PartyPoker - a safe haven for bots? J'accuse
01-05-2011
, 04:17 PM
Since I've already spent (wasted) so much time on this, I don't feel like rewriting everything again to be nicely readable. If you're interested in the subject, you'll read my summary of email communications I've had with PartyPoker (and PokerTableRatings later on) anyway. If you play on PartyPoker, particularly on FL low stakes, you should be very interested in it.
Edit: added two lines of cliffs at the very end anyway
The only changes I made is
1) to mask the concerned screen names, replacing the 2nd letter with an underscore, as it is common I think to make it just a little harder for the bot operators to find this. I'm not too hopeful though that it'll take long before they'll notice, which would probably lead to them fixing the most obvious and easily fixable things (particularly the timing tells, as you'll read). There's an image at the bottom with the full names.
2) include the most relevant screenshots directly in the text, the PTR screenshots can be found on an external hoster (linked below)
3) mask the email addresses
Remark: I was baffled to see one of them actually write a line of chat the other day, but not only because it was seemingly completely unrelated:
but also because "chatting" by itself can't prove that an account is NOT a bot, I don't give too much on that.
This point of evidence, as said before, turned into a major point later on, see below in the next email.
What I forgot to mention here is that the AF across the three postflop streets is also very peculiar: whereas most players have some variation in it, with the river usually being the lowest, these accounts all have an AF of about 1.9-2.0 on every street.
Remark: I think I forgot to filter for 6 players here. If there's actually interest in that, I might still do it. Not that I think it would change anything though.
These screenshots, as mentioned, in the zip file hosted on an external host, linked below.
in the zip file hosted on an external host, linked below
Remark: I've been watching tables again and again, and this timing tell behaviour was constantly confirmed. It also served to quickly identify (Russian) players with similar (but usually still significantly different) stats who are not part of this: every normal player just never has this kind of simultaneous actions on two different tables. I also realized that normal players sometimes (obviously) don't execute the actions in the order they pop up - another difference.
Remark: I could verify this with some of the new screen names (see below).
Remark: I forgot to add that those old screen names had the virtually same stats as all the new ones - especially the continuation bet and AF peculiarities. It's therefore obvious to me that this bot ring has been running for at least >2 years now.
Two more names that appeared recently/replaced old ones:
"S_arkEater53"
"b_ainyhorse2"
I got a reply later by PTR saying that they forwarded it to their programmers to look into it, but there hands were tied if PartyPoker decided it's not a case of cheating.
That's it, I cba writing even more about this (although there might be more things I forgot). I was actually thinking something had been done by PartyPoker when I noticed that there was none of the suspected names playing for some time around New Year. But when I saw one after another appear again, and then most of all H_irrrypilot on the tables just now, that was the last straw for me. Sorry to make the timing tell evidence public like this, but it's surely better people are aware (or have a chance to convince themselves of the facts I named) of it than letting this go on forever. My guess is that nothing will happen anyway. And if even bots that are somewhat elaborated, but still detectable, get away like this, I really fear the worst for the future.
Screen names:
PTR screenshots / HM player vs. player sheets:
http://www.mediafire.com/?9g8fgj2e7cxckcd
Cliffs:
- suspected bot ring running for >2 years on PartyPoker FLHE lowstakes (0.50/1$-5/10$), providing plenty of evidence
- communication with PartyPoker anti-cheating department led to nothing
Edit: added two lines of cliffs at the very end anyway
The only changes I made is
1) to mask the concerned screen names, replacing the 2nd letter with an underscore, as it is common I think to make it just a little harder for the bot operators to find this. I'm not too hopeful though that it'll take long before they'll notice, which would probably lead to them fixing the most obvious and easily fixable things (particularly the timing tells, as you'll read). There's an image at the bottom with the full names.
2) include the most relevant screenshots directly in the text, the PTR screenshots can be found on an external hoster (linked below)
3) mask the email addresses
Quote:
----- Message transféré ----
De : Vladimir Poutine <...>
À : info [at] pokertableratings.com
Envoyé le : Lun 27 décembre 2010, 12h 46min 48s
Objet : Bot ring on PartyPoker
Hi,
this email contains the evidence for the operation of a bot ring on PartyPoker,
as discussed in these two preceding emails:
[...]
I'll start by quoting the email exchange that I've had with the PartyPoker
anti-cheating department (chronological order, starting at the top from oldest
to latest). I know it's somewhat lengthy even though I've cut out a few
(irrelevant or potentially dangerous for my privacy) passages. I hope you'll
still take the time to read through it, it's definitely worth it. I'll also
write a summary below the quoted emails. The attached zip file is exactly the
same that I sent to PartyPoker, it contains screenshots and Excel sheets.
-------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------
----- Message transféré ----
De : Vladimir Poutine <...>
À : info [at] partypoker.com
Cc : tech [at] partypoker.com
Envoyé le : Jeu 2 décembre 2010, 18h 02min 45s
Objet : Suspected poker bot ring
>
> Hi support team,
>
> I do have relatively strong evidence of a poker bot ring being
> operated on the international platform of PartyPoker
> (...). I'd like to present you
> with the indicators that I've collected. However, these indicators
> are both numerous and relatively large wrt file size (talking about
> screenshots here). Hence my question which email address I should
> send my extensive report to? I have to include screenshots as
> attachments, which could amount to a few megabytes.
