Me too,
I lost 8327$ against bots on party poker since 01/01/2014 and i got 339$ refunded.

240$... played 150k+ hands vs the bots.

The UKGC have just released a new consultation on keeping crime out of gambling

http://www.gamblingcommission.gov.uk...-gambling.aspx

This is mostly money laundering/proceeds of crime stuff rather than poker focussed but at the very end it has an interesting update

The UKGC ball has at long last started to move a bit.

The subject of adequate compensation to players affected by bots is clearly a sore point for forum members and we wish to make the following observations.

1) A player competing against a bot is by definition disadvantaged because his opponent is not who or what he thinks he is. For example, it is impossible to put a bot on tilt or rattle it into making poor decisions. If a player's normal repertoire of moves is rendered ineffective, then by what means are the sites determining the level of harm caused? Has anyone suffered any harm other than financial loss and indeed what other harm can there be? A strong argument can be made that the mere presence of bots in a game will skewer and distort any innocent player's decision making and that all monies lost to bots should be refunded in full.

2) Should our assertion in (1) of a full refund of monies lost be disputed, there is another powerful argument that could be applied: Previous posts suggested that the bots may have been sharing hole card information, although forum members seemed to be evenly split on whether or not this was the case. We can scientifically prove that the sharing of hole card information will dramatically alter the outcome of poker games and adversely affects all innocent parties. The consequences of hole card sharing produces an inherently unfair game as well as providing a viable explanation as to the reason for the incredible win rate exhibited by the bot ring. The conclusion is that if hole card sharing took place, all loses sustained by innocent players in those games should be refunded in full.

3) The issue of rake taken from a bot infected game is also causing major concern. Bots pay exactly the same amount of rake as humans except in their case, this is offset by a positive expectation. As a consequence it seems reasonable rake should not be applied to any hand involving bot participation regardless of the outcome of that hand.

4) Our final comment is based on the underlying principle that any player who suffers losses due to action(s) not commensurate with site policy should be entitled to a refund of losses incurred. If this is not the case it would mean that site rules, regulations and terms and conditions are in effect, completely impotent.

Just received 205 eur from party (bwin). That is more than my 62$ refund on Stars even though I played more on Stars and lost way more to the bots.

What about those that won against the bots? You seem to be arguing for voiding the bets but in one direction only.

On the rake, I agree, all rake generated from the games in question should be added to the compensation pot but I struggle to see how a site can pay out the withdrawals of the succesful cheats (and we all want timely cashouts), pay out to those who win against bots AND pay out 100% of losses.

Even if the cheats never got a penny off demanding compensation of 100% of losses is potentially bankrupting for poker operators.

Svenska Spel did go for full compensation in their case (botters yet to come to court for fraud years later) - it was over $500k I seem to recall. As a state monopoly they could take the hit but a similar sized small poker operator just could not do it.

There needs to be some balance of risk, loading it all on to the operator is very likely to have adverse conequences, not least as they are the investigators it incentivises them to say not proven and not compensate at all.

I thought there was no good way of seeing how much you're up/down vs a specific player in HEM2, since it filters for any hand you were at the table with someone, not just pots between you two?

(I.E lets say I won a 500 bb pot vs a fish while 4somniare was in the big blind, in the vs players tab that would show up as me being up 500bb vs 4somnaire......)

I think this is still the case, but maybe there's a simple way of mitigating this?

Got 245$ or something btw. Played like... 4~500k hands between Jan-June this year (100k~ 2/5 and rest 1/2). To be honest, it's more than I expected.

Got $28 and I played a ton with emperor etc. on 100. The refund is ridiculous.

Richas, is there any chance the UKGC will investigate this case and help players to receive a proper compensation (i.e. 100% rakeback on all hands involving a bot)? If not, I think it is time to take legal action.

Regarding fair payouts - rake taken should be paid back 100% by stars, I would consider this as the cost of being unable to provide fair games. Everyone who is up against the bots will have their winnings deducted from rakeback, i.e. a player who raked $1000 in botinfested hands and won $400 from them gets back $600. People who lost should receive part of the confiscated funds. If stars should add something... I don't know, really. But the actual refunds are a total joke. Especially since I received a refund months before which was much larger than this, and in the current situation we face a huge botring, so I wonder what was happening before the first refund. Can anybody else comment on the difference in first and second refunds?

first 18$ second 0$, played a lot with them on z200 and only vs boottlelegger im down like 2k$...

