Perhaps why you should care about bots and cheats

[DeadMoneyDad]

I have received a number of questions on what my motives are in the bot issue. Here are my thoughts on why the affiliates and poker sites should as well as the casual players should give a $hit.

My suggestions are based on my on personal knowledge only of the limited amount of information I get from my own rake back affiliate. But even that limited amount of information gives me some idea of the accounting that goes on behind the scenes.

For example I never knew and many rake back earners don't know that FT charges a player a portion of the prize pool of any freeroll public or private. MTT's and regular rake are accounted for in two separate columns. I have a fee's charge for making a deposit. I have yet to make a withdraw but given my experience so far I'd bet there is an accounting charge for that as well.

Given the nature of the flow of information I would suspect that the amount of detail is greater for my rake back affiliate than the information they provide me.

Given all of that it seems the "poker accounting" is much more detailed than most people imagine, or it is on FT to a degree much greater than I imagined.

So if bots play something close to break-even poker and bank the rake, just given the limited information I have from my account I imagine I could spot the difference between a "casual player" and a bot almost with out effort.

Now getting in-between a truly dedicated multi-table grinder and a bot will be much trickier if the amount of rake back affiliate information is limited to only what I've personally seen. I'll admit I am a casual player. I looked into software enhanced with 24/7 data mined computerized multi-tabling grinding. I gave it serious consideration. Personally if my figures are even 1/2 way correct and my wife finds out I didn't do it I'm a dead man.

Don't take this the wrong way any multi-table grinders but I don't call that poker. I'm new to poker, but old school in my poker philosophy; if you can do it in a live event it has no place in my on-line game.

So if a number of multi-tabling software assisted data based HUD players get caught up in this mess and get their payments delayed I really don't care if it only catches one or two bots a month. The affiliates will have to make their own marketing decisions on what is best for on-line poker in general.

Personally I think the grinders are as much as a problem to the on-line industry as the bots, but currently grinding is legal. Well depending on how you read FT's T&C, but that isn't the issue.

The issue is some sort of legislation affecting on-line poker will come one day. Some time before that day their will be hearings to decide the regulatory burden placed on the industry in exchange for the licensing rights to once-again accept unrestricted "legal" US deposits. At that time the industry and the affiliates will make at least one claim that the industry is self regulating.

I'll tell you now as someone interested in that future legislation I am basing my decision on how much credibility FT and the industry really has on how it reacts to these types of issues now. Do not tell me then, how you are willing to stop whatever type of "made for TV sob story" the anti-gambling folks will trot out with some future computerized filter or highly developed security. I want to see action now.........

Or at least show a little concern for the future of on-line poker.

For you other casual players out there, who don't think this issue affects you, just consider who is ultimately going to pay for those fees, the cost of the regulatory burden, and any newly implemented filters or security!

If you think that FT or any one else in the poker "economy" is suddenly going to get charitable, you have a bad beat coming.........


D$D

[Jzo19]

lol ....why would the RB affiliates want to mess with the multi-tabling grinders AKA their top earners ..maybe the RB affiliates should delay payments to one tabling nits who suck at poker ...and dont generate much rake ...

[TheEngineer]

We all "care". We just don't all agree on the best solution. For many, caring = advocacy of a federal law to cure all that ails us. However, as the feds have caused us nothing but problems so far, I don't see them as our savior (at least not at this point).

As the industry is international, I don't understand how the feds are supposed to micromanage offshore industries. It seems like your argument plays right into the hands of the prohibitionists who claim the industry is "crooked".

It's similar to arguing against Prohibition. back in the day, while simultaneously asking for tough federal regulations on alcohol manufacturers to keep them from making poisonous beverages. True, we may or may not need federal regulations, but I don't believe we have ANY reason to ask for them prior to explicit legalization.

Bots aren't exactly a huge problem. If they get to be, the market will react for the very reasons you listed.

Perpaps you should put up a poll to guage 2p2 interest in this.

[CountingMyOuts]

Well put, Engineer.

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
We all "care". We just don't all agree on the best solution. For many, caring = advocacy of a federal law to cure all that ails us. However, as the feds have caused us nothing but problems so far, I don't see them as our savior (at least not at this point).

As the industry is international, I don't understand how the feds are supposed to micromanage offshore industries. It seems like your argument plays right into the hands of the prohibitionists who claim the industry is "crooked".

It's similar to arguing against Prohibition. back in the day, while simultaneously asking for tough federal regulations on alcohol manufacturers to keep them from making poisonous beverages. True, we may or may not need federal regulations, but I don't believe we have ANY reason to ask for them prior to explicit legalization.

Bots aren't exactly a huge problem. If they get to be, the market will react for the very reasons you listed.

Perpaps you should put up a poll to guage 2p2 interest in this.

[/ QUOTE ]


Like I said I've seen plenty of poker is self regulating and the market will correct all imbalances post even here, which is why I brought part of this issue here.

