fk it im bored

Not sure what you are even getting at with this? Does it really matter? If someone violates the TOS (like OP clearly did) who cares what section they violated? I think he can only demand a full explanation if he is COMPLETELY innocent - which he isn't.

Uh? Really? That fact "basically suggests" that? They couldn't PROVE he was using software, but had good reason to suspect it. So they got him off of their site via one of the OTHER rules he broke. And you really have a problem with that?

This obviously can not be confirmed anywhere, but based on all of the "FTP banning AIM" threads lately, it is safe to assume (a lot safer than the assumptions you are making) that sites have the ability to monitor your computer screen while you have the poker client open. If this is the case, they are not going to come out and say "Oh hey we were spying on your computer, that is our proof." Something like that would drive away TONS of fish customers (tmnsho).

Right.. but the fact that he lied about one of them makes it VERY easily believable that he lied about the other, as you mention yourself here:

Not sure anyone was doing it in the first place, only once it came to light that he was lying. I could be wrong, as this has been a long-running thread and my memory is a bit hazy.. but even if I am, does it really matter? I, like many, don't judge someone until I am given a reason to.. you know, like FTP coming into the thread and saying he edited emails.

Uhh? This is the point where I became 99.9% sure you were either the OP, or completely leveling.

See: They have no obligation to tell us anything, and while they MIGHT just MAYBE have an obligation to tell an honest player what he did wrong (OK, they do), I have to say that I do not think they have an obligation to tell a multiaccounter or anyone else that knowingly breaks the TOS anything at all.

Arguments? I think you meant to say "lies"

I am confused? You think that they were waiting for him to make a mistake and jump on it to save face, like OP suggested? C'mon you can not seriously believe that. If he was a completely honest player, I am sure they would love to have another paying customer at their site. You can't honestly say that you think they picked him at random to throw the "banned software" accusation at, can you?? If the only thing he ever did wrong was multiaccounting, they would have simply banned him for that and only that from the start.

I don't think anyone thinks FT did this maliciously, just that their detection methods are flawed and they refuse to admit it.

I do actually agree somewhat with ilintar that FT is pulling a bit of a fast one here to avoid addressing the original problem with their detection methods.

What they've done here is the equivalent of someone being on trial for dealing drugs, and the defense being made to present proof of innocense first, rather than being able to refute the prosecutions claims.

Then the prosecutor stands up and says "We have proof the defendant beats his wife. The prosecution rests."

Multiple accounts is not automatically a bannable offense (see CryMeARiver's recent thread about his false multiaccount accusation), and I believe they said in their email to Sober that there was another reason.

All that said, Sober lied to us, and that makes me less willing to trust him. But, as a few others have pointed out, you can think Sober is guilty and still not like the way Full Tilt handled this.

Dude, you have to allow the possibility to creep into your head that just maybe you and sober have different situations.

They told sober he used banned software on two accounts. Because of your situation you are taking his word for it that he doesn't know what they're talking about. But think. You are taking the word of sober (has lied ITT) over Full Tilt (no reason to lie even if they do make mistakes from time to time). At the least, you could allow yourself to be slightly more sceptical.

I have, that's why I put this:

in the same post you quoted. The part of the post that you quoted was a more general response to the standard answer people have given to me as well as Sober.

Hell, I'm bored too.

Yes, I do. Again, there are no proofs presented that the OP had commited any violation of FTP's TOS, prohibited software or multiaccounting, before getting banned. Now, while "playing back" at a site who's unfairly, in your opinion, treated you by breaking their TOS in response is not the smartest thing to do, it is a completely different thing than just breaking the rules in the first place. Note the dates in the omitted part of FTP's emails, all those refer to dates after the banning took place. I am in no way saying that "two wrongs make a right" nor trying to say the OP is not guilty of any misconduct, I'm just saying that this last piece does not make it more or less probable that he used bots or other prohibited software in the first place.

