chosen these as examples because I am reasonably familiar with them.

Monash University: http://www.policy.monash.edu.au/policy-b...procedures.html

If a customer/student is accused of cheating, they receive a hearing and have a right of appeal.


Telephone Company Optus: http://www.optus.com.au/dafiles/OCA/...ing_policy.pdf

If a customer has a disagreement with Optus, they receive a hearing and have a right of appeal.


B&M Casinos have various indepdent regulators and monitors - if you think you have been cheated, you have a right to appeal to them and so on.

Clearly, phone companies, universities and casinos are not courts - but they are also subject to basic principles of natural justice.

This topic is covered (briefly) in Wikipedia at http://www.wikipedia.org/search-redi...e=en&go=Go

[ QUOTE ]
2.) I feel that FTP security serves as an independent judge that acts in the best interest of their patrons.

[/ QUOTE ]

The idea that FTP is independent in this case (or other, similar, cases) is self-evidently laughable. You cannot be serious. After this post, I'm going to make a post of some possible ideas to solve the problem.

[ QUOTE ]
3.) Other have spoken on the presntation of evidence and why it is important not to let others know how to avoid the security measures that were used.

[/ QUOTE ]
Their argument is that it will allow bot makes to make better bots.

Persons accused of murder are shown the evidence - even though other potential murderers could learn from the case, figure out how the defendant was caught, and try to avoid it.

More similarly to Bot-making, people accused of decrypting DVD codes were able to have a public case - the first link from google when searching for "decryption court case" is to http://www.freedomforum.org/template...cumentID=15774

The only exception to defendants being able to see the evidence against them in the US that I was able to find* was John Walker Lindh, who was accused of joining the Taliban. While online poker bot makers are "bad" people, they are not even remotely on the same scale as Taliban terrorists.

Even in Walker Lindh's case, much of the evidence was made public - and only some parts were kept secret. A similar situation would be a fair compromise here. This problem would also be significantly lessened if there was a genuinely independent "judge" who could determine what deserved to remain secret and what could be allowed to be public.

[ QUOTE ]
4.) Beatme1 was given information on how to appeal the decision but smugly laughed it off.

[/ QUOTE ]
As he should have.

The Kahnawake Gaming Commission is a fraud. There is no evidence that the KGC has ever found in favour of a player.

Source:
Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kahnawa...ing_Commission
Lorinda's post on the subject, endorsed by Mike Haven as "excellent work": http://archiveserver.twoplustwo.com/...te_id/1#import
Thread in relation to Absolute Poker, where mod Pokeraddict says "Kahnawake is a joke and has never resolved anything. All they do is collect tax money...Go read CM, WOL, CAP or any other casino portal. You will see they are nothing but a place that hosts online gambling sites. Search CM and you will see endles players that either never got a response or got a form letter and never heard back. "
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showfl...e=5&fpart=1


[ QUOTE ]
Anyway I just hope that the $ seized really will go back to those who were cheated.

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree with this sentiment.

*I didn't make a great deal of effort on this, so there may be other cases.

[sethypooh21]

It's almost like you didn't read my post

[ QUOTE ]
I see nothing wrong with the process, FT owes 2p2 nothing

[/ QUOTE ]

Note the part where I said they owe me nothing. Because I don't play at FTP. If you think they don't owe their own players an explanation and/or formal process, I'm not sure what to say to you except good luck. [ QUOTE ]
which is why it took 'two weeks of bitching' they proved that he was a bot to an appropriate confidence to seize funds, Gildwulf agreed,

[/ QUOTE ]That's nice. Be nice if this was done before they actually took the money (freeze the funds, sure, but proof first, money second) [ QUOTE ]
not to mention they arent keeping the 70k its being redistributed.

[/ QUOTE ] Assuming facts not in evidence. We have no indication that this has happened.
[ QUOTE ]
So exactly where your problem lies Seth I dont know.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because you either read poorly or are willfully ignoring the points made, repeatedly, by me and others in this thread. You may disagree, but at least make the effort to address those points. Or that's what you'd do if you were interested in discussion.
[ QUOTE ]
You seem to want everything done instantly but then your overly concerned with false positives

[/ QUOTE ]

I would like for FTP to have considered this situation beforehand, given some thought to it, and so on, so that when these situations recur (as they will) they are not making ad hoc decisions (which, oh by the way, are less likely to be accurate). So yeah, pretty much the exact opposite of what you said.