>
> Please don't take this inquiry lightly, as both the evidence I found
> is really strong and the magnitude of the suspected ring is
> considerable. I don't intend to make any of the information I
> gathered public because I've been a loyal and content customer of
> PartyPoker for a few years now (I'm not using my proper, real-money
> account email address as I want to remain anonymous for now) and
> don't want to spoil your reputation in any way (although, as you're
> certainly aware of, all big sites have been hit by bot scandals in
> the past anyway). But therefore I really require your cooperation to
> deal with this.
>
>
> Best regards,
> Vlad
---- Original Message ----
From: alerts [at] partyaccount.com
To: Vladimir Poutine
Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2010 9:23 PM
Subject: Kind Attention. (KMM15404949I15977L0KM)
> Dear Vlad,
>
> Thank you for contacting us.
>
> We understand that you have made significant efforts to collect
> material in order to prove the existence of BOTs at our poker room.
> As much as we would like to assure you their non-existence, we would
> be willing to look at your evidence and update you with our findings.
>
> You may reply to this email address with your material, for further
> investigation. Please do not forget to write in from your registered
> email address, as it would help us complete our investigation at the
> earliest. You can be rest assured that your information is kept
> private and any communication in this regard will only be between you
> and PartyPoker.com.
>
> Your understanding and co-operation in this regard would be
> appreciated.
>
> Contact us anytime, we are available around the clock to assist you
> with your account related questions and suggestions.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Rakesh
> Game Fairness & Security Team
>
> Note: Your username and password are confidential information. No one
> from the company will ever ask for your password in a phone call or
> email message. Do not respond to any message or request that asks for
> your password.
>
> *Pay-Pro and PartyCashier are service names of PartyGaming Group
> companies.
>
>
>
>
----- Message transféré ----
De : Vladimir Poutine <...>
À : alerts [at] partyaccount.com
Envoyé le : Ven 3 décembre 2010, 3h 14min 58s
Objet : Re: Kind Attention. (KMM15404949I15977L0KM)
>
> Hi Rakesh,
>
> thanks for your reply. So I'll go ahead and list the evidence I've
> collected. As you'll agree, it may be hard especially for a simple
> player at the tables to find definite proof of bot operations,
> especially if it's a sophisticated bot. Therefore, I've tried to (and
> am very confident that I succeeded at that) gather as many indicators
> as possible, which taken seperately may be weak (although as you'll
> see, some things I found are pretty much obvious even on their own),
> but which in their totality draw a very conclusive image.
>
> I've spoken of a "bot ring" in my original email because the number
> of screen names/accounts that I've identified amounts to a few dozen.
> Unless I state otherwise, everything I write fully applies to each of
> those screen names/accounts. The concerned game variation is Fixed
> Limit Hold'em, the stakes in question are 1/2$ up to 3/6$ (for the
> vast part, some very few hands on 0.50/1$ and 5/10$ left aside - this
> fact will be part of the evidence as you'll see later). Some of the
> evidence will be based on datamining hands, which gave me the
> necessary sample sizes to make any qualified assertions. Using those
> datamined hands, I could even identify many more screen names that I
> hadn't played against myself, but which completely fit into the
> pattern I had established before. In fact, those did serve to
> reinforce those patterns even more.
>
> I'll start by listing the weakest clues first, which admittedly would
> incriminate many legitimate players too - but they're the icing on
> the cake for the stronger evidence, which follow later.
>
>
> 1. I've played well above 100k hands on PartyPoker over the last 2
> years and was often on the table with a player of the suspects list.
> However, I'm virtually 100% certain that I've never seen any of them
> participate in table chat. Certainly not since I had the suspicions
> and paid attention to that.
De : Vladimir Poutine <...>
À : info [at] pokertableratings.com
Envoyé le : Lun 27 décembre 2010, 12h 46min 48s
Objet : Bot ring on PartyPoker
Hi,
this email contains the evidence for the operation of a bot ring on PartyPoker,
as discussed in these two preceding emails:
[...]
I'll start by quoting the email exchange that I've had with the PartyPoker
anti-cheating department (chronological order, starting at the top from oldest
to latest). I know it's somewhat lengthy even though I've cut out a few
(irrelevant or potentially dangerous for my privacy) passages. I hope you'll
still take the time to read through it, it's definitely worth it. I'll also
write a summary below the quoted emails. The attached zip file is exactly the
same that I sent to PartyPoker, it contains screenshots and Excel sheets.
-------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------
----- Message transféré ----
De : Vladimir Poutine <...>
À : info [at] partypoker.com
Cc : tech [at] partypoker.com
Envoyé le : Jeu 2 décembre 2010, 18h 02min 45s
Objet : Suspected poker bot ring
>
> Hi support team,
>
> I do have relatively strong evidence of a poker bot ring being
> operated on the international platform of PartyPoker
> (...). I'd like to present you
> with the indicators that I've collected. However, these indicators
> are both numerous and relatively large wrt file size (talking about
> screenshots here). Hence my question which email address I should
> send my extensive report to? I have to include screenshots as
> attachments, which could amount to a few megabytes.
