yeah and thats not the only one lol was really bad they wont even tell me why all they say is i violated the eula but wont tell me what very strange indeed but with a company like this i really am better playin at stars at least the customer support is quick and nice

OP sounds like the same guy who started the fake Cake thread.

Are all regs gonna get banned soon?

this could be pretty sweet

and you are next.

I hope not

This jumped out at me as well, Posts 25-31, they read like bogus Amazon reviews on some obscure book.

I am not sure if this has been stated yet cuz I didn't read the entire thread but maybe the reason they did not give you guys a reason for the banning is because they don't want to reveal how they caught one of you cheating. OP may very well be legit but someone in the group may not be.

If they tell people how they catch cheaters..... people will find away around it.

This is very well the case as to why they won't say. But if they caught us cheating by botting or collusion, don't they confiscate the money?

Multi accounting is where they ban and not confiscate according to the other cases that I've heard. But multi accounting is usually revealed in the email as the reason for banning.

I would say this is 100% botting related - colluding would always result in a ban/seizure as it's trivial to prove.

Why wouldn't they confiscate? Via virtual pc software, homebrew bots, etc sophisticated botters can make it practically impossible for a site to definitively 'prove' somebody is botting. So they've chosen to utilize secondary detection methods which are not necessarily always going to be absolutely definitive. You, or more likely some of your team, triggered these secondary detection methods to a degree such that they chose to exclude your group from the site. But since these are not 100% definitive - there is no confiscation of funds.

This makes the most sense. But what are their secondary detection methods? Evaluating if a player plays absurd amount of hours?

i rather see FTP over scrutinize accounts rather than not do anything at all, good work FTP.

This (or something like it).

FT banned me back in december for short stacking (Though they didn't say as much). First they locked my account to investigate it, then they came back and said their investigations found no specific wrong doings, but that they were banning me (with cashout).

I skimmed this thread, but even if you weren't shortstacking, it sounds like atleast one of your friends was playing many tables, hence very robotic. I'm assuming I was banned because my multitable shortstacking (done by a set of rules I had written down) made it impossible to tell whether i was a bot or not.

I shortstacked 10NL for months with no problem, but then in December I jumped up to 25NL and 50NL despite a small bankroll to try to get Iron Man points and qualify for the bonus. I ran good and got banned for it.

Not saying it wasn't a false positive. They were implying that FTP banned them for no reason at all. I'm sure FTP had a reason, whether it is valid or not is another argument.

+1111111

even if it's very possible that they over scrutinize loyal players?

so b/c i play 3k hands a day i can do whatever i iwant and get away w/ it?
they should look at regs/winning playyers more than any1 b/c they do the majority of the playing.

when i said loyal, i meant innocent. Obviously high volume players shouldn't get special treatment. But should they just take precautionary measures to ban even if it risks the chance of banning players that are innocent?

Elaborate, hidden brag that OP has a 6 figure BR.



seriously tho, that sucks op. gl.

It worries me there are so many "Banned but I'm innocent" posts regarding FTP compared to any of the other big sites. Is it the other sites slacking security or FTP's ban-hammer being too big and thus hitting too many innocent?

Earlier this year an innocent guy was banned from FTP because an impostor on 2+2 had tried to scam other people pretending to be the owner of the innocent guys FTP nick. He told his story on 2+2 and was later unbanned. But how many innocent people aren't using 2+2 as their voice when they are banned?
It leaves a lot of questions to be asked about the quality of FTP's security checks when their support thinks the post of a brand new 1-post-count account is enough as evidence to just ban an account.

OP tough luck if you are innocent. Perhaps mail your new site questions about how to not risk raising any flags between you and your poker buddies. As previously stated chances are FTP isn't going to change their mind nor tell you what you were suspected of doing.

Ok to add someone with a good amount of posts and not an irate newbie.

I am completely pissed with FTP over this, they lost a 100k+ hand per month regular in me, and it was almost completely on these actions.

I have played a lot with Stylistic, I have talked to ariolis about it, etc.

FTP shouldn't be treating an account like Stylistic's like a 25nl player or a new player that is a second account or something. He deserves a response, and I pretty much think he is innocent because of the fact he has made good money for so long playing that he wouldn't risk his account for some tiny bit of extra cash.

FTP has lost a 100k+ hands a month player(1/2nl+) in myself, and I have also convinced at least 2-3 others to not join or leave already.

this definately feels right. I remember the stars case where someones mom (Teddy FBI I think?) played .05/.10 limit or something and tripped the bot detection. They were very addiment she was a bot til it got kicked up to upper management.

I think thats the case here. I think the first account that got locked (cant remember and dont wanna go back and look) tripped the bot detection and everyone else got dragged along.

Doesn't mean he was or wasn't botting. it doesn't matter. the way ftp handles things it plays out the same with the same result either way.

Actually, this is good news for me. I no longer have to berate myself for being lazy and occasionally ******ed. If I upped my volume and improved my game, my chances of being banned would skyrocket.

Not sure if this is relevant or not. I have 100 NL FR stats on a player named Tulegit21. Possible multiaccounter?

Please disregard. I looked at the original post and saw that Tulegit21 was the posted name

Like they just decided to make it as OBVIOUS as possible?

http://archives1.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=5515176&page=0&fpart=all &vc=1

Here's the link to teddyfbi's thread. Now this is from pokerstars however, they actually came on the thread and converse with the players and eventually found teddyfbi's grandma innocent.