They do not have to say that. All they would have to do is something like "an instance of the botting program 'Foobar' was found on your computer during a security scan". This would also allow other interested people to pursue the topic further, since most of the bots have their own dedicated forums, one could search for people posting there matching the OP's profile etc. This would also possibly deter some people from using bots at all, proving they are detectable, which is always better than finding them after they've caused some damage. However, if FTP really did have any sort of monitoring proof, they wouldn't have given the OP his money back, which is why I'm saying it's a pretty strong piece of evidence suggesting his innocence - why would you release the funds of a person for whom you have clear evidence of cheating? Also, this security measure does not work by monitoring your screen, it's a slightly different method whatsoever, but I don't really want to go into the technical details (I've written some similar software before, so I think I have some idea of how it works).

Obviously, it does. As I've said, it is a very commonly used rhetorical device, known as "guilt by association", a form of red herring. Obviously, you're missing an important piece here - unlike anyone else in this topic save the OP, FTP does have interest in getting the "upper hand" in this debate. Since they are a big organization, they are probably going to plan their actions in such a situation. Obviously, a person who has good public relation skills, and I don't doubt FTP has such people on their payroll, will know what the most effective rhetorical devices are and how to exploit them to the fullest. It is also well known that rhetorical devices, especially those from the red herring group, are used as a replacement for real arguments.

Obviously, but note the following: FTP did not once post in this topic to try to promote their arguments, instead, the only post of theirs was a personal attack on the OP to destroy their credibility. Worked great, too.

I'm not the one leveling here, FTP is. Only they're not doing it for entertainment value, but for a real reason, which is possibly why you're missing it.

Let's take a poker example. Say that you have KQ offsuit, the board comes out Kxx two spades, you check, your opponent bets 3/4 pot (say you raised preflop from UTG and he called from the button). You call and the turn comes a ten of spades. Say you bet half pot and he raises you. Now, the relevant levels of thinking:

* level 0: my hand is only top pair vs a flush on the board, I fold
* level 1: my hand is only top pair, there's a flush on the board and my opponent knows this is a good spot to 2-barrel, he's aggressive, therefore I call

But now, if you have a longer history with this opponent, there is maybe a further possibility:

* level 2: my hand is only top pair, there's a flush on board, my opponent knows it's a good spot to 2-barrel and he knows I expect him to 2-barrel here with most of his range, therefore there's a large change he's shoving his flush here for value, expecting me to call with top pair since I called the flop so it's my likely holding, therefore I fold

Let's see how this relates to the case in question. We have a long thread about someone banned for using prohibited software, he's basically mostly cleared of his charges and allowed to cash out his money. When most posters here become pretty confident that this is indication that FTP screwed up and mistakenly banned them in the first place, an FTP representative posts information - not on the relevant topic, but on an omission done by the OP in a different matter whatsoever.

Now, let's examine the levels:

* level 0: OP was banned for bots, FTP talks about multiaccounting. No connection.

Just as most at least semi-decent poker players won't think on level 0, most people that are not children or gullible fools will not think that way. Most of us use heuristics to believe or disbelieve other people's claims, one of those heuristics is weighing it with the authority of the person making the claims. So, on to the next level.

* level 1: OP was banned for bots (short for 'prohibited software'), FTP releases proof that he was multiaccounting. Since multiaccounting is also an offense and since the OP was not completely honest, he cannot be now trusted and it is increasingly possible that he was botting in the first place.

What I'm saying is that this isn't the correct way to reason about the case, this is:

* level 2: OP was banned for bots, FTP releases proof that he was multiaccounting. They obviously release this and not other information for a reason. They have to know that releasing such information will discredit the OP, so obviously their goal is to prove their veracity. However, if they had actual proof of the OP's guilt, they have simpler and much more profitable (in terms of reputation and deterring further botters) ways of proving that. Thus, one has to conclude that there is no real connection between the OP's multiaccounting and his original botting charge.

Exactly, they have no obligation to tell us anything. So, ever consider why they posted just that one select piece of information in the first place?

Note that nothing the OP has said here prior to his omission of the multiaccounting issue has ever been proven to be a lie, and he was questioned multiple times and cross-examined quite thoroughly. Reverse-marking all his explanations "lies" because of his posited loss of credibility is exactly the "guilt by association" mechanism I'm talking about.