>
> Please don't take this inquiry lightly, as both the evidence I found
> is really strong and the magnitude of the suspected ring is
> considerable. I don't intend to make any of the information I
> gathered public because I've been a loyal and content customer of
> PartyPoker for a few years now (I'm not using my proper, real-money
> account email address as I want to remain anonymous for now) and
> don't want to spoil your reputation in any way (although, as you're
> certainly aware of, all big sites have been hit by bot scandals in
> the past anyway). But therefore I really require your cooperation to
> deal with this.
>
>
> Best regards,
> Vlad
---- Original Message ----
From: alerts [at] partyaccount.com
To: Vladimir Poutine
Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2010 9:23 PM
Subject: Kind Attention. (KMM15404949I15977L0KM)
> Dear Vlad,
>
> Thank you for contacting us.
>
> We understand that you have made significant efforts to collect
> material in order to prove the existence of BOTs at our poker room.
> As much as we would like to assure you their non-existence, we would
> be willing to look at your evidence and update you with our findings.
>
> You may reply to this email address with your material, for further
> investigation. Please do not forget to write in from your registered
> email address, as it would help us complete our investigation at the
> earliest. You can be rest assured that your information is kept
> private and any communication in this regard will only be between you
> and PartyPoker.com.
>
> Your understanding and co-operation in this regard would be
> appreciated.
>
> Contact us anytime, we are available around the clock to assist you
> with your account related questions and suggestions.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Rakesh
> Game Fairness & Security Team
>
> Note: Your username and password are confidential information. No one
> from the company will ever ask for your password in a phone call or
> email message. Do not respond to any message or request that asks for
> your password.
>
> *Pay-Pro and PartyCashier are service names of PartyGaming Group
> companies.
>
>
>
>
----- Message transféré ----
De : Vladimir Poutine <...>
À : alerts [at] partyaccount.com
Envoyé le : Ven 3 décembre 2010, 3h 14min 58s
Objet : Re: Kind Attention. (KMM15404949I15977L0KM)
>
> Hi Rakesh,
>
> thanks for your reply. So I'll go ahead and list the evidence I've
> collected. As you'll agree, it may be hard especially for a simple
> player at the tables to find definite proof of bot operations,
> especially if it's a sophisticated bot. Therefore, I've tried to (and
> am very confident that I succeeded at that) gather as many indicators
> as possible, which taken seperately may be weak (although as you'll
> see, some things I found are pretty much obvious even on their own),
> but which in their totality draw a very conclusive image.
>
> I've spoken of a "bot ring" in my original email because the number
> of screen names/accounts that I've identified amounts to a few dozen.
> Unless I state otherwise, everything I write fully applies to each of
> those screen names/accounts. The concerned game variation is Fixed
> Limit Hold'em, the stakes in question are 1/2$ up to 3/6$ (for the
> vast part, some very few hands on 0.50/1$ and 5/10$ left aside - this
> fact will be part of the evidence as you'll see later). Some of the
> evidence will be based on datamining hands, which gave me the
> necessary sample sizes to make any qualified assertions. Using those
> datamined hands, I could even identify many more screen names that I
> hadn't played against myself, but which completely fit into the
> pattern I had established before. In fact, those did serve to
> reinforce those patterns even more.
>
> I'll start by listing the weakest clues first, which admittedly would
> incriminate many legitimate players too - but they're the icing on
> the cake for the stronger evidence, which follow later.
>
>
> 1. I've played well above 100k hands on PartyPoker over the last 2
> years and was often on the table with a player of the suspects list.
> However, I'm virtually 100% certain that I've never seen any of them
> participate in table chat. Certainly not since I had the suspicions
> and paid attention to that.
Quote:
[player1]: morron
[player1]: pocket is a morron
[player1]: take care of your business
[player2]: Sorry
[player1]: not you
... more action ...
[player1]: see
[p_cketDoNuts]: It is very rough
[player1]: pocket is a morron
[player1]: take care of your business
[player2]: Sorry
[player1]: not you
... more action ...
[player1]: see
[p_cketDoNuts]: It is very rough
Quote:
>
> 2. Those players have their action timings perfectly balanced at
> every moment. The only time you can see one of them make an instant
> play is when they're apparently using the "Check/Fold" option after
> an open raise before them preflop. Other than that, to make a move
> they will virtually always need something like 3-4 seconds (observed,
> not measured), never ever faster than that and -I think- very rarely
> longer than that.
> 2. Those players have their action timings perfectly balanced at
> every moment. The only time you can see one of them make an instant
> play is when they're apparently using the "Check/Fold" option after
> an open raise before them preflop. Other than that, to make a move
> they will virtually always need something like 3-4 seconds (observed,
> not measured), never ever faster than that and -I think- very rarely
> longer than that.
Quote:
>
> 3. All of them are from the same country, as far as I can tell from
> my memory or verify using www.pokertableratings.com (Russia).
>
> (now on to the more serious evidence)
>
> 4. I had been suspicious of a group of "players" more than one year
> ago already. Unfortunately, I lacked the drive and determination at
> the time to go ahead with investigations (and most importantly, I
> then took a break from Poker for more than half a year due to
> university duties). My first 3 points are all true for those screen
> names. Point 3 in particular is definitely true. In addition, there
> was another "soft" evidence then: I realized that certain, peculiar
> notes I had taken for one of them held true for the whole bunch. To
> give you an example, when one of them played the line bet
> flop/check-raise turn with initiative in a headsup situation, the
> holding was almost certainly a weak hand like a gutshot or even
> weaker. In other words, they all used the same line in the same,
> unbalanced way.