Some talk about a newish PLO100 reg from Sweden being a bot at the tables. Massmultitables w weird pf stats, and seemingly wins.

Entitlement to compensation should not be prejudiced by the outcome of unrelated events to the claimant. Put simply, other players winning against a bot should have no bearing on the validity or entitlements of a claimant. However in fairness to the sites it would be reasonable to deduct monies won against the bots from the compensation pool.

A company valued in the $billions should be able to meet its bot related compensation obligations.

We agree that a small company would struggle with massive compensation claims but that merely emphasises the necessity to prevent bot activity in the first place.

Online poker is, or should be a very profitable business for the operators so who else should take the risks?

The current bot scandal was discovered by the players and a critical question is how does the level of compensation offered compare to compensation paid when the sites themselves discovered bot activity? This can only be accurately assessed by other forum members. How much and how often have you been compensated in the past?

The UKGC are certainly interested in the case and I will be talking to them about it next week.

On compensation the UKGC as part of the information gathering they mentioned in the crime in gambling consultation asked all the operators how much they have compensated, how they calculate the compensation, what additional contribution they have made beyond seized funds to that compensation. I don't yet know how successful the Commission was in getting responses from the operators (their deadline has passed now) but if the information supplied was incomplete or inadequate that is likely to have annoyed them somewhat, not a good place for the operators to be.

The UKGC is currently assessing the way compensation is calculated and paid. It is a bit too early for them to have a view on what would be fair or appropriate but the important first step of getting the sites to explain the quantity and methodology for calculating compensation has been taken. The sites will have to explain that to the regulator in a way that they can't or don't to players.

IF the UKGC are willing to discuss how sites compensate with me (I hope that they will) I will not be able to disclose that info publicly, at least in a way that identifies the policy/procedures of any specific operator.

We all know it is not the total player loss and the Commission is interested in how it is calculated and whether this is appropriate/fair. That's why they may want to discuss it confidentially with me and the operators - as a step to seeing if they need to offer guidance or even impose license conditions re compensation.

The Commission is at least initially more open to the idea of supplying information to consumers on the cheating data (the state of the industry and trends not individual firms) - including compensation but is further away from dictating compenstion methodology - which after all until very recently they have not had visibility of.

If the compenation methodology is dubious or arbitrary this may make them more interested in action than if the approach is at least defensible. Without the info it's hard to say how it will go down with them.

Their general approach to operator failures though is to try and make sure that they don't profit from the dubious or criminal activities. So all amounts lost by criminals spending it on gambling without the operators doing proper money laundering checks goes to charity/research and the Commission's investigation costs for those cases. Dodgy RTP on games again, all financial gain to charity/research.

This means that I would expect them to apply a similar approach to poker games corrupted by bots or collusion - that the operators entire revenue from those games should be up for grabs for compensation, research or gambling charities. This rake question is of course very significant - of the $4m+ Stars player loss to these bots about $2m is rake. Looking at the sums paid to date it does not look like all that rake was added to the compensation pot so the sites have achieved revenues from corrupted games - my expectation is that this will not go down well with the commission.

I will certainly be raising the rake question with them regardless of whether they are able to share feedback from the operators on how they calculate compensation. I would not want to raise false expectations though, action is likely to be slow and my well not be retrospective, they may just offer guidance on future compensation.There is a tiny chance that they will see not using the rake to compensate as just wrong, in which case they may ask the operators to revisit the compensation amounts, they have after all had UK licences for 11 months now so much of the play is whilst UK licenced.

Interestingly they have asked for the data for all poker, not just UK players. They asked for an estimate of UK impact but for the full info including non UK players. This is a sign that they are accepting a potentially controversial more global role given the shared player pool.

As for this being the second round of compensation. It is hard to tell but there was a bot ring earlier in the year that was initially more Microgaming focussed. It was smaller than this but was less long standing. It seems likely to me that the earlier ring were less successful in getting the money off the site in the shorter time they were up and running so more was seized for compensation. Interestingly that earlier round of compensation is also part of the data that the UKGC have asked for so assuming the sites have cooperated the difference in compensation should be clear to the regulator. I will be asking about that differerece in compensation level too - one reason why feedback like yours is very helpful.

