Pokerbots, the truth from the source

[idrinkmilk]

Six months ago I thought bots would overrun poker. Now I've learned that bots are no worry at all. Future advisers such as chess advisers are the worry.

[Unabridged]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Deal properly, assign winning hands to the people who are the biggest losers, factor in probability

[/ QUOTE ]
You would see that from the data. Some people would be getting dealt certain types of hands more frequently than they should.

[/ QUOTE ]

You could do it in such small amounts of hands that it would be undetectable. 4 random fish a week could show up in NL5000 hang out for a few 100 hands and get one set over set, cash out and disappear. Thats $1M a year with 4 rigged hands a week. You could even have these fish putz around lower limits for months beforehand to make it look like they just got drunk one night and gamboled.

[RIIT]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Deal properly, assign winning hands to the people who are the biggest losers, factor in probability

[/ QUOTE ]
You would see that from the data. Some people would be getting dealt certain types of hands more frequently than they should.

[/ QUOTE ]

You could do it in such small amounts of hands that it would be undetectable. 4 random fish a week could show up in NL5000 hang out for a few 100 hands and get one set over set, cash out and disappear. Thats $1M a year with 4 rigged hands a week. You could even have these fish putz around lower limits for months beforehand to make it look like they just got drunk one night and gamboled.

[/ QUOTE ]

Unabridged: Yes indeed. However, your scenario is actually more complicated than necessary. A site can shuffle quite honestly (using all the best hardware random noise type rng systems available) and pass every statistical test known and still cheat by doing nothing more than sending a single message to prop players notifying them that they have a guaranteed river win. A smart prop player can then creatively control when they win and lose even to the point of redistributing funds from winners to losers.

It takes about 2 lines of source code to do what I just described and very little bandwidth.

Maybe the OP can chime in here and verify the ease with which this is possible.

[Josem]

The chance of winning 13 PP SNGs in a row for a decent winning playing (who wins 11% of the time) is 1:289,664,379,736,688

I think it is unlikely that *anyone* on this board has done this. 1 in three quadrillion is rediculously unlikely.

[Josem]

[ QUOTE ]
If poker sites were not random we would surely know it from our own databases. Quite a few of us have 10million+ hands stored away.

[/ QUOTE ]

fyp

[ QUOTE ]
What sort of people do we think run these shitholes? They aren't Sunday School teachers. They are hustlers. End of story.


[/ QUOTE ]

well, no, actually.

there is no evidence to support this outlandish accusation.

[ QUOTE ]
I once lost set over set five times in one day on Stars. I lost flush over flush five times in a row, all were three on board, not four.


[/ QUOTE ]

OMG! It must be hacked if you lose!

[ QUOTE ]
I certainly can't prove any doom switch exists

[/ QUOTE ]
LDO

[ QUOTE ]
Too many high card and suited flops.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is simply untrue.

You are a lying liar who lies. See http://archiveserver.twoplustwo.com/...te_id/1#import which is linked from the FAQ

[ QUOTE ]
It is irrelevant how many hands you have access to (you need additionally account data, and corresponding correlations). Deal properly, assign winning hands to the people who are the biggest losers (or smallest winners, relative comparison on the table player is sitting), factor in probability.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is idiotic. If you claim that there is a bias, you cannot then say that the bias will not be shown up in longterm data records. If there is not a longterm distortion, then how can there be a longterm distortion? This is rediculous.

[ QUOTE ]
I assure you I don't intend to lump every Stars associate or employee in with the very few individuals who would be "in the know" if something like this were going on.

[/ QUOTE ]
aha!

it's not just a conspiracy by the poker sites, it's also a conspiracy within the poker sites!

[ QUOTE ]
What I do know is that if Stars, FT and whoever else could get away with it--and there's absolutely no reason to believe they couldn't--it makes perfect sense from a revenue generating perspective.


[/ QUOTE ]

It is beautifully truistic to claim that someone would be a thief if they could get away with it if they could. It is also untrue and another example that you are a lying liar who lies. You have no evidence to support your grossly unfair, unfounded and offensive accusation.

[ QUOTE ]
I certainly would not put it above money grubbing opportunists who have been known to utilize the supposed "winnings" of their players for operational expenses to "creatively randomize" an RNG to even out the playing field a bit.

[/ QUOTE ]

Where have they been "known" to do either of these things?

Yet another lie from a lying liar who lies.

[ QUOTE ]
We are after all talking about folks thriving in an industry that was once almost exclusively the province of organized crime

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorta like live poker, really.

[ QUOTE ]
Your site cannot prove that they are not doing the following:

1) Skewing shuffles
2) Hinting players


[/ QUOTE ]

What would you like them to do?

What hurdle would you think is reasonable?

[ChipFerFree]

[ QUOTE ]
The chance of winning 13 PP SNGs in a row for a decent winning playing (who wins 11% of the time) is 1:289,664,379,736,688

I think it is unlikely that *anyone* on this board has done this. 1 in three quadrillion is rediculously unlikely.

[/ QUOTE ]

ITM 13 times -- I did it -- too bad Shark Wasn't around so I could prove it. It did trigger the situation I described. I've said nothing on this forum EVER that is outlandish. Choose to believe or not -- I never liked you or your comments anyway buddy...

[Josem]

[ QUOTE ]
ITM 13 times

[/ QUOTE ]

there's the source of the misunderstanding, then.

i thought winning = 1st place.

you think winning = 1st-3rd place.

reasonable confusion.

[ChipFerFree]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
ITM 13 times

[/ QUOTE ]

there's the source of the misunderstanding, then.

i thought winning = 1st place.

you think winning = 1st-3rd place.

reasonable confusion.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah I do think making money is winning... If you would like further evidence of said streaks -- I just remembered I've been SUPER HOT on Shark twice in the last 2 weeks -- 8 in a row and 9 in a row respectively.

And your apology accepted...

[Josem]

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah I do think making money is winning... If you would like further evidence of said streaks -- I just remembered I've been SUPER HOT on Shark twice in the last 2 weeks -- 8 in a row and 9 in a row respectively.

[/ QUOTE ]
Good to know. I assume I've had ITM streaks longer than that.

[ QUOTE ]
And your apology accepted...

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not apologising for saying I think it is unlikely that *anyone* on this board has won 13 consecutive SNGs. I still do think this is unlikely - hell, I think it is unlikely that anyone on this planet has done this (or is likely to do it within the next few years)

[ChipFerFree]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yeah I do think making money is winning... If you would like further evidence of said streaks -- I just remembered I've been SUPER HOT on Shark twice in the last 2 weeks -- 8 in a row and 9 in a row respectively.

[/ QUOTE ]
Good to know. I assume I've had ITM streaks longer than that.

[ QUOTE ]
And your apology accepted...

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not apologising for saying I think it is unlikely that *anyone* on this board has won 13 consecutive SNGs. I still do think this is unlikely - hell, I think it is unlikely that anyone on this planet has done this (or is likely to do it within the next few years)

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok Agreed and Apology Unaccepted [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]