>
> When I realized that, what I did was to check my HoldemManager
> database to see if there were any striking similarities in their
> stats. And I did find those indeed. This is documented in the
> attached "stats1.gif" screenshot.
> 3. All of them are from the same country, as far as I can tell from
> my memory or verify using www.pokertableratings.com (Russia).
>
> (now on to the more serious evidence)
>
> 4. I had been suspicious of a group of "players" more than one year
> ago already. Unfortunately, I lacked the drive and determination at
> the time to go ahead with investigations (and most importantly, I
> then took a break from Poker for more than half a year due to
> university duties). My first 3 points are all true for those screen
> names. Point 3 in particular is definitely true. In addition, there
> was another "soft" evidence then: I realized that certain, peculiar
> notes I had taken for one of them held true for the whole bunch. To
> give you an example, when one of them played the line bet
> flop/check-raise turn with initiative in a headsup situation, the
> holding was almost certainly a weak hand like a gutshot or even
> weaker. In other words, they all used the same line in the same,
> unbalanced way.
>
> When I realized that, what I did was to check my HoldemManager
> database to see if there were any striking similarities in their
> stats. And I did find those indeed. This is documented in the
> attached "stats1.gif" screenshot.
Quote:
> I only included screen names that I
> had more than 10k hands of and sorted the list by VPIP. Maybe you'll
> see it quickly yourself, but let me tell you that on that list,
> there's exactly ONE player who wasn't listed as being from Russia at
> the tables and who didn't fit the other points either, "BucheX"
> (German).
>
> The similarity I want to highlight here isn't so much the preflop
> stats of the suspected names (VPIP/PFR/3Bet), although I'm quite
> confident that even those stats, which due to the widespread nature
> of preflop raising charts could be explained by just that, are
> statistically significantly too similar among this group of names.
> I'm a member of Pokerstrategy.com, so I base my preflop play on
> various charts that are taught there, too. But I definitely deviate
> from those strict guidelines on many, suitable occasions, and
> comparing stats of other known Pokerstrategy members I can safely say
> that hardly two or three of them have so similar preflop stats over a
> big sample size, let alone a dozen or more.
>
> No, the stats that REALLY stand out here are the postflop stats (in
> conjunction with the preflop stats, of course). And out of those,
> what made me very, very suspicious (not to say certain) at the time
> are the continuation bet (CBet%) stats. You should hopefully be able
> to apply statistical tests to work that out, but even without having
> used such tests, I can say with certainty that barely any two regular
> players (at those stakes) share such common characteristics. To start
> with, all regular players have a significantly higher CBet flop%,
> usually on the order of 95%, whereas all suspected players are very
> close around 89-90%. This continues for the CBet turn%, here the
> suspects are all close to 85%, exceeding every other regular
> (winning) player (BucheX is a bad counterexample in this case as his
> CBet turn frequency was relatively high, it will become more obvious
> with the next screenshot discussed below).
> had more than 10k hands of and sorted the list by VPIP. Maybe you'll
> see it quickly yourself, but let me tell you that on that list,
> there's exactly ONE player who wasn't listed as being from Russia at
> the tables and who didn't fit the other points either, "BucheX"
> (German).
>
> The similarity I want to highlight here isn't so much the preflop
> stats of the suspected names (VPIP/PFR/3Bet), although I'm quite
> confident that even those stats, which due to the widespread nature
> of preflop raising charts could be explained by just that, are
> statistically significantly too similar among this group of names.
> I'm a member of Pokerstrategy.com, so I base my preflop play on
> various charts that are taught there, too. But I definitely deviate
> from those strict guidelines on many, suitable occasions, and
> comparing stats of other known Pokerstrategy members I can safely say
> that hardly two or three of them have so similar preflop stats over a
> big sample size, let alone a dozen or more.
>
> No, the stats that REALLY stand out here are the postflop stats (in
> conjunction with the preflop stats, of course). And out of those,
> what made me very, very suspicious (not to say certain) at the time
> are the continuation bet (CBet%) stats. You should hopefully be able
> to apply statistical tests to work that out, but even without having
> used such tests, I can say with certainty that barely any two regular
> players (at those stakes) share such common characteristics. To start
> with, all regular players have a significantly higher CBet flop%,
> usually on the order of 95%, whereas all suspected players are very
> close around 89-90%. This continues for the CBet turn%, here the
> suspects are all close to 85%, exceeding every other regular
> (winning) player (BucheX is a bad counterexample in this case as his
> CBet turn frequency was relatively high, it will become more obvious
> with the next screenshot discussed below).
Quote:
>
> When I picked up playing again earlier this year, I was a little
> surprised that none of the suspected screen names existed anymore,
> but I quickly found what I thought were the successors.
>
> 5. When I decided to finally bust the person(s) behind this, I went
> ahead to do more statistical examinations. "stats2.gif" is sorted by
> CBet turn%.
> When I picked up playing again earlier this year, I was a little
> surprised that none of the suspected screen names existed anymore,
> but I quickly found what I thought were the successors.
>
> 5. When I decided to finally bust the person(s) behind this, I went
> ahead to do more statistical examinations. "stats2.gif" is sorted by
> CBet turn%.