Sorry if this has already been mentioned, but the thread is quite long.
What's the botting/collusion situation on IPoker? Particularly on 200+ ?
Has anyone looked for suspicious accounts over there?

That was also going through my mind, but idk how to filter for the correct results. neither the report 'vs player' nore choosing 'vs player xxx ' in the filters shows how much you are actually down or up vs that particular player.

I understand the anger and disappoinement of some players but I doubt there is much that the players can do.
Sure, Pokerstars has the obligation to offer fair games but to take legal actions it takes a lot of efford - First investing a lot of money in a competent laywer team, do a lot of research for the actual damage caused, the laws in the corresponding jurristriction etc...


also a question for those that want 100% rake-refund for all games with one or more of the banned players/bots involved: what about the rakeback + FPP gained in those games ? should they also get deducted or simply added as some kind of freeroll?
In my opinion it's too much to ask (even though it has a logical reason) and basically impossible to force stars to do - similar to the long demanded rake reduction on lower stakes.

Send me the account name and I'll look into it

if ur suspicious of an account dont out the SNs here, PM them to Schwein/Oink/Grethe to investigate and let them forward their findings to stars/party

this way the botters dont get a headsup on cashing out and causes maximum damage to them. im sure thur monitoring this thread very closely

when the account is confirmed as banned, then go ahead and out the SN

(havent read entire thread, so if this is already being done just carry on)

Just a quick HU. Received several PM's (thx guys) and none of the guys reported fits the data pattern scheme. For that reason I haven't forwarded the names to Stars.

Keep sending names if you see anything suspicious

Wow, that could have come from a Poker Stars executive as in "please don't sue us"
The preliminary advice I have been given is that there is every reason to file against Stars and is the only way we will get our money back.
Stars had an obligation to offer fair games and they didn't so we agree on that.
Legal action takes a lot of effort, agreed. Legal action is expensive, Stars are rich and we are not. (bots took all our money) agreed. However virtually every player who ever played PLO has been affected which means a class action suit can be filed. My understanding is this. Everyone contributes a small amount to cover filing fees court fees etc. The legal team work on a contingency basis which means they keep a % of monies recovered and then the remainder is split between us in proportion to loses.
Rakeback FPP is for the lawyers to fight over but we will claim back our losses and rake paid.
It is not too much to ask but is too much to expect (at the moment) because Stars are not going to give willingly. We can force Stars but not by begging and whining.
Is anyone else serious about legal action because I can't do this on my own.
If so, I will get quotes and terms and more specific details of exactly how this would work.
Is anyone a lawyer? hope I Haven't been BS'd

Legal action is a possibility of course but it is expensive and not that likely to deliver a win. Regardless we haven't by any means exhausted the non legal action options, we have not yet actualy made a complaint re the compensation provided, nor have we established that it is the final and complete compensation, we have not even established how the compensation is calculated.

To get to exhaustion we'd need to have a full dialogue with Stars, make a complaint, get them to confirm that the complaint has been dealt with as far as possible by them and that we are at deadlock.

Then there is the Alternative Dispute Resolution procedure where the complaint is escalated to their appointed outside agency to review the complaint - in this case that escalation of the complaints process is to the IoM Gambling Commission, as would also be the case for non UK players where the ADR process is less clear, if the complaint is non UK and under the IoM licence then it is escalation of the complaint to the IoM Commission without it being the ADR it would be them as the regulator.

After the IoM deal with the appeal on the deadlocked complaint, then you are getting closer to exhaustion but you would likely still want to establish more clearly the basis of compensation already paid before spending much on lawyers and filing a civil case. Stars may be willing to reveal more to us, alternaively the UKGC might be persuded to help clarify matters.

Plus of course it is far from clear that the criminal investigation has concluded. As for their potential defence, I suspect that they can argue that the harm and loss is down to the criminal actions of others not their lack of care or negligence, they could argue that we need to sue the cheats not them.

I have urged patience before so I will do so again - we are a long way from exhaustion, we need the investigation to be complete, we would then need the complaint process completed before turning, in the last resort, to civil action.