Obviously, that is true. However, I am not saying the picked a random customer to harass him. What I am saying is that it is quite possible (and everything in the thread suggests it) that they have made a mistake while applying their bot-searching heuristics to search for possible botters. Since such mistakes are costly for their reputation, they will prefer discrediting the OP to admitting they made a mistake in the first place.

Yes, but note one more thing - he was not even multiaccounting before this entire matter stated. His multiaccounting was apparently his way of "playing back" at a site that banned him for apparently no real reason. Try following me here: I'm saying that the very reason for the loss of the OP's credibility, namely the multiaccounting issue, was provoked by FTP's very action whose legitimacy is at stake here.

Let's take another example, real life this time: say there are two school kids, Tom and Joe. Tom comes to the teacher complaining that Joe has been bullying him all the time: he's been stealing and throwing away his school stuff, ripping pages out of his notes, eating his lunch etc. Joe says he's done none of that. The teacher has no real reason to believe Tom, since Joe is a generally good student and she hasn't seen him perform any misdeeds, so she questions Tom about the details. Tom describes the various occurences, plus the fact that they had a quarrel about it the other day and just as he's about to convince the teacher, Joe, who's been listening to the talk, comes to the teacher and says "hey, Tom, didn't you forget to tell the teacher what you did after we had that quarrel?". Tom reluctantly admits that well, he was so frustrated that he did hit Joe afterwards.

Two questions: should the teacher take this incident into account when deciding whether Joe is really guilty? Will she, in most real life situations?

i had unsubscribed from this thread. i happened to open this and see this post. i have not read beyond this post yet, but i had to grunch how epic this is to sober's and coaches cred imo.

tldr most of it. If you're not leveling, you're trolling. In any case, from a quick skim, here are a couple of errors from your post:


FTP did not release the information that the OP multiaccounted, the OP released that information himself by posting the previously omitted portion of the email. All FTP did was point out that the OP was withholding information. No one held a gun to OP's head to make him post what he had censored. He could have easily posted, "sorry, but the omitted section is personal, so go ahead and think what you want, I know I'm not guilty."

The OP absolutely DID violate the TOS before the suspension for prohibited software. The account referenced in the FTP email was opened on October 20, two months before the suspension.

ty bleeper. i was about to respond almost verbatim with your post. you saved me a lot of time while still showing how ilintar is making little to no sense lol.

ilintar you are still missing the main point. what reason would ftp have to just randomly ban someone who isnt breaking any TOS? using your logic of "they gave him his money back" to prove his innocence, i am pointing out that "they banned him in the first place" so they must have found SOMETHING amiss.

and please explain them not monitoring your computer.. how else would they be able to tell if you are using AIM to cheat or not? if you are about to say keylogging, its the same thing, sorry for only being 99% right on it; either way, they can read your AIM conversations, as has been implied in the ftp posts in several other threads.

i am not even going to address the ridiculous hand example you gave. honestly?

re: ftp doesnt want to admit a mistake with their detection techniques
are you really that stupid? they have admitted mistakes before, and unlocked peoples accounts. because the OP multiaccounted, you think they are unwilling to admit their mistake? that is so ridiculous that i am beginning to lose hope in appealing to whatever logical side you possess.

everything else bleeper seems to have covered. you are seriously so mistaken with your arguments that i am having a hard time comprehending your ability to work the computer and type them up in the first place.

If it's too long and you didn't read it, how can you know if I'm levelling or trolling? You know, some things just cannot be argumented for or against in two or three lines, the arguments require some space.

Obviously, you're wrong here. Basically, by using the multiaccounting issue against the OP, FTP put before him two choices, both bad for his credibility:
1. He could state the part of the email wasn't relevant and directly contradict what FTP says. This way, he would be losing credibility and withholding possibly condemning information.
2. He could admit the omission and quote the part of the email, like he did. This way, he would lose credibility, but not be guilty of withholding information.
He did the best thing he could from a damage-control point of view, but his loss of crediblity was already decided with FTP's post (which could be seen from the posts following that one).

Note that nowhere in the email it is stated that the account in question was opened by the OP. The only thing that is stated is that the OP started using that account just after he was banned. Now, if this was someone else's account that he played on after being banned, he did not violate the TOS until actually first playing on someone else's account.