Quote:
> The three top players are all on the suspects list.
> "stats3.gif" is sorted by VPIP again.
> "stats3.gif" is sorted by VPIP again.
Quote:
> What stands out here are the
> post flop stats once again. You can directly compare the suspected
> names to players with very similar preflop styles. You won't find a
> single one that shares the observed similarities in every single
> statistical value. I can't tell for sure why "b_rserk007"'s VPIP
> falls somewhat short behind the other two's figure, that might be due
> to certain table constellations though. However, when you finally
> look at "stats4a.gif"/"stats4b.gif" where I've included players that
> I only have at least 7.5k hands of for this year, I'd say the
> situation becomes completely obvious.
> post flop stats once again. You can directly compare the suspected
> names to players with very similar preflop styles. You won't find a
> single one that shares the observed similarities in every single
> statistical value. I can't tell for sure why "b_rserk007"'s VPIP
> falls somewhat short behind the other two's figure, that might be due
> to certain table constellations though. However, when you finally
> look at "stats4a.gif"/"stats4b.gif" where I've included players that
> I only have at least 7.5k hands of for this year, I'd say the
> situation becomes completely obvious.
Remark: I think I forgot to filter for 6 players here. If there's actually interest in that, I might still do it. Not that I think it would change anything though.
Quote:
> There are four players that
> I've marked as suspects (I'll explain how I compiled the list of
> suspects soon) which don't seem to fit into the pattern. These are
> "p_Kertender" (high VPIP/PFR, low WTSD%), "I_ateriverzz" (low WTSD%),
> "M_rtaza" (completely different postflop stats) and "B_bblegun85"
> (low Flop, Turn CBet%). I'll come back to those later on.
>
> Anyway, the message here is: the similarity in stats among this group
> of names is far higher then among any other groupings of names. I
> know there has been a bust of a bot ring on Pokerstars some months
> ago which was based on statistical tests conducted by
> www.pokertableratings.com (who have the required big databases for
> that). If you employ those significance tests, I'm sure you'll get
> results too.
>
> 6. My next step was to check the entries of the suspects (which only
> included the three names of "stats2.gif" at that time due to the
> larger sample sizes I had of them - "b_rserk007", "H_irrrypilot",
> "h_lluvalukkk") on www.pokertableratings.com. I've attached
> screenshots of those entries, plus all those that I compiled in the
> next run, as I'll explain in a second.
> I've marked as suspects (I'll explain how I compiled the list of
> suspects soon) which don't seem to fit into the pattern. These are
> "p_Kertender" (high VPIP/PFR, low WTSD%), "I_ateriverzz" (low WTSD%),
> "M_rtaza" (completely different postflop stats) and "B_bblegun85"
> (low Flop, Turn CBet%). I'll come back to those later on.
>
> Anyway, the message here is: the similarity in stats among this group
> of names is far higher then among any other groupings of names. I
> know there has been a bust of a bot ring on Pokerstars some months
> ago which was based on statistical tests conducted by
> www.pokertableratings.com (who have the required big databases for
> that). If you employ those significance tests, I'm sure you'll get
> results too.
>
> 6. My next step was to check the entries of the suspects (which only
> included the three names of "stats2.gif" at that time due to the
> larger sample sizes I had of them - "b_rserk007", "H_irrrypilot",
> "h_lluvalukkk") on www.pokertableratings.com. I've attached
> screenshots of those entries, plus all those that I compiled in the
> next run, as I'll explain in a second.
Quote:
>
> You'll notice that all three entries show two peculiarities:
> - despite having won considerable sums, especially when taking
> possible rakeback into account, they all sticked around on the same
> stakes (which is the weirdest for H_irrrypilot since he made the most
> money but never went back to 3/6$ after a short episode at the
> beginning of the year)
> - (this is even by far more interesting) all three of them ventured
> into headsup play for some hundred hands, but ALL THREE of them
> stopped with that between May 15th and May 17th (and that is only
> what Pokertableratings managed to track of them, it may actually have
> been on the same day)
>
> I'll anticipate my next point somewhat by saying that I found the
> exact same picture for every single of the screen names that made it
> to the suspects list. They all strictly stick(ed) around on 1/2$-3/6$
> (with said few exceptions on 0.50/1$ and 5/10$), and if a given name
> was tracked with headsup play, the last hand played occured between
> May 14th-17th (examples: "b_rdOfPrey", "B_bbleGun85", "k_Ep_cOOL"
> (last 3/6$ HU action on May 9th, cf. tracking coverage),
> "K_Y4e_BCeXXX", "M_dCowboy" etc.).
>
> It was at this point 99% sure something was very fishy here. But I
> wanted to reach those 99.9%, so I went on and discovered the last
> piece of evidence, which in my humble opinion taken seperately would
> be clue enough to suspect -something-.
