What I'm saying is that it's legitimately impossible that there are large bot rings on ipoker that has PLO bots that first play well enough to not get crushed at SSPLO, and then to top that off, the bots have a highly advanced system of discounting cards from eachothers hands; enough to make them run ridiculously over EV in all-in situations vs the human players at the tables.

No. Just no. It's a fairytale. You're completely mad. Something else is wrong here. Something completely different.

#pokerisrigged

just caught bots on party raping hsnhle

[ ]fairytale

Let me have cliffs of your points

- OP is crazy (possible)
- OP is completely mad (very likely)
- OP has forgot to take his meds (how you knew this!!??)
- PLO b0ts can't play sophisticated
- PLO b0ts can't play sophisticated and collude same time
- PLO b0ts will get crushed vs human opponents
- if PLO b0ts would use this strategy they wouldn't gain edge becos smart human opponents would crush them
- no
- just no
- whole story is a fairytaile (like Cinderella or more like Lion King? For sure I don't see a happy ending )
- something else is wrong here (elaborate)
- something completely different ( you into string theory or something ? )

(I know I shouldn't feed the trolls but can't really resist here)

Now carry on with your great argumentation skills to other threads.

You have to be really insane and or stupid to not take this seriously at this point. Especially because of all the bots found crushing, not just beating, mid stakes up to 5-10 NL. At the very least it is worth a look at.

can you explain the flush board colluding?

for now i see two possible scenarios.

1) flop comes xyz; colliding players know that they had a lot of hearts in their hands, lets say a number >3; hence the player that is active (in the hand) stacks off lighter due to the fact that the flush doesn't play that hard anymore.
2) same flop, guy knows that they (colluding parties) didn't have hearts and the guy holds whatever flush draw that is not nut - how does it change things? the fact that there are more flush cards (hearts) out is fine, but it also increases the chance that some other player has 2nd nut or nut flush draw. so you are right about him having a higher chance making a flush, however, there is a higher chance that the player would be dominated also which evens each other out. finally, people often stack off with naked nut flush draws and there is no surprise to it.

If you mean specific cases where these players would stack off with 9, T, J, Q flush draws, never be dominated and win a higher frequency than normal on a large sample or make air ball 3barrels on flush boards (which would indicate that they know they are not dominated/or the nut cards are not in any other active players hand) than yes.

I hope you get point 2).

If the bot can make adjustments and plays like these due to card removal, the bot can also call lighter and barrel lighter in any card removal/blocker situations, which I assume is really hard to even put down in words, not to mention coding something like that across a variety of players.

Not even card removal information from multiple other bots at the table would allow such a bizarre increase in bb/100 winnings in all-in-spots compared to evbb/100.

OP is wrong somewhere else. And PLO bots using card removal to run like gods is fairytale. Holy **** this ****ing thread and that people take it seriously.

And yes OP you did sum up cliffs of my "arguments" pretty well in the above reply you made to me.

Another possibility is that these are not B0TS but sophisticated players using a tool such as Omaha Indicator in collaboration.

@ thin fold

I don't have any solid math for this maybe its wrong. Tried to google up stud strategies with known dead outs.

I got 60% chance of flushdraw hitting if you know 27 cards from the deck (20 from opponents, 4 your own, and 3 from flop) Can someone comfirm my math? This is a extreme example but I think here jamming most flushdraws are correct and you don't have to worry that much about domination if your opponent only jams nut flush draws + made hands and folds the rest.

The main benefit of collusion is prolly being able to laydown when you know your outs are dead rather than getting it in when you know remaining deck is heavy on your suit?

You are right in your assumptions, but the thing you have made numbers on is all-in EV and generally running good in all-ins; the things I wrote above make it almost impossible to gain such a huge edge. Sure you can gain SOME, but not that big of an edge.

Exactly on point
,
you should be trying to search for very strange showdown or non-showdown patterns these players have. It requires extensive analysis and being competent in poker to understand if these plays are systematic or random. Ill give you a hint, no winning players on large samples are doing random stuff, which will appear random when going through showdowns.
They will on average have very high success % in their actions like check raising, barreling etc. (really outlier territory here) and will show up in showdowns with too-random or very thin stuff that normally you won't see.
Take in mind, whenever they will get called and they will have a random hand (kinda random) their opponents will never have the nuts or, seldomly, 2nd nuts as well, so mostly those will be hero/spazz/curiousity calls.

I am thankful for your concerns and time spent on doing stuff like this. Also I don't get the hate from Loctus, this is a serious problem, this might not be the case but b0tting in general is.

It is probably safer for a b0t programmer to make a GTO b0t than to try something like this, because, firstly GTO b0t would be more sustainable over a longer period, and intuitively I think a GTO b0t takes less effort to make than this one would.

It seems important to sort out the problems with the maths, as addressed in the poker theory thread, before going into too much arguing here. We have a hypothesis but we need to double check the maths to see if we should reject or keep that hypothesis.

I agree. I wish I had more solid evidence we could run data analysis but the site I play at doesn't support player tracking.

With regard to the all in EV, wouldn't sharing hold cards be enough to run "over EV?" The EV math is based on unknown cards right? If you know 4, 8, or 12 other cards besides your own and whats on the board, couldn't you make calculations that would significantly beat what a database tracker program calculates as EV based on those cards being unknown? What am I missing?

I have some hand histories I can post when I get home, and some notes fro pokertracker such as number of multiway 3bet pots compared to earlier player pool, but without seeing how the community played before the suspected colluders/bots it will be hard to recognize out of context.

If a sophisticated and successful PLO collusion bot ring I would expect it to:

- use multiple sites and multiple accounts within those sites to reduce risk and increase profit

- frequently switch which accounts colluded with one another to reduce risk

- share hole card information & coordinate group actions based on increased information available to them

- LEARN from their mistakes and how to increase profit over time, and make adjustments to player tendencies

Here is some screenshots with numbers

I had accidently two high volume human regs on my alias.. after removing them I was down to a bit over 1.2M hands but the disparency got even bigger:

Total stats&graph:




All in on flop& graph :




All in on flop with a flushdraw & graph:



Pokerdope variance calculator results screenshots:

All in on flop:


All in on flop with flushdraw:

If you can't boost your edge by sharing holecard data to this extent I got to agree with Loctus.

Something is very wrong here.

these numbers seems unreal.
It doesn't seem like it was a few very deep pots won either.

I have to agree the graphs seem very convincing. What is going on in here? How about ipoker support, is it pointless to share the data with them, will they listen - what are we even suspecting?

You are all welcome to contact your ipoker skin support and linking them this thread.
Also to your affliate.

We should review other networks if can we find a pattern here.

Def. not clean. This is very bad, since it means that the player/s in question won with the flush draw and it was not dominated (was higher all the time), winning a lot.

looks like superuser setup to me...

Very subtle superusing though. These players do fold vs my bluffs and pay off my nuts time to time.
No soul reading going on. Overall their game seems to be annoying balanced.

I think it was in 2006 party introduced side bet games in their platform. You could bet is the flop red, black paired or something like that.

It didn't take long there was tables full of bots folding every hand lighting fast and when they found an edge it was betting time.
People were very confused what was going on. Of course that didn't last long. Party had to remove the sidebet feature.

It's a great example how fast systems get exploited if there's something to exploit.

jesus christ willy he was joking about it looking like a superuser

Loctus you are my favourite troll. Gonna feed you so much you should watch your weight.

I could need that, I've lost 15lbs in two weeks from this pneumonia.

Free willy, can you PM me the list of scree names?