And if they're not?

In many cases there's probably a reasonable chance they have no idea what the software is. You can detect illicit software in a huge number of ways (hooks, injected dll's, blah blah blah) that would offer crystal clear evidence of something being used, but with no specification of exactly what it is.

As a random example, even just clicking the same exact pixel every time you make an action would make it about 99.999999999% likely somebody is botting [using a rather poorly coded bot at that!], but you'd have no way of knowing how or what bot they're using.

yeah thats kind of my concern. FTP has been going a bit berserker lately with the account lockings. If it was my account, I would want something more then banned for using 'unauthorized software'. For all I know the flaky automated detection algorithm flagged me and Steve Ramnajemheslon spent 2 minutes 'confirming' it. I would guess in many cases they could provide at least some info w/o compromising their bot detection methods.

This is not the greatest random example as I'm guessing BetPot AHK is probably 'clicking' the same pixel. Same goes for other AHK scripts, etc. Now as for the rest of the mouse movement, provided you were capturing it all, would probably prove over time bot/human.. Though you could go 'mouseless' via BetPot and StarsUrgent or something similar. I have a bunch of different keys bound for BetPot with different %pots, open 2x-4x, isolate, etc so it wouldn't be tough to go mouseless.

I see what you are getting at though, just being slightly nitty.

What I'm getting at is THEY might have no idea what it is. The detection methods I mentioned will tell them that some sort of illicit software is being used, but they would have no means of determining what or how. The only information they could provide would be full of technical jargon that's of 0 use to anybody besides the author's of said software.

That's not being nitty at all. It's actually a really good example. Say you just installed some betpot/AHK script that was auto-betting for you on a hotkey. And then a couple of days later you get an email that your account has been suspended for illicit software use. You'd probably have a pretty good idea of what was going on, and could inform them of what software you've been using. I think the number of accounts being banned [and not just auto-frozen for further investigation] for illicit software use who have no clue what could be the cause is probably pretty close to 0.

right, well that is a possibility I'm worried about, false positives that they run with. I guess it comes down to what methods they have at their disposal and how much effort they put towards 'due diligence' -- things we don't know. Again, I don't expect them to go through their detection methods step by step, but some information, even if it is very technical, I think might be useful in assuaging these fears.

While I agree that the number of account closings where the holder is absolutely clueless is probably very low, I just don't like the trend of a spate of account lockings (most reopened though it would seem) and at least in this case no disclosure as to what the unauthorized software might be.

Security through obscurity is never a good thing...ask any IT admin.

This is actually a decent argument, if said bot software eg. randomizes window/class names as I believe some do, then even knowing for sure someone runs a bot might not allow them to pinpoint which one. Then again, had they even responded "we have proof that you used software to automate your table actions", this would've been specific information without giving too much away on their detection method. Also, as the poster above said, security by obscurity is never a good security measure.

However, the problem here is, after a detailed investigation (that's what FTP claims and I have no reason to believe they didn't conduct one) they decided to let the OP cash out, meaning they didn't really have conclusive proof he used that kind of software. Had they, I don't think they would've released his funds. Now the problem I have with that is, basically, any software proof of illicit activity is decisive proof. Like the said autohotkey program - nobody can claim they did not use any assisting software if they always click the same pixel on the button. Also, any software intercepting the client's API makes for conclusive proof that said software has been used. Only thing that remains is statistical data, and here the OP has provided quite enough arguments to clear his name, I think.

I don't think you understand what I mean. They can be absolutely 100% certain that illicit software is running, but have no idea what it is. There'd be no chance for false positives. Imagine a policeman who detects some sort of anomaly speeding on the road. He's not sure what or who it is, but it's certainly breaking the law as far as speeding goes. There's no uncertainty in the fact it, whatever it is, was speeding. A pretty bad analogy, but I hope it gets the point through.

Since OP has lost all credibility in my view it is clear the sofware was SNG wiz, He admits to using it however he swore that he never had it opened at the same time as he was logged into FTP. I think it's very safe to assume that this was the software that got him booted. -

further more, downloading software that is prohibited for use with FTP is a pretty dumb move in my oppinion and is just asking for trouble.

Why should they bother? In any case, I don't think they need to tell him what he was using.


As I noted:
1/ You are assuming that they haven't told him, and we only have his word for it.
2/ If guilty, he already knows.

