It's very clear that she multi-accounted, and on this subject was silent in the beginning, then disclosed some, and then disclosed some more, and likely is not telling the full truth yet.

However it's not clear at all whether she was botting, and from whatever was presented in this thread most likely she wasn't.

So FTP just made up this bot accusation in order to lose a player that would make them 000's in rake and get all the negative publicity for the princly sum of $47K (that they then distribute to her "cheated" opponents). Mmmmm good plan on their behalf.

Have they just made a mistake? thats possible but we have not seen all their evidence so is hard to decide here.

Is sillysal telling the full truth, being open and honest with 2+2 and answering pertinent questions? Absolutely not. Why? well I have my theory on that. But as I say, there may be a 1% chance she is innocent and is just too dumb to tell the truth. Do I think sillysal is dumb? Absolutely not.

LeapFrog and Rek,

We really don't need your private tete-a-tete in this lengthy thread, thank you. Please take it to PM.

Here are your posts in one, instead of half a dozen:

*

LeapFrog:

"Originally Posted by Rek
But as I say, there may be a 1% chance she is innocent and is just too dumb to tell the truth". .

Because you keep insisting on posting again and again in a thread that you initially didn't even think was worthy of our time (lol) we are, most unfortunately, all too aware of your opinion. Being as you are an expert in nothing pertaining to these matters (please correct me if I am mistaken), your opinion frankly means ****. And thats cool, because this is the internet. However, I think one post would have sufficed. Now, (in the parlance of our times) could you please stop smelling up this thread? Then, maybe, just maybe, we might actually be able to get to the truth.

*

Rek:

Thank you for those kind words. The truth is something I would like to get to as well. Unfortunately, the one person that can tell the truth, so evidently does not want to.

*

LeapFrog:

Not a problem.

Why don't you try and take the following advice to heart:


"Quote:
Originally Posted by LeapFrog
However, I think one post would have sufficed."

*

Rek:

Do you take your own advice - I certainly hope so. I guess you are one of those in the "cor, she's hot I think she must be innocent" camp.

*

LeapFrog:

I'm a pretty huge hypocrite, but then again, most people are.

No I'm in the 'I don't know what the **** happened and I am not an expert in botting/don't have any inside information so I am going to shut up and try and learn something camp'. Why don't we give that a whirl huh? Nothing wrong with posting your opinion obviously, but how about posting it 50 ****ing times?

*

Rek:

LeapFrog, did I wrong you in a previous life?

This is a public forum - if you just want "expert" opinion on this, my understanding is that Darse Billings determined she was a bot. Does that end the discussion for you.

*

the_optical:

I think that is sufficient

*

LeapFrog:

You are just annoying me in this one.

Again, we get it that you think Sal is guilty and this discussion should be ended. I think you stated that about 25 pages ago. It was probably also very clear in round one.

You are absolutely right that this is a public forum and obviously the public is interested in this topic. So, even though you would like this discussion ended apparently, it very well may continue. All I ask is a little common courtesy to let it continue naturally.

By posting the same thing again and again in this thread we have just more crap to wade through. And this 'discussion' we are currently having is just generating more of the same. But, by all means get the last word in. I look forward to your re-re-rehashed thoughts in round3.

*

Rek:

"Quote:
Originally Posted by LeapFrog
So, even though you would like this discussion ended apparently,"

I do not want it ended - I would like it resolved. However, if all you get from the OP is smoke, mirrors and half-truths it is impossible. So, by all means criticise me but until we continue to push for the truth from sillysal this thread will have lots of repetition and will eventually die out like her original thread.

*

Agreed, sorry guys. I will make everybody happy and take a permanent leave from this thread.

Granted. This is confusing. I have no idea what it means. You know, I'd really just like to talk on the phone with SillySal--have a regular conversation. Maybe it would clear everything up, maybe not.

Did SillySal do something wrong? It appears so. But what--exactly? Tell us FullTilt. Show us. Prove it to us, and you will win some hearts and minds. But as long as it stays a big secret (we can't reveal our techniques or everyone will start botting) all anyone can do is speculate.

It's like when there's a big news story. Very few facts are known, yet the press speculates endlessly, ad nauseam, rehashing what little they don't know over and over and over again.

A lot of what is going on could be ended if FullTilt would simply tell us what they know--show us the iron clad 100% proof that SillySal botted. Isn't that what she was accused of? Isn't that why her money was confiscated?

Show us FullTilt. To hell with your detection methods. That's a piss-poor excuse. Let's see the damning facts.

If they did that this would be over in a few days, or it would continue to fester--depending on what they exposed.

I have a very strong feeling that their "so-called evidence" is shaky at best.

I've seen some people saying how they had their funds frozen for weeks and then returned. Did FTP compensate you for lost earnings? If you had your account frozen for x weeks and you play y hrs a week with an hourly of win rate of $z are they going to compensate you if you are inocent. If not that is ridiculous.