>
> 7. I now wanted to see what these suspected bots did when they were
> involved in hands with each other. Seeing the three prime candidates
> had played 120k-250k on common stakes (i.e. 1/2$) hands this year and
> I had been datamining for many hours, days and months, I was certain
> that I should get some samples of that. And then - bang! - the big
> surprise: they had not played a -single- hand against each other all
> three of them. I was unsure if it might be due to them never ever
> playing at the same time, which seems very unlikely but not
> impossible. So I went through the list of "H_irrrypilot" (attached as
> "PlayerVsPlayer_H_irrrypilot.xls" together with the other two) and
> You'll notice that all three entries show two peculiarities:
> - despite having won considerable sums, especially when taking
> possible rakeback into account, they all sticked around on the same
> stakes (which is the weirdest for H_irrrypilot since he made the most
> money but never went back to 3/6$ after a short episode at the
> beginning of the year)
> - (this is even by far more interesting) all three of them ventured
> into headsup play for some hundred hands, but ALL THREE of them
> stopped with that between May 15th and May 17th (and that is only
> what Pokertableratings managed to track of them, it may actually have
> been on the same day)
>
> I'll anticipate my next point somewhat by saying that I found the
> exact same picture for every single of the screen names that made it
> to the suspects list. They all strictly stick(ed) around on 1/2$-3/6$
> (with said few exceptions on 0.50/1$ and 5/10$), and if a given name
> was tracked with headsup play, the last hand played occured between
> May 14th-17th (examples: "b_rdOfPrey", "B_bbleGun85", "k_Ep_cOOL"
> (last 3/6$ HU action on May 9th, cf. tracking coverage),
> "K_Y4e_BCeXXX", "M_dCowboy" etc.).
>
> It was at this point 99% sure something was very fishy here. But I
> wanted to reach those 99.9%, so I went on and discovered the last
> piece of evidence, which in my humble opinion taken seperately would
> be clue enough to suspect -something-.
>
> 7. I now wanted to see what these suspected bots did when they were
> involved in hands with each other. Seeing the three prime candidates
> had played 120k-250k on common stakes (i.e. 1/2$) hands this year and
> I had been datamining for many hours, days and months, I was certain
> that I should get some samples of that. And then - bang! - the big
> surprise: they had not played a -single- hand against each other all
> three of them. I was unsure if it might be due to them never ever
> playing at the same time, which seems very unlikely but not
> impossible. So I went through the list of "H_irrrypilot" (attached as
> "PlayerVsPlayer_H_irrrypilot.xls" together with the other two) and
Quote:
> checked with all the other players in my database that I had more
> than 50k hands, then more than 25k hands, down to something like more
> than ~10k hands. And the result of that was that "he" has played at
> least about a dozen of hands against every other regular player on
> those stakes, at least a few hands for sure. But not against
> "b_rserk007" and "h_lluvalukkk". Ok, so I thought, I know there's a
> feature in place at PartyPoker that prevents that players who are in
> some way linked to each other (for example: being the referrer, even
> on PokerStrategy) can sit down at the same table. But does that
> feature work transparently with a chain of linked players, i.e. would
> player 3 not be able to sit down with player 1 if player 1 had
> referred player 2 and player 2 had referred player 3? This can't be
> the case as it would restrict play way too much in the long run, even
> if it was limited to, say, 2 links down the chain. So the fact they
> don't play each other stands.
>
> As I was positive that this was the definite indicator I had been
> looking for, I then went on to scan the overall list of screen names
> >>10k hands and looked up those screen names in the list of players
> "H_irrrypilot" had played at least one hand against. I quickly
> noticed that the names I found this way all "happened to" fall into
> the statistical characteristics I had worked out before.
>
> I must admit that I stopped searching after I had worked down my way
> to players I had at least about 10k hands of, realizing that I only
> have a certain proportion of all the hands played anyway so I'll
> always overlook an unknown amount of accounts. Here is the final list
> I came up with:
>
> "A_SENAL505"
> "b_rserk007"
> "b_rdOfPrey"
> "B_bbleGun85" *
> "C_azyKM9"
> "c_ysta1Mind"
> "D_rkHawk565"
> "F_rtOOK5"
> "H_irrrypilot"
> "h_lluvalukkk"
> "I_otanApple"
> "I_ateriverzz"
> "k_Ep_cOOL" *
> "k_ndaImortal"
> "K_Y4e_BCeXXX"
> "L_kiFan003" *
> "M_dCowboy"
> "M_rtaza" *
> "N_izMakr"
> "p_th2pot"
> "p_cketDoNuts" *
> "p_Kertender" *
> "P_1mer7"
> "r_trochildAK"
> "s_condStorm"
> "s_arker911" *
> "s_erlock965"
> "s_bject2win"
> "T_PHOBHiK"
> "T_eo_felix"
> "V_lkyrie777" *
> "X_EHBAM"
>
> The screen names marked with an asterisk stand out insofar as I found
> that they had played some hands against -one- of the three prime
> suspects . All the other evidence holds for them however, as far as I
> could verify that myself (wrt chat behaviour and timing tells). I was
> slightly confused by those cases at first, but the reason I didn't
> spend more time investigating them is because of the feature on
> PartyPoker that you can change your screen name once every month
> (iirc). If the suspected bot operator gave one of his accounts a
> screen name that had been used before, this would defeat any
> conclusion one could draw from the fact the suspected bot accounts
> don't play in hands against each other. And it's impossible for me to
> retrace that now - you should be able to do so however. Another
> reason could simply be that the bot had a malfunction, preventing the
> apparent "don't play each other" feature from working.