I mean dude, ffs, are you just not getting this? If he used a shove analyser, he already knows what software they are banning him for. He's just telling you he doesn't know. Does it never actually occur to you that the reason they are not revealing to this poor innocent soul what software he is accused of using is that he's not innocent and they caught him cold?

The "evidence" is for you though, not for Sober. That's what you're completely unable to see. FTP don't need to prove a ****ing thing to you.

How do FTP make an error here? How do they identify software that isn't permitted that you aren't actually running? They are not saying, your play looks like you use software. They are saying, we caught you using software. They are not suggesting that he is under suspicion because he's a SSer, or because he multiaccounts, or any other reason but that he was running software.

Actually, please provide a case, any case, in which someone was caught using software and it was a false positive. Not someone with suspicious playing patterns who looked like a bot but wasn't (like my friends caught when they investigated botting in super turbos). Someone they canned for using prohibited software but it turned out they weren't. It's important to distinguish the two. Yes, it's annoying that they freeze the accounts of people who just look like bots, but it's not the same thing as being banned because you have written or acquired a program to analyse shoves for you.

How would they have a false positive? I think you need to establish that before you ask that question.

At the time he was booted, simply having Wiz open would not have got him booted. I doubt it would even now.

Hooking Wiz up to a screenscraper, though, would.

Well no. I use Wiz when I'm not playing, which Tilt don't care about.

Hey ******, I meant the evidence should be provided to the person who had their account closed.

As to why they would bother to point out other omissions: Why did they point out that he omitted the multiaccounting bit? Think on that and you might figure it out.

Not sure why I am even bothering to respond, you obviously have too much sand in your vagina to separate criticism of FTP from support for sober.

oh one other thing: did it ever occur to you that they wouldn't return his money if they caught him cold? I certainly wouldn't be surprised if he was using some software, but if they have hard evidence why not confiscate his funds and distribute them? Is it possible that there are gray areas where FTP has suspicions but can't 'prove' them? After all they wouldn't want to face the scrutiny of the gaming commission without hard evidence -- lol.

But perhaps Granny was right and they were just tormenting him and his 'check' will have a pic of Howard giving him the finger.

I would suspect they had explicit evidence of some sort of unknown software running / interfacing with FTP, matched with a sudden change in his statistics and results. It screams bot or at least some sort of 'decision making software' but they can't be 100% certain. They bust him and offer him a chance to explain what software was running. He plays dumb so they decide to just ban him, but return his funds.

This is the most likely scenario at this point imo.

How did I get roped into this? The only thing I ever said was that I knew for a fact that Sober was not using any kind of bot program or, to my knowledge, any other kind of illegal software. Since that is what they were accusing him of and since I knew with as much certainty as anyone can really know anything that it was false, I stand by that.

That is, to my knowledge, what FTP maintains even now this banning is about (illegal software) and they continue to be dead wrong about that.

Additionally, GRANNY, I have neither done nor been accused of having done anything at all wrong here or any other time in over six years of playing online poker at more sites than I can count. To try to drag my name through the mud is useless and baseless.

Sammy, fair enough, but how do you explain the false positive? You think that Full Tilt invented something out of thin air here? You have knowledge of Sober's setup. Why would they think he was cheating?

Let's assume Sober is completely innocent and there is an innocent explanation here. What is it? It's not "I only run PokerTracker and don't understand why you think I am running a bot". It could be "I had Wiz open and was checking shoves on the fly" or something like that, but I find it hard to believe they'd ban him for that, particularly before their recent clarification on Wiz.

My view is that if there was an explanation, Sober would have provided one, but now he knows that FTP are willing to call bull**** on him, he is stuck to make one up.

LeapFrog, it's nice that you keep calling people names, but you just seem hilariously unable to grasp that FTP do not need to provide evidence to a guilty party. It's not a trial. If you're guilty, you know perfectly well why you're being banned. If you're not, you probably know why they think you are. Indeed, they stated what he had been doing, and asked him for reasons that he may seem to be doing that when he wasn't. He didn't provide them with any; he simply denied it all. His line has been that they had no reason at all to think he was running bots. So, LeapFrog, give a plausible explanation why they had a false positive. I'd appreciate your not calling me a ****** again until you do.