[ QUOTE ]
which makes me think you are:
a. an idiot
b. trolling
c. beatme1
d. have some vested interest in the situation

[/ QUOTE ]

a. you're not the first to say so, but I doubt it

b. whatever

c. it's pretty hard to figure out my SN and that I'm not in fact beatme. But please, spread that rumor so crazy mike comes after me...

d. I don't play at FTP so I have no vested interest. By the way, make up your mind, either I have a vested interest or I don't. If I do, then I might well be owed that explanation.

[ QUOTE ]
You also said you have no money on FT, I have thousands of dollars on FT and Im not worried about it at all and I dont think anyone should be worried.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, you are prepared to grant omnipotent powers with your money to FTP, and don't think anything bad could POSSIBLY happen (despite at least two well publicized incidents to the contrary), and I'm the idiot.

[Gildwulf]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

FTP's T&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.

[Gildwulf]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

* no presentation of the evidence


[/ QUOTE ]

Just re: this point. The revelation of the evidence will allow others to defeat the site security in the future. It is a legitimate security concern.

That, and its not a court.

But I, for one, am still waiting to hear about any of this money being redistributed.

In fact, when I think about it, I've never heard about anyone ever getting $$$ back from FTP. Unlike stars where plenty of people have receieved "bounty" unprompted. Did I miss something?

[/ QUOTE ]

They are trying to figure out how to distribute it, but it is insanely complicated. Do you just see who they have played against (Y number of people) over the last X number of hands and divide that 70k by the number of hands per person? What number do you stop at for X or Y? Last 6 months? Last year? Last 100,000 hands? 1000 people?

Just trying to figure this out makes my brain hurt. I'd rather they just donate it to charity or run a '70k Bot Freeroll' or put it towards the next deposit bonus or something.

[RIIT]

Gildwulf: Even if FT doesn't give back a single dime, the overall psychological effect will be the same - the mere hint of refund conditions the minds of the players to side with FT in the matter regardless of the truth. The entire process suggests to all customers that there is yet another way to gain money at FT - just wait for another large bankroll to get targeted and hope you get selected for refund benefits. The policy works directly against any opinion that would rather have seen the account closed and the balance refunded to the account owner.

Has FT helped or hurt the long term future of offshore online gaming?

[Gildwulf]

[ QUOTE ]
Gildwulf: Even if FT doesn't give back a single dime, the overall psychological effect will be the same - the mere hint of refund conditions the minds of the players to side with FT in the matter regardless of the truth. The entire process suggests to all customers that there is yet another way to gain money at FT - just wait for another large bankroll to get targeted and hope you get selected for refund benefits. The policy works directly against any opinion that would rather have seen the account closed and the balance refunded to the account owner.

Has FT helped or hurt the long term future of offshore online gaming?

[/ QUOTE ]

ummm the players he is playing are at 50/100+ level and over the last year he has probably played dozens if not hundreds of players. I don't think they are going to care that much about the equivalent of a big blind or two.

[StellarWind]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ive heard a decent amount of the evidence and it is pretty damning.

[/ QUOTE ]

Where is this evidence?


In other sectors of the economy and community, a huge part of Australian law is the concept of "natural justice." I assume that this is broadly consistent across all Western Anglo legal systems.

The basic principle as that the accused is entitled to see the evidence against them, and that they have an opportunity to defend themselves against the accusation.

As far as I can see (and I may well have missed it - if so, please point me in the right direction) the accused has had:
<ul type="square"> [*]no fair hearing [*]no independent judge[*]no presentation of the evidence[*]no opportunity to defend themself[*]no right of appeal[/list]
Am I wrong?

[/ QUOTE ]
You're not wrong but you're not right either.

You and many others are merely out of touch with reality. That is a very bad place for a poker player to be.

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.

1. Why do people use bots? Because they can.

2. Why did FTP confiscate the $70000. Because they can.

3. Why are 2+2ers demanding an explanation. Because we can.

4. What will FTP tell us? Whatever they wish.

5. Will unhappy FTP customers withdraw all their money because of this? If they want to.

That's reality and it has nothing to do with anyone's rights. We all gave up our rights when we chose to be involved in a world without law.

Here are some more things to think about:

1. You could lose all the money in your account because of a false bot accusation. But the only part of that which is (sort of) new is the bot part. After Neteller, BetHoldem, FutureBet, Jet Set Poker, and too many other scandals to name is anyone really surprised to learn you can lose all your money in an online gaming account? How about all the hack and dump stories we read every day?