Ya, obviously I didn't make sense because a guy who didn't even read my post tells me he thinks I'm trolling. Nice one.

Anyway, what was I thinking, trying to actually use some arguments in an internet debate. Had it coming :P

I said your post was tldr, but I also said I gave it a quick skim.

In case you don't know what "skim" means, here you go -- from Wikipedia:

Skimming is a high speed reading process and involves visually searching the sentences of a page for clues to meaning. It is conducted at a higher rate (700 wpm plus) than normal reading for comprehension (around 200-230 wpm), and results in lower comprehension rates, especially with information-rich reading material.

The errors in your post were very obvious. A quick skim was more than enough for me to pick up on the overall poor content and decide that your post was not worth reading for full comprehension.

he broke the rules in the first place.
see above: he broke the rules in the first place


they couldnt prove it so they gave him his money back. they had very good reason to suspect it, so they banned him. if you give a site very good reason to suspect you are breaking one rule, and they catch you 100% on another, i have 0 problem with them banning you.

i have read FTPs response to the AIM issue several times, so i dont think knowing HOW it works matters at all. knowing that they can somehow monitor your conversations is what matters; which they can.

i guess you missed the huge thread where lots of sng players were accused of cheating, but when flaws were detected in their methods they unbanned everyone that was not a cheater. they have no problem with admitting mistakes in their methods. so no, they DONT have an interest in getting any upper hand in this debate. youre just wrong.

like i said, they have no obligation to tell a cheater what he is banned for. if they dont want to disclose their methods, fine by me. if they want to bring up something that they dont have a problem with disclosing in place of something they do have a problem with disclosing, fine by me. a cheater is a cheater is a cheater. multiaccounting is cheating. a multiaccounter is banned.


calling him a botter would not promote their argument. it would be an attack on the OP. not sure how you still at this point think they are throwing accusations around without any INKLING of a reason to do so.


no, they arent. see: they have admitted mistakes in the past. youre wrong.

uhh.. right. whatever.

yes. you obviously havent though.

its not guilt by association. its guilt by GUILT. they divulged a piece of information proving that the OP is (doesn't matter what way it is in) a cheater.
no. wrong again. jesus how many times do i have to address this issue in one post? they have admitted mistakes before.


covered by bleeper, but i just had to mention lol @ "provoked".

Since they were so obvious, go up two posts, read my reply (you don't have to skim it, it's short enough this time I hope), then tell me again what obvious errors did I make.

Not really, see my response to bleeper's post.

I don't have a problem with that either. I just don't see how multiaccounting is even a comparable offense to botting. If you consider both on par, then our argument is void since I agree with you up to that part (ie. that OP has broken FTP site rules).

Oh, they certainly do. It's just a question of whether they can get away with it or not. This time, the OP has provided them with a good excuse for getting away with it, so they took it. Out of two options: admitting they mistreated their customer and avoiding that admission by proving different charges from the original ones, which one do you think is preferrable for them?

Also, I do acknowledge the possibility that I might be wrong. However, it will take more to convince me than just framing the OP into a matter that's completely unrelated to the original charges he was presented with.

True. They do, however, have sort of an obligation to tell a customer what he is suspected of. Assuming he's a cheater makes the entire argument circular, the whole point here is deciding whether he is a cheater in the first place.

An offender is an offender. Someone littering in the park is an offender, someone shoplifting is an offender. Do you consider both comparable offenses? Do you believe somone caught littering in the park is a likely shoplifter?

No, because the argument is about whether the OP is a botter or not. It is not about whether the OP has commited any type of TOS violation since that has been confirmed beyond any doubt.

I'm not saying they don't have any reason to do so. I'm just saying their reasons do not necessarily coincide with the facts. To put it another way: I'm not saying they randomly accused the OP of botting, but they might have made a mistake.

How does them having admitted mistakes in the past makes me wrong when I'm suggesting they might take easy paths to avoid admitting their mistakes when they are presented with such?

Yes, it does matter "what way it is in". See the above point about littering and shoplifting.

I'm not smart enough to understand your logic or your arguments. You'll have to find someone else. Bye now.