I think they probably paid him because they couldn't directly find specific instances where he had cheated. What I mean is, you might be running a shove analyser, and get banned for that, but you keep your money because they haven't pinpointed hands you analysed. I dunno. Maybe they just gave him the benefit of doubt because of this thread, but are still banning him because their burden of proof is balance of probabilities, not beyond a reasonable doubt.

All I can do is offer an educated guess as to why they suspect Sober of cheating. I think it's because he PLAYS in an EXTREMELY robotic fashion. Like I've said before and he's confirmed...the guy is NOT a hard-worker when it comes to poker. He openly wants to do the bare minimum to make a living and get by and enjoy the rest of his time. He expressed an interest in poker years ago, when I was playing SnG's primarily. I taught him the basics of the game and he started playing. I've jumped around between SNG, limit cash, fullstack NL, and shortstack NL. Shorstack NL interested him, so I taught him how I play the game.

But he isn't one to delve into the theory deeply to be able to make the really complex decisions. He basically follows a set of rules that I taught him about preflop actions...and for the most part, about postflop actions as well (categorizing flops and opponents and acting accordingly).

To be totally honest, I have no idea how sophisticated bot software is...I've never tried to use one so I wouldn't know. I think that even a perfunctory examination of his play would indicate that he's not using one. EDIT TO ADD:.....but I could be wrong about that. Perhaps there are bots that can play as sophisticated a game as he does...I just don't know.

As for "advice" software, I'm not sure SNGWiz would even tell him what he needed to know in a cash game setting. I haven't looked at the program in a long time. I can say, to my knowledge, that program nor any program remotely like it was ever even installed on the machine he's been using since he's been playing at FTP.

You can keep saying what you think is likely...and his omission of the multi-accounting charge is perhaps a good reason for skepticism of what he says. All I can say is what I know to be true...which is that he hasn't used any software other than PT3 in months...and before that he hadn't used any software other than PT2/PAHUD.

Most people don't know the guy in real life like I do, though. You can claim that biases me or even that it somehow involves me (as GrannyMae very irresponsibly claimed without ANY evidence or knowledge to back that up). It also makes me the only person on here other than Sober himself with any first-hand knowledge of anything.

This kind of thing makes me want to call you a name

for those still not sure what to make of this: ask yourself what full tilt's motive is to kick a high-volume player who feeds them tons of rake off their site, without so much as even taking their funds, and drive them to a rival business. they have no reason to do so but to attempt to protect the integrity of their site. there's just no chance this is something they invented. he broke their rules, they caught him, and that's it

Yawn.

No one is claiming they invented this for no reason (read the thread). The claim is incompetence, not malevolence (at least in the initial finding of "fact")...after that it's just been negligence in how they've dealt with it.

You seem hilariously unable to grasp that I never said they did. FTP can do whatever they want, its not like the KGC is going to step in. In an earlier post I mentioned that I find it concerning that there have been a spate of account lockings (flagged by an automated process) and that this coupled with a perm lock with no disclosure to the account holder makes me a tad nervous as a 16 tabling dude using a bunch of scripts, many of which I have modified.

I think they owe it to their customers to at least provide some info (thats just like my opinion man). When I say owe, I mean that as a customer I think I would deserve an explanation if this happened to me. Some indication that there wasn't just a false positive from the autoprocess and Ted Kramnakrishnawan actually looked into it.

We don't know what info the client gathers and the intimate details of how the security team operates and what their procedures are. I'm sure its possible that a mistake could be made, after all humans make mistakes. What the likelihood of that happening is I don't know, though I would suspect that the chance of a false positive, after a thorough investigation by a competent individual (well versed in computer science, statistics and poker) would be very low.

Also, I really don't care what you would appreciate. Read my previous short again (where you contradict yourself) and meditate on the non-******edness you have clearly demonstrated.

You know, this is probably not the best thing to keep bringing up when defending somebody against utilizing decision making software.

You guys went into a lot of detail about poker, your living arrangements, finances, etc. But you BOTH conveniently left out "cousin Paul" from any of your posts until FTP posted in the thread, which I'm sure came as quite a surprise. To put this as nicely as I can, I think you both have been disingenuous.

I also find it interesting that nobody has answered this question:
In response to this:

Maybe so...but since it's the truth (that is my best guess as to why his playing style is showing a false positive), I keep bringing it up anyway.