Get real people. False bot accusuations are a completely insignificant risk compared to all the other risks we routinely accept.

2. Bots are a very serious problems that cost honest players an enormous amount of money. I'm glad FTP has the courage to confiscate because it is the only thing that might slow the problem down. The +EV position for honest players is to insist that sites aggressively pursue bots and accept the slight risk of becoming collateral damage.

3. Any presentation of bot evidence is bound to be enormously damaging. Not only are you allowing the bot makers to develop countermeasures, you are also removing their doubts. It's much better that they worry about being caught again in the exact same trap. Once again the +EV position for honest players is to encourage the sites to keep their secrets and accept the slight risk of being falsely accused.

Sometimes I lose to the nuts but I do not allow fear of the nuts to rule me. The nuts are only a tiny portion of the dangers that I face at the table.

Similarly I could be falsely accused of being a bot but I will not allow that fear to guide me. It is only an insigificant part of the risk I accept by playing poker.

[Your Mom]

nice post SW.

[sethypooh21]

[ QUOTE ]

3. Any presentation of bot evidence is bound to be enormously damaging. Not only are you allowing the bot makers to develop countermeasures, you are also removing their doubts. It's much better that they worry about being caught again in the exact same trap. Once again the +EV position for honest players is to encourage the sites to keep their secrets and accept the slight risk of being falsely accused.


[/ QUOTE ]

I hear this formulation all the time, and there is some logic to it, but my response is still "really? You can't tell us/the accused anything. That's awfully...convenient. Maybe it's just that having spent a lot of time on the issue, the parallels (in kind, not in scope) to various "national security" related legal issues, make me very wary of any secret and unaccountable measure.

And I'm not asking for methodology, I'm asking for results. Maybe Gild or Dean. can chime in on this, but is the "damning evidence" such that it would somehow hinder future detection efforts or give the methodology away?

I also am concerned that the sites not having to be more rigorous means that they tend to pick the low hanging fruit, rather than have the ability to ID the really good bots. As McNulty said "stupid criminals make for stupid cops."

I also think there's a bit of crosstalk between those who say "they can do whatever they want" and those who say "they should do it this way." Yes, in actual fact FTP can do whatever they want, and for a multitude of reasons, are unlikely to be challenged. That doesn't make it right, and certainly doesn't make me want to spend my rake money there. AND I'M NOT THE ONLY ONE. Without meaningful regulation or safeguards, all they have is their reputation, and handling such situations in a such a fly-by-night fashion does not enhance their reputation in my eyes.

[blane]

[ QUOTE ]

3. Any presentation of bot evidence is bound to be enormously damaging. Not only are you allowing the bot makers to develop countermeasures, you are also removing their doubts. It's much better that they worry about being caught again in the exact same trap. Once again the +EV position for honest players is to encourage the sites to keep their secrets and accept the slight risk of being falsely accused.

[/ QUOTE ]

This actually is the old argument between FULL-DISCLOSURE or NON-DISCLOSURE policy in the IT security. I'm not saying non-disclosure is a bad thing regarding investigation on bots on poker sites but there are two sides to it.

When someone finds a critical security hole in a piece of software (lets say, granting administrator priviliges over the network) shall he release the details or shall he not?

The standard approach from the "White Hats" is to inform the vendor and provide all relevant details including the actual exploit. To the public they will only state that there is a security problem in that software but no more.

To make this approach work, the White Hat has to trust the vendore to address the issue and fix it as soon as possible. When that is not being done, a non-disclosure policy can be worse than if the exploit was public.

If one hacker finds the security hole it is highly likely that a second and third one will. The standard "scriptkiddie" however will not figure it out and that is why common belief is that non-disclosure is a good thing. However, the n "elite" black hat hackers have a working exploit that nobody knows about and can use it at will.

If however, the exploit and complete details of the security problem is public, then *all* users are aware of it. They know there is an exploit and they are more likely to take countermeasures (such as blocking incoming traffic to the vulnerable software). Even if there is no patch from the vendore, the security community will usually provide a workaround so the problem is not as critical anymore.

There are similar analogies to the CLOSED vs OPEN SOURCE debate and also about Cryptosystems (Never trust a crytpto system that is not open source!).

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.

Again -- I am not saying "bot detection mechanisms should be public" -- not at all. To be honest, I don't know what is the better approach here. I am merely stating that there is two points to this.