Sheesh, I don't get some people. Either you consider me a troll, so treat me like one, or you consider me someone worth arguing with - then dropping lines like "I didn't really read your posts, but you made some obvious errors, but I'm not replying when you respond arguing why they were not errors at all and act a smartass instead" is hardly a reasonable way to discuss anything.

Okay, enough of this, back to work :P

this whole post was so ridiculously stupid that i am only going to address this point and then be done with arguing with someone who is CLEARLY either the OP or a troll.

They were presented with an easy path when hordes of sng grinders were being banned. They did not take the easy path, which would have just been to permaban everyone that was accused in the matter and be done with it. They spent a lot of resources looking into the matter. Eventually, all innocent parties were unbanned.

It is safe to assume that all of those innocent people were not presented with evidence (since they were innocent - there WAS no evidence, just a good reason to suspect). Just because OP wasn't given evidence, does not mean they didn't have it - it just means that if they DID (which it is safe to assume considering they unbanned tons of people in the sng grinder case and did not unban OP) they chose not to disclose it.

FTP also has a history of not just banning people for setting up a 2nd account, but instead moving the funds in any subsequent accounts into the first one made by the user and closing the extra accounts. So they clearly do not see opening a 2nd account as a bannable offense.

There is clearly an underlying reason that the OP was banned and seemingly blacklisted. How you still fail to realize that is seriously mind blowing. If anyone else cares to debate the points I have made in an intelligent manner I would be glad to consider alternatives. But I am done responding to ilintar, who, again, is either 1. the OP 2. trolling or 3. too stupid to reach.

This is all a bit much. The OP has tried to claim compensation for loss of earnings, and they have pointed out to him that this is not on because he was playing another account. I dare say they would have mentioned it anyway, but that's beside the point. He was trying to claim compensation, they were hardly not going to mention that they has caught him still playing.

Having mentioned this in an email to him, and then seen him post the email but edit that bit out, they were obviously going to mention it. You don't need public relation spin skillz to do this. Anybody would do it. The OP has been trying to make them look bad, and claiming to be giving full disclosure, and then he edits something out? In their place, you would have kept quiet about this? It's not some clever rhetorical trick, it's common sense. And they didn't post a personal attack to destroy his credibility, as you put it. They merely pointed out to him that he had still been playing, and then pointed out to us that he was no longer giving full disclosure. Some personal attack. Besides, in editing the email in a full disclosure thread, he was misleading us. Would you rather they had kept quiet, so that you never knew that he had misled us?

I'm intrigued that you claim to know the OP's motive's for using the third account, and exactly when it started. When others do this, you point out that they can't know for sure, and yet you talk as if you do know for sure. I don't recall the OP saying any of this 'playing back at them' stuff, but maybe I missed it.

In my opinion, it is actually the OP who has been using PR spin ITT, and very effectively too. The full disclosure thing worked great until it caught him out.

Well, it seems so obv. but clearly someone needs it spelled out:

1. He wasn't necessarily banned for botting. He could have been, for instance, using an ICM analyser to tell him whether to shove or fold.
2. FTP may have told him what the software in question was and he hasn't revealed it here because, well, his disclosure has been less than full.
3. Even if they did not tell him, he may know perfectly well what they are referring to. Does that just not occur to anyone? If he's lying to us, and has been banned justifiably, then he knows what software they are referring to.
4. It's perfectly reasonable for FTP not to inform the community at large which software they can detect, so that those who wish to cheat cannot work harder at making it less detectable.

I've been letting my cousin Paul play on my PC during my downtime, and viewed that as irrelevant/dangerous to him to discuss in this thread.

i call COMPLETE bs. you viewed it as irrelevant and cut it from the email, yet the email states this is EXACTLY the reason why your account was closed. the fact that you hid this after this enormous thread just proves dire right in his early conclusions. the part you left out simply translates to "you are a multi-accounting scum, and you are kicked off the site"

your NON disclosure from day one makes you a complete ******* for wasting our time with this thread. you USED 2p2 to get your funds back.


