Botters caught on Pokerstars - Page 6 - Internet Poker

LPtrax · 07-16-2010, 08:08 PM

rofl sweet anti-cheat servers you have pokerstars

ashiXIII · 07-16-2010, 08:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rak

Seriously stars? So your apparently very poweful servers that are "solely sifting through mountains of data to seek out potential suspects in their respective realms of responsibilities" aren't able to detect these bots who are playing almost identical in a unique way for 8.3 million hands?

Quote:

Originally Posted by mogwai316

Pretty epic failure here, Jeff. Try having them look at the extremely simple stuff that PTR looked at instead of whatever they are currently looking at, because it's clearly not working. This is a huge hit to Stars' integrity. I've been a big fan of Stars for years now, but enough is enough, every month there seems to be some news like this coming out. If I didn't have a non-rakeback account on FTP I would be giving up my Supernova status and switching sites right now. I'll certainly be exploring other options for 2011 unless Stars does something to take responsibility and show that they are committed to improving things.

Cake has a good deposit bonus, good rakeback (33%) and soft games. I recommend them. The pool of players isn't as high as Stars or FTP, but then again nowhere is.

**Bobo Fett** · 07-16-2010, 08:15 PM

Ahh, my old TRS-80.

sjp507 · 07-16-2010, 08:15 PM

http://www.pokertableratings.com/blo...n-poker-stars/

its nice that you get every stat on that article

pokerstove % ranges -----> throw in a few blowups -----> avoid detection ------> WIN THE MANIES

nobody copy me

Stackajawea · 07-16-2010, 08:15 PM

Pokerstars has officially lost 100% of their business from me as a supernova player. I've warned about this in the pokerstars buy-in changes thread (the thread before the changes were actually made) and it fell on deaf ears.

gg Stars keep anal raping the players who actually have integrity

sofocused978 · 07-16-2010, 08:15 PM

so PTR is better at catching collusion and bots then Pokerstars. I love it. Give us Harrahs Online Poker already.

Stian Bjornoy · 07-16-2010, 08:15 PM

Wow! This makes me wonder how many people out there that is using a rakeback bot with VPIP/PFR/everything else made escpescially only for one user.

steel108 · 07-16-2010, 08:20 PM

Did anyone not KNOW 100% that there were bots infesting the shortstack tables? With Stars vpp program, the profits must be insane. On the shortstack tables the skills required to break even are minimal and easily achieved with a bot; in this case, they were winning players.

So once again, GET RID OF THESE SHORT BUYIN GAMES. The integrity of the game is being tarnished, there really is no middle ground when it comes to that.

yesright · 07-16-2010, 08:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by steel108

Did anyone not KNOW 100% that there were bots infesting the shortstack tables? With Stars vpp program, the profits must be insane. On the shortstack tables the skills required to break even are minimal and easily achieved with a bot; in this case, they were winning players.

So once again, GET RID OF THESE SHORT BUYIN GAMES. The integrity of the game is being tarnished, there really is no middle ground when it comes to that.

If they cant detect bots then the only answer might be to make the min buy-in 40-50bb which would make programming a bot much more complicated.

The real bad news is that recreational players will hear about this and leave because they are playing against robots.

kk405 · 07-16-2010, 08:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MicroBob

wow at that article. just wow.

+1...just stunning

pontylad · 07-16-2010, 08:33 PM

steel, it's not just that, but the sophistication that they were able to beat up to 200nl is kind of shocking... I have no idea how these games are going to be able to be maintained and guarentee integrity.

can bobbo or some other mod change the title?! this thread will start getting a lot more views and suspect a lot of people would be v v interested in this.

HigH · 07-16-2010, 08:37 PM

Wow. Pokerstars drops the ball yet again. Makes me think that these elaborate systems they claim they have, used to detect any irregularities, do not actually exist. They simple assure us they do in order for us to feel safe. How else could you explain their inability to detect something so blatantly obvious as this?

egj · 07-16-2010, 08:41 PM

From PSMichaelJ's earlier post:

Quote:

The OP emailed us; a poker specialist reviewed for collusion, looked at hand histories, and found no indication of this. Then, I eventually tracked down that emailed report, and passed it along to one of my senior colleagues, and he is still reviewing.

Sounds like maybe PokerStar's original analysis was only focused on looking for collusion, not on detecting bots. Not saying this necessarily excuses their dropping the ball on this, but maybe it's a partial explanation.

Sh@i'tan · 07-16-2010, 08:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pontylad

steel, it's not just that, but the sophistication that they were able to beat up to 200nl is kind of shocking... I have no idea how these games are going to be able to be maintained and guarentee integrity.

can bobbo or some other mod change the title?! this thread will start getting a lot more views and suspect a lot of people would be v v interested in this.

LOL,

<27 bbing nlhe is not hard at all. I can teach my little sister that has never played online poker how to be profitable doing this at .5/1 guaranteed.

1/2 shouldn't be that much harder. i'm also 100% confident i can write the logic having not touched comp sci in 3 years to beat these games <27bb stacking.

pontylad · 07-16-2010, 08:52 PM

http://www.pokertableratings.com/blo...n-poker-stars/

Ok i fully expect this to get merged with the other thread running, but since the name hasn't been changed i thought i should point this out to people who haven't noticed yet. Kind of shocking

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/28...rstars-828016/

*Edit may as well post in the other thread (this is merely to inform people who may glance over and think nothing of it).