As I stated before, I don't know much about the whole botting issue.
But I suspect that FT's argument that "if they show too much it will make it too easy for others to do it" is roughly equal to the cops not telling anyone how the murderer did it and exactly what his mistake was that tripped him up.
Future criminals and murderers actually do have the capability to learn from past cases and even TV shows like CSI to avoid getting caught. But that doesn't absolve the cops and prosecution from continuing to give a full explanation of how the crime was committed and exactly what was done.

This is not just done to put forth the best effort that a false-positive conviction doesn't result. It also has the effect on giving people some amount of faith in the system.


We have no idea how FT came to their conclusion that sillysal was a bot. We have one expert named Darse who looked at the evidence and also pretty much have a jury of one in Mike Haven who believes their findings are reasonable.
But I truly believe that FT can give a better account of SOME of what happened and what they believe sillysal did exactly without telling every single little detail about their whole bot-checking procedure and giving away the farm so much that every single bot-maker out there will come flocking to FT because now they can get away with it.

IOW - It seems very possible that FT is using their "can't release bot info or the whole thing will come crashing down" semi-paranoid excuse as a way to just not have to answer any Q's at all about the issue in general or about a specific case.

I don't care if God himself emails Full Tilt and tells them that sal was running a bot. They still have a responsiblity to show proof.

This thread was interesting at first but the holes in sal's story have deminished any sympathy I had with her to begin with. The silence speaks volumes is so true here. If you want to get up on a forum and tell your story, you better be available to respond instead of leaving questions unanswered for weeks at a time. It was important enough for you to take the issue public, it's important enough for you to monitor the thread.

This type of behaviour by Full Tilt is another strike against the legalization of online gaming IMO.

Im curious if sillysal were to be able to get her own expert to have a look at the evidence - it just seems so very one sided and we are talking about a lot of money here by anyones measurement, this isnt loose change that you find down the back of your sofa, and it also begs the question how she was able to go on botting for over a year and make around 500k from the site doing so.

I know that this is no criminal trial but from what is known here im not comfortable to every leave more than a couple hundo on the site - mainly because their detection methods seem flawed and best, and ineffective at worst - even if you assume sillysal is guilty of everything accused of, how can anyone like how this has gone.#

There was a severe lack in communication between her and the site, they lock her funds with no reason why, they eventually say why whilst not providing evidence in public, they give some evidence to a forum mod as an independent 3rd party (agreed by both, this isnt a dig at Mike) but there is a good chance what was revealed wasnt told to her (if i remember the wording correctly, she basically made an educated guess that this Darce guy was the expert, but Mike was specifically told the guys name), then we have someone who has experience in the field (kyleb) who says that the chosen expert isnt close to an expert in bot detection (as apose to bot creation, whilst linked i have no doubt they are very different jobs and there is little crossover skill) and wouldnt be the best choice of independent 3rd party analyst of the case.

And now we have another site, Stars, who everyone trusts who say that sillysal is 100% not a bot, after the same accusors from FTP (crazy mike or whatever he is called being one) have accused her of being a bot on this site. Its also claimed by her that she played both sites at the same time in the past, and its a solid logical leap to assume that if she were botting on one site she would do the same on the other site.

If im missing some details please add, i havent followed this case as closely as some, but when the person accused isnt knowing which expert was brought in, what evidence was analysed AND another site backs her up as having not botted there, we have an interesting case.

I dont know if it would make it easier to avoid detection, but it makes me really uncomfortable to think that if accused and convicted you will never find out what evidence they have.

no its not ducy.

The only reasoning not to do so is assuming that Pokerstars has better bot detection than FTP, but no one thinks they will get caught, and considering she made 500k by (presumably) botting one site, she can risk another 50k for a potential 500k a year - sounds like a sweet +ev gamble to me.

This is ignoring the fact ive seen on bot building forums that Stars was well loved by botters because of relatively poor active anti bot methods (requiring you to type in some letters into a box every so often, which was introduced like 6 months ago).

If im mistaken in my reasoning, and you feel you could add more, please do so rather than give a 4 word argument which makes no argument whatsoever.

well, if i was a winning high stakes hu lhe player, and if i had a killer bot, i would realize there is the potential of getting caught. so i would only unleash it on one site. i would always leave myself with a site i could play on legitimately, bc thats a lifetime of earning. no reason to potentially burn all bridges.

Hmm, id basically multi account like jjprodigy did, run all the sites, when i get caught i lose my upfront investment but such is the cost of business - then get back on the site and back to business within a week.

I mean, potentially we are talking millions a year whilst the games are good, after which you either retire from the game investing the money in other things or you go play highest of high stakes live assuming you play as good as the bot did.

I understand your point, but certainly in this case she was running two accounts on the site so there is no reason to think if she was caught on stars or wherever she wouldnt start up again with another clean account.

Assuming guilt, of course.

I don't recall,

How did FT prove that sal(or entity) was the one playing on the grego account?

i suppose that is key. how reasonable it is to create, fund and cashout with, another acct.

regardless, it seems to best to keep a real acct in good repute.