>
> To make sure, I also did the cross-check with some of the other
> regular players that I have many hands of. For a definite proof, I
> would have had to write my own SQL statements to make this specific
> query on the database, as HoldemManager only allows to look at this
> information in an indirect way. But just running through some
> high(er) volume players, I can tell you that they ALL played hands
> against each other. So I'm certain that there's always enough overlap
> in the playing times that regular players could play each other. In
> fact, since I had decided to go ahead with this report and monitored
> the PartyPoker lobby, I can tell for sure that some names were indeed
> online at the same time, just never sitting at the same tables.
>
> And as another test, I then went the other way round: I picked one of
> the names I had found in this step ("c_ysta1Mind") and who is still
> active right now, and checked the names against which hands have been
> played this year (attached as "PlayerVsPlayer_c_ysta1Mind.xls").
> Unsurprisingly, everything was confirmed, that is: "c_ysta1Mind"
> hasn't played a single hand against the following other names, which
> were all still active as of Nov 25th: "A_SENAL505", "C_azyKM9",
> "H_irrrypilot" (see above), "h_lluvalukkk" (see above),
> "I_otanapple", "M_dCowboy", "N_izMakr", "s_condStorm", "s_erlock965".
> As by one of the three initial suspects, a few hands have been played
> against "p_cketDoNuts" and "p_Kertender".
>
> Since the statistical values stood out so much though, I had a closer
> look at "M_rtaza". And I quickly saw what was different about that
> account. As you can see in the Pokertableratings screenshot, this is
> the -only- player in the list who PTR tracked NL hands for. Whatever
> the reason for that is, it seems most plausible to me though that
> it's due to some sort of "human interaction" - be it because it's a
> case of the quoted screen names transfer effect or because the person
> operating that account was bored once and decided to play some hands
> by himself... Two other names that didn't fully fit into the
> statistical pattern above are marked here, too ("B_bbleGun85" and
> "p_Kertender"). I can only presume that "I_ateriverzz" stands out too
> because of a similar reason as "M_rtaza". Again, this is not
> something I could definitely verify anyway, but you should be able to
> do so.
>
> Maybe the question remains why a bot would avoid playing other
> instances of itself, but I'd say there are obvious reasons: If you
> make the effort to hide it using lots of accounts so the accumulated
> number of hands per account remains reasonable, you may as well make
> sure that there's never a glimpse of a collusion suspicion. But more
> importantly, you'll only make net winnings if you take the money of
> players which are not part of the system. Bot plays vs. bot = only
> losses due to rake.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> So this is it. I hope my explanations were concise and consistent
> enough that you'll understand everything. Feel free to reply with any
> questions that arise. I'm afraid I may have been unclear here or
> there, after all I've spent a few hours on this in total now and may
> have lost concentration.
>
> As you can imagine, after this much work put into this, I just
> wouldn't buy it if you replied back with a default answer saying that
> nothing suspicious could be found.
I'm just way too convinced.
>
> I'd like you to carry on the investigations, using said statistical
> tests, cross-checking IP addresses etc. - all the things that I
> couldn't do already. There may very well be more screen names that
> match all the criteria which I didn't uncover because I didn't have
> enough sample size/stopped at a certain number of hands. And I'm sure
> you should be able to link the list above to the list of screen names
> in "stats1.gif", taken last year in April.
>
> Please don't let any account that is affiliated with this go
> undiscovered. As things look to me, someone really made an effort to
> hide a (winning!) poker bot there, but with all this information you
> should now be able to bust them in their entirety. And if you ask me
> what should happen to those accounts (I'm sure you'll have your own
> rules to deal with it anyway); confiscating all the money and using
> it to improve PartyPoker one way or the other would be the best.
>
> [...]
>
>
>
> Best regards,
> Vlad
>
> [...]
>
----- Message transféré ----
De : Vladimir Poutine <...>
À : alerts [at] partyaccount.com
Envoyé le : Sam 4 décembre 2010, 1h 25min 18s
Objet : Re: Acknowledgement (KMM15454543I15977L0KM) (reference number: 7344409)
>
> Hi Rakesh,
>
> this is just a quick follow-up to my long report of yesterday. I
> understand that such an extensive report/case requires time to deal
> with on your side.
>
> I've observed a couple of tables with suspected accounts tonight
> because I wanted to see if evidence #2 on my list (timing tells)
> could be given some more weight. And indeed I found another piece of
> evidence which - in my opinion - would (almost) give away the fact
> those are bots on its own:
>
> As I wrote before, the timing tells are insofar perfectly balanced as
> there are never any "instant" or even just fairly quick moves.
> However, when I had several tables with the same suspected account
> sat down arranged in such a way that I could easily see the actions
> at all tables at the same time, it didn't take too long before a
> situation occured where two actions on two different tables occured
> virtually simultaneously. I.e. while each move seperately took the
> usual ~3 seconds on each table, the time difference between those two
> moves on the different tables was certainly well below 1 second. And
> since those "players" really never deviate from the "no faster than
> ~3 seconds" rule for each move at a table, this is just way too
> obvious. Take your time and monitor this behaviour, you will
> definitely see it yourself.
>
> I've also identified a couple more screen names which seemingly match
> all the listed criteria (with reservation because I didn't monitor
> those names before and because I have relatively small hands of them
> in my database):
>
> "R_yBadPenguy"
> "H_tbaby969"
> "d_ngerman321"
> "D_ddyknowZ"
>
> Alright, that's it. I hope the investigations are proceeding well.
