FT Bot refund rumor.

DeadMoneyDad · #1 09-27-2007, 08:58 PM

There is a rumor in FT's forum that FT has refunded money seized from to confirmed bot accounts after a lenghty FT investigation.

Those of us thinking of any regulator mix for future on-line poker and those that oppose any regulation might want to consider their response to this issue.

I suggest that if the facts as stated on FT's forum are indeed true FT and it's rakeback affiliates should be held to a higher standard.

Simply refunding the money left in the bot's accounts by the time FT got around to completing their investigation, and suggesting this is fair as "that is all there is to be had" is crap.

I am by no means an expert in affiliate and on-line poker accounting, but I know enough that FT knows exactly how much I've cost them because of my "negative rakeback carry over" ammount.

I say the responsibility for ID'ing and stopping this crap can't end with a simple refund of the remaining balances from the seized accounts. FT knows to the fraction of a cent both their net revenue and the rackback payments made to these accounts.

If a rakeback affiliate can't spot a bot account they should be responsible for looking at bot like accounts. They after all process the payments.

D$D

LiveInPeace · #2 09-27-2007, 09:54 PM

Disguising bot play is easier than writing a bot to play good poker. There is no way sites can keep out all good bots. Players just need to accept that they will be out there. It just means track your opponents and select them carefully.

CountingMyOuts · #3 09-27-2007, 09:59 PM

[ QUOTE ]
If a rakeback affiliate can't spot a bot account they should be responsible for looking at bot like accounts. They after all process the payments.

D$D

[/ QUOTE ]

You have to be kidding. [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

TheEngineer · #4 09-27-2007, 10:02 PM

[ QUOTE ]
There is a rumor in FT's forum that FT has refunded money seized from to confirmed bot accounts after a lenghty FT investigation.

Those of us thinking of any regulator mix for future on-line poker and those that oppose any regulation might want to consider their response to this issue.

I suggest that if the facts as stated on FT's forum are indeed true FT and it's rakeback affiliates should be held to a higher standard.

Simply refunding the money left in the bot's accounts by the time FT got around to completing their investigation, and suggesting this is fair as "that is all there is to be had" is crap.

I am by no means an expert in affiliate and on-line poker accounting, but I know enough that FT knows exactly how much I've cost them because of my "negative rakeback carry over" ammount.

I say the responsibility for ID'ing and stopping this crap can't end with a simple refund of the remaining balances from the seized accounts. FT knows to the fraction of a cent both their net revenue and the rackback payments made to these accounts.

If a rakeback affiliate can't spot a bot account they should be responsible for looking at bot like accounts. They after all process the payments.

D$D

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess you're asking for opinions, so I'll share mine. Many people seem to think the government should regulate every industry for every potential problem. IMHO, it's not the federal government's responsibility to decide how poker sites should offer their services. If it were, then why shoudn't they ban Internet gaming to protect us?

Sites should be responsible for meeting their terms and conditions, and the free market can sort out the rest, IMO.

That being said, I'm not opposed to government regulation. I just don't feel it's necessary.

Legislurker · #5 09-27-2007, 10:09 PM

I think the regulation will hve to consider this. Part of FTs probelm was they LIKED the bots. Peopel started to complain about them, and they still didn't take it seriously.
Someone has to force sites to spend $$ combating collusion and bots, because a lot of them won't.

TheEngineer · #6 09-27-2007, 10:32 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I think the regulation will hve to consider this. Part of FTs probelm was they LIKED the bots. Peopel started to complain about them, and they still didn't take it seriously.
Someone has to force sites to spend $$ combating collusion and bots, because a lot of them won't.

[/ QUOTE ]

With competition that would exist with some sort of explicitly legal status, players simply would't play sites like FT if they didn't like their bot policies.

Regulation may turn out to be better for us in terms of making sure the fish are willing to play. If regs are +EV, I'm fine with it.

DeadMoneyDad · #7 09-27-2007, 11:05 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Disguising bot play is easier than writing a bot to play good poker. There is no way sites can keep out all good bots. Players just need to accept that they will be out there. It just means track your opponents and select them carefully.

[/ QUOTE ]

My point exactly. Bots at play a little better than break even poker, and bank the rake back.

With lisencing would come some sort of legal entity. I'm not a lawyer but seems like there would be a responsibility of the sites to run a safe and secure game. From a purely business sense free markets are self correcting but some of the swing and scams can really burn people and sometime like the Louisina Lottery scam set an industry back decades.

No I am not suggesting that a couple of bot accounts is the same as the Louisiana Lotter episode, but how many more would it really take to change on-line poker?

As it is affiliates want standing in court as they are affected parties, since they stood up and in the bots case other than the poker sites profit the most from this type of play it seems the responsibility and the risk should be born by them.

D$D

Legislurker · #8 09-28-2007, 02:12 AM

We're PRETENDING sites are going to step up and go 100% legit.
The free market sucks at a lot of things. Its a lot like steroids in professional sports. The leagues cant control steroids. Bots are liek steroids. No matter how good I am at poker, a competent bot farmer can always make more money than I can at that level. Its an uneven playing field. It [censored] my livelihood. I dont want to comepte against programs. I don't the the average joe does either. Left alone, the sites won't expend $ or effort to root them out.

TheEngineer · #9 09-28-2007, 09:18 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Left alone, the sites won't expend $ or effort to root them out.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why not?

[ QUOTE ]
I dont want to comepte against programs. I don't the the average joe does either.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's why the sites will have to address the issue, especially if there is plenty of competition.

I know Americans have a new tendency to ask for government regulation every time they don't like something, but what you want can be accomplished via the free market.

CountingMyOuts · #10 09-28-2007, 09:53 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Left alone, the sites won't expend $ or effort to root them out.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why not?

[ QUOTE ]
I dont want to comepte against programs. I don't the the average joe does either.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's why the sites will have to address the issue, especially if there is plenty of competition.

I know Americans have a new tendency to ask for government regulation every time they don't like something, but what you want can be accomplished via the free market.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed. Concentrate on getting online poker "legally" available in the U.S. and there will be enough choices for players and the sites that are bot friendly will be encouraged by marketplace pressures to address the bot issue or reap the benefits of not doing anything.

Also, for others to suggest that affiliates be held responsible for bot accounts is unreasonable. How can an affiliate monitor potential bot accounts? They are not privy to the player data or tools needed to determine if a player is a bot.