Full Tilt has processed and approved a check withdrawal for the balance of my account.

don't count your chicken's


I understand that many people will view this as the ultimate 'gotcha,'

it is disgusting and shameful 'gotcha' imo because of they way you used this forum

Keep in mind that FT never mentioned his account in any previous email,

are you really expecting us to take your word on this?!?

and that multi-accounting was never one of the charges leveled at me.

i call BS again. you knew what this was about from day one and so did sammy. such a tangled web you wove.

I will continue to post as Sober

good, i like to be able to keep an eye on potential multi-accounting thieves

and you continue to use cheating software apparently.

pretty ugly stuff, sober.

Aside from the incomplete FTP email posted towards the end of this saga, every other correspondence was posted right? So where did they accuse him of multiaccounting in the initial emails? It is certainly a very tangled web and I may have missed it.

Okay, I'll agree with you here that while I don't think the multiaccounting issue is that important here, the OP demanding compensation for his wrongs while simultaneously playing another account is crossing the edge a bit too far. Still, I don't believe it's that relevant to the original issue.

Okay, this is actually a valid point. I'm not really questioning FTP's reaction here, just the lack of such before that. While I agree that the edited post makes FTP look worse than they possibly deserve, FTP have had numerous opportunities in this thread to clear themselves of any suspicions of foul play. Instead, they did not respond until this issue came up. Clearly, the entire thread was doing them very bad publicity - why did they wait so long to respond? Was it possibly because they knew that blocking someone's account and confiscating their funds without conclusive proof would not pass under multiaccounting charges? I'm just trying to find out the possible scenario here, and for now the false positive + multiaccounting coverup is on the top of my list.

Actually, I don't know the OP's motives. I'm extrapolating from the evidence we've been provided (the omitted fragment states that the OP had started using the second account on the day after he was banned, so that's my source of information for that part). Obviously, the OP will never profess something like this because I don't think he really wants to admit he really did multiaccount, however, again I believe this is a very likely scenario.

It worked because he actually provided information and arguments, and nobody has been able to catch him on anything conclusive suggesting that he did use any prohibited software. Providing information when asked is hardly PR spin in my book. I believe "full disclosure" is actually a good fact-finding strategy, meaning it will obviously benefit the OP if he's innocent and disclose his guilt if he's guilty. It seems to be working at that, too, since it has clearly uncovered a piece of the OP's wrongdoing that he didn't want revealed, but once he was put to the test, he had to abide by his own full disclosure policy.

"Botting" has been widely used in this topic as short for "using prohibited software". So yeah, it doesn't matter if it was a bot or just some "suggestion software". Neither has been proven here, however.

His disclosure has been full on all matters but the last one, and FTP immediately called his bluff when he hid that. Do you think they would actually stay quiet about his omission of botting software notification?

This is obviously true, but can be only asserted once one is convinced of the OP's guilt, thus is not really a good argument for the guilt itself.

Actually, this doesn't make much sense. All bot programs have some maintainer, some have their own forums etc. If the OP is guilty, then your assertion from point 3 holds - he knows very well what the software he used is. Once he's banned, he'll immediately notify the bot maintainer, so the relevant people will know anyways. What they're missing on by not informing what software they actually caught is prevention - preventing someone from using bots just because he believes bots can really be caught is always better then banning someone after he's already been using a bot and possibly having trouble with redistributing his money back to people he won it off.

There's no reason anyone should "prove" anything to you, dude.


LOL. Yeah, okay, nice try but you overshot how stupid you can be in a troll and get away with it here. We have no idea how "full" his disclosure has been because we only have his word for it, and guess what? His word is for ****.

The rest of his posted emails don't hide the truth. He was banned for using prohibited software. They don't need to say what it was, because, if they are correct, he knows. They don't write emails to provide "evidence" for you to dissect in this forum and there's no reason they should do.

And bro, there's no bot here. Only you insist that he was botting. I think an EV analyser is much more likely.

FTP has obviously been following this thread. One would think they would point out other lapses in addition to what FTPSean mentioned.

Ok this part is just plain ******ed. If you are accused of using illegal software you should at least be told what it is. This isn't intended to be any comment on Sober's guilt or innocence, I'm just pointing out that I think it is a horrible policy to close accounts based on the use of unnamed unauthorized software. It certainly seems their automated detection methods are not infallible. I don't think providing a little 'evidence' in these cases is unreasonable.