Wittingly or otherwise you have delivered the response stars were hoping for.
Your arguments are riddled with flaws which are best exposed by giving a realistic overall assessment.

Who is to say legal action is not likely to win because that is in direct contrast to the advice I have been given.
The reason for legal action does not stem from any criminal action by others and Stars absolutely cannot use that as a defence. Stars may have recourse against criminal activity against them but that that does not affect us. The critical issue is this. Stars allowed a bot ring to operate for over a year which was only removed after player discovery and complaints. This occurred whilst Stars were constantly reassuring customers, as they still are, that bots were not allowed and that their site was safe to play on. Customers were entitled to rely on Stars security statements as well as Stars terms and conditions being applicable and enforced against all other customers. A civil case arises where the customers have suffered loss due to negligence. This argument can be won because the negligence occurred over a long period , was substantial in scale and affected a large number of customers.

Any complaint of this nature directed at any gambling commission is doomed to failure because the use of bots is not criminal and we have not (as far as known) been damaged by criminal behaviour. We can hardly expect a gambling commission to make a decision (which wouldn't be binding anyway) on the validity and extent of a civil claim. That is quite rightly reserved for the courts to decide.

I accept you have our interests at heart but I really think you have got the wrong end of the stick.Your patient approach at best will turn the peanut offered into two peanuts or more likely a peanut and a bit. Not acceptable to me.

We have a strong case if we find the right legal team to pursue it.

Sue if you want but you have not got to exhaustion yet so you need to do that first.

http://www.businessdictionary.com/de...xhaustion.html

You need to demonstrate negligence, now that might be possible though personally I doubt it. Then you have to consider if Stars is offering the service or level of service you claim. Let's look at the TOS we have agreed to

If you look at bots in the TOS

The TOS dont make player detection of bots a liability, they make reporting such suspicions to them a contractual obligation on us, not a warranty that all cheating and bots will be detected/prevented.

So let's assume we find some forms of statement or promise not in th TOS offering a guarantee strong enough to overcome these TOS then we have this

My emphasis.

Now being angry re Stars failure to detect and their approach to compensation may well be justified but that righteous anger does not a winning civil case make. We'd need to basically overturn the explicit TOS and prove negligence.

Im sorry that anyone who urges caution re civil action strikes you as a witting or unwitting Stars ally but taking a sensible approach is not shill like. Regardless of the viability of suing given the above before you even get to that point you ned to reach exhaustion, you need to make a complaint to Stars, if you are unhappy with how they deal with that you needto complete the complaint appeal/ADR process then and only then can you sue.

If allowing bots to run amok for over a year isn't negligent then what is?

Negligence is a bit more than having criminals go undetected. It is a failure to exercise the care that a reasonably prudent person would exercise in like circumstances.

Now it may be that there has been negligence but they can offer up a range of defences including showing the efforts they have made, comparing those efforts to others facing the same circumstances being part of the "reasonable" bit.

I do think it might be possible to show it here but it is no slam dunk, especially if they can show other cheats and bots caught by them, which they have claimed is the vast majority of cases.

The trouble here is that Schwein is a bit too good, he has shown up Stars a bit but also the rest of us that have signed up to reporting in the TOS. The quality of work is exceptional, not merely reasonable and his motivation as one of those being cheated, not the role of the site where other reasonable priorities and difficulties exist..the far wider range of games to check, the need to make a profit not spend everything on policing for example.

But hey, let's assume that is overcome and a level of negligence is proven, even then you have to overcome the TOS that limits their liability. Again that might be possible, but only if you can show the limit we signed up to is unreasonable and unenforceable. We'd also need to show that their compensation method that goes beyond the TOS is unreasonable too.

I get the anger, really I do, but legal action on this case is not the next step nor is it a clear win even if and when the time comes.

To quote, "Users should report suspected ‘bot’ usage to support@pokerstars.uk."
and then come to the conclusion that: "they make reporting such suspicions to them a contractual obligation on us" is absurd.

A request for help, followed by provision of help places no obligations whatsoever on us. The police encourage us to report suspicious behaviour but I wouldn't be very happy if I got robbed, burgled or shot if the police responded by saying it was my own fault for not reporting something deemed to be suspicious.