Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobo Fett
Buuuut...I understand times have changed. A few years ago, when posters would throw screen names out there, others would jump in and say it wasn't fair to accuse people without really solid evidence, names should be left out, etc. These days, it seems no one bats an eye when a list is presented with very little in the way of statistics or other evidence. I'm sure part of the reason is that the botting problem, if not more prevalent (and it very well may be), is certainly much more widely-known and discussed, as is the perception that many sites aren't able or willing to deal with it properly. So just as others have become less concerned about names being posted so quickly, I (and probably other moderators) don't get involved in removing them as often.
Much respect for you Bobo, but you're doing this backwards imo.
A new account, with zero reputation, zero credibility, no HUD, no tracking software, ...comes in and posts a thread naming names for accounts that he believes are bots, without any proof whatsoever beyond what he thinks he knows he saw, or whatever it was he said to explain his irrational rationale. Granted he's been quite polite and well spoken, even to me when I probably didn't deserve it, but that doesn't change his lack of qualifications to make such accusations.
But somehow for this person, you decide to take a "wait and see" approach, giving him the benefit of the doubt.
But when someone like Joe Ingram makes a video claiming that there are bots in the same games that OP mentions, claiming that there are colluders in those games, and that he may well have faced superusers in higher stakes games on the exact same network. Noting that Joe didn't say he was 1000% certain of anything, he simply told us what his intuition told him. But of him you instantly ask for proof and more evidence than just Joe's intuition. Even suggesting that if more evidence doesn't come in a timely manner, then Joe's intuition should somehow lose credibility.
Joe is not a new account. Joe is not an unknown. Joe has played more hands of internet poker than almost anyone. Joe uses a HUD. Joe uses tracking software. Joe knows how bad beats work. Joe knows what it's like to run bad. Joe knows what it's like when a fish gets lucky. Joe knows when he runs in the top of someone's range. Joe understands how all of these things work. And more importantly, we all know that Joe knows these things.
I completely understand why people would accept Joe's intuition on plausible faith alone, but it's not good enough for you, you want more than just Joe's intuition, but now for this new random account, intuition is now somehow good enough for you???
I don't get it. It seems exactly backwards to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobo Fett
That said, I'll follow this thread and see how others feel.
I feel that this thread should have been deleted as soon as the unknown accuser posted account names without evidence, and then deleted again when the unknown accuser admitted to not having a database or a HUD. What serious poker player doesn't have these things in 2018? His only evidence will forever be his intuition, which is probably good enough for him, but it shouldn't be good enough for anyone else. Maybe after he's spent several years proving himself worthy, then his intuition might carry some weight. But not now imo.