I don't know if some of you regulars realize how many people never post in any forum let alone 2+2! There are people we may need to win the final battles who are not regular posters. You guys have shown time and again how you welcome new posters! You all aren't all that nice to some of the regulars......

The ultimate burden of any regulatory mix will be determined by the past actions of the poker world. It is my firm belief that at this point in the life cycle of on-line poker that those with the most invested would be best served by over reaction to these issues rather than what I consider under reaction.

Those regulatory hears in the future that I speak about are going to happen. Some of the anti-gambling made for TV PR events you all already know of, the pastor's son who stole to support his on-line poker "habit", a number of the anti-gambling type will want to accuse on-line poker "the crack" of gambling for the sucide of their teenagers, shrew wives who are now divorced will be made over to look like librarians and the only reason their husbands left her and those 4 cute kids was his addiction to on-line poker, I'm am sure some pol can find a senior citizen or two to claim they didn't get their heart medication or cancer treatment filled because they were addicted to onlin poker having started on the dot net side.

Where is the credibility, beyond a theories of "deregualtion" and "self correcting markets", of the poker industry going to be at that point?

Me I want to standing there with case by case documented proof of every technology out there where the industry has taken steps to combat every one of these types of cases time and time WITHOUT the government's HELP to even stand a chance of winning that one.

I care because I know ultimately all of those costs are going to be passed on to little old me.


D$D

[TheEngineer]

We've discussed a few times, but it was before you joined. We already have a bill that addresses this. The Barney Frank bill was crafted to address each and every concern ever voiced by any anti-gaming person. It creates a highly regulated Internet gaming envirornment. The red herrings you mentioned were addressed at the June 8 hearings on Internet gaming. We won. Check it out at http://financialserv.edgeboss.net/wm...ring060807.wvx .

Conversely, we have a bill that actually allows Americans to chooses what to do in their own home...the Wexler bill. For this, we simply make the "freedom" argument (along with the "skill" one), while pointing out the amount of gaming already available. So, Congress has two bills from which to choose.

I personally don't think we should let the anti-gaming people write our bill for us. If we go with the Frank bill, it should be on our terms, IMO. I certainly don't think we should be "proactive" in advocating a bunch of regulation to mollify the anti-gamers, as they'll oppose us anyway.



[ QUOTE ]
I don't know if some of you regulars realize how many people never post in any forum let alone 2+2! There are people we may need to win the final battles who are not regular posters. You guys have shown time and again how you welcome new posters! You all aren't all that nice to some of the regulars......

[/ QUOTE ]

I think our attitude is fine. Folks can come here and say what they want, so long as they can back it up. Some folks have come here and acted shocked when their statements were challenged (I'm not referring to you). Well, our high standards are what make this the premier Internet poker legislation forum.

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
We've discussed a few times, but it was before you joined. We already have a bill that addresses this.

Well, our high standards are what make this the premier Internet poker legislation forum.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well if you don't think they learned from their past defeats and plan to make a few new move that's fine.

Pr isn't my forte, but even I can line up some pretty great made for TV PR stunts, my nighmares are the ones a real PR pro can come up with.

I am a complete minimum regulation, complete free market person. I love the line from "WallStreet"; "a fool and his money are easily seperated, they were damn lucky to ever get together in the first place!"

I think the minimal cost and minimal heart ache, required by the poker sites and the affiliates, perhaps pushed by a few of us has fantastic EV+.

Being able to show up at those future hearing with documented case histories where each and every "made for TV anti-gambing sop stories" has already been addressed in a reasonable manner by a selfless poker industry acting in the past for the best interests of poker at every step BEFORE the hearings will make our jobs at that time MUCH easier IMPO.

But if they don't do a thing in the meantime who do you think is going to pay the pass thru new cost of doing business in the form of higher rakes and even the potential for banning rake backs?????


D$D

[TheEngineer]

So, you want us all to write to Congress to demand federal regulation of Internet poker, on the grounds that they won't act in the players' best interest? You think that will help us get it explicitly legalized? Seems like a bad idea to me.

As for the non-bot issues you mentioned, I have no doubt you could put together a string of bad stories. However, you seem to fear these more than we do. Maybe you believe them. I don't know. You don't come across like someone who believes in our right to play poker, given that you're willing to give away so much before negotiations even start. The NRA didn't get where they are by consenting to every restriction demanded by gun banners, just because it would be easier. I hope we'll stay strong. We should be on offense, talking about freedoms and our rights, like the NRA.

As for bots, you realize you don't have a "right" as a customer to dictate terms and conditions to these companies, don't you? If you don't like the site, don't play on it. The free market works. Perhaps you should buy stock in your preferred site to gain a vote for what you want, or perhaps you should move abroad and start your own site, rather than trying to dictate business practices to private companies via the federal government. After all, it's that attitude that got us where we are today.

[TheEngineer]

And why do you think affiliates should be responsible for this? That's a little like saying Anheiser-Busch should be responsible for drug testing of NFL players.

[TheEngineer]

Post deleted by Berge20