>
>
> Best regards,
> Vlad
> than 50k hands, then more than 25k hands, down to something like more
> than ~10k hands. And the result of that was that "he" has played at
> least about a dozen of hands against every other regular player on
> those stakes, at least a few hands for sure. But not against
> "b_rserk007" and "h_lluvalukkk". Ok, so I thought, I know there's a
> feature in place at PartyPoker that prevents that players who are in
> some way linked to each other (for example: being the referrer, even
> on PokerStrategy) can sit down at the same table. But does that
> feature work transparently with a chain of linked players, i.e. would
> player 3 not be able to sit down with player 1 if player 1 had
> referred player 2 and player 2 had referred player 3? This can't be
> the case as it would restrict play way too much in the long run, even
> if it was limited to, say, 2 links down the chain. So the fact they
> don't play each other stands.
>
> As I was positive that this was the definite indicator I had been
> looking for, I then went on to scan the overall list of screen names
> >>10k hands and looked up those screen names in the list of players
> "H_irrrypilot" had played at least one hand against. I quickly
> noticed that the names I found this way all "happened to" fall into
> the statistical characteristics I had worked out before.
>
> I must admit that I stopped searching after I had worked down my way
> to players I had at least about 10k hands of, realizing that I only
> have a certain proportion of all the hands played anyway so I'll
> always overlook an unknown amount of accounts. Here is the final list
> I came up with:
>
> "A_SENAL505"
> "b_rserk007"
> "b_rdOfPrey"
> "B_bbleGun85" *
> "C_azyKM9"
> "c_ysta1Mind"
> "D_rkHawk565"
> "F_rtOOK5"
> "H_irrrypilot"
> "h_lluvalukkk"
> "I_otanApple"
> "I_ateriverzz"
> "k_Ep_cOOL" *
> "k_ndaImortal"
> "K_Y4e_BCeXXX"
> "L_kiFan003" *
> "M_dCowboy"
> "M_rtaza" *
> "N_izMakr"
> "p_th2pot"
> "p_cketDoNuts" *
> "p_Kertender" *
> "P_1mer7"
> "r_trochildAK"
> "s_condStorm"
> "s_arker911" *
> "s_erlock965"
> "s_bject2win"
> "T_PHOBHiK"
> "T_eo_felix"
> "V_lkyrie777" *
> "X_EHBAM"
>
> The screen names marked with an asterisk stand out insofar as I found
> that they had played some hands against -one- of the three prime
> suspects . All the other evidence holds for them however, as far as I
> could verify that myself (wrt chat behaviour and timing tells). I was
> slightly confused by those cases at first, but the reason I didn't
> spend more time investigating them is because of the feature on
> PartyPoker that you can change your screen name once every month
> (iirc). If the suspected bot operator gave one of his accounts a
> screen name that had been used before, this would defeat any
> conclusion one could draw from the fact the suspected bot accounts
> don't play in hands against each other. And it's impossible for me to
> retrace that now - you should be able to do so however. Another
> reason could simply be that the bot had a malfunction, preventing the
> apparent "don't play each other" feature from working.
>
> To make sure, I also did the cross-check with some of the other
> regular players that I have many hands of. For a definite proof, I
> would have had to write my own SQL statements to make this specific
> query on the database, as HoldemManager only allows to look at this
> information in an indirect way. But just running through some
> high(er) volume players, I can tell you that they ALL played hands
> against each other. So I'm certain that there's always enough overlap
> in the playing times that regular players could play each other. In
> fact, since I had decided to go ahead with this report and monitored
> the PartyPoker lobby, I can tell for sure that some names were indeed
> online at the same time, just never sitting at the same tables.
>
> And as another test, I then went the other way round: I picked one of
> the names I had found in this step ("c_ysta1Mind") and who is still
> active right now, and checked the names against which hands have been
> played this year (attached as "PlayerVsPlayer_c_ysta1Mind.xls").
> Unsurprisingly, everything was confirmed, that is: "c_ysta1Mind"
> hasn't played a single hand against the following other names, which
> were all still active as of Nov 25th: "A_SENAL505", "C_azyKM9",
> "H_irrrypilot" (see above), "h_lluvalukkk" (see above),
> "I_otanapple", "M_dCowboy", "N_izMakr", "s_condStorm", "s_erlock965".
> As by one of the three initial suspects, a few hands have been played
> against "p_cketDoNuts" and "p_Kertender".
>
> Since the statistical values stood out so much though, I had a closer
> look at "M_rtaza". And I quickly saw what was different about that
> account. As you can see in the Pokertableratings screenshot, this is
> the -only- player in the list who PTR tracked NL hands for. Whatever
> the reason for that is, it seems most plausible to me though that
> it's due to some sort of "human interaction" - be it because it's a
> case of the quoted screen names transfer effect or because the person
> operating that account was bored once and decided to play some hands
> by himself... Two other names that didn't fully fit into the
> statistical pattern above are marked here, too ("B_bbleGun85" and
> "p_Kertender"). I can only presume that "I_ateriverzz" stands out too
> because of a similar reason as "M_rtaza". Again, this is not
> something I could definitely verify anyway, but you should be able to
> do so.
>
> Maybe the question remains why a bot would avoid playing other
> instances of itself, but I'd say there are obvious reasons: If you
> make the effort to hide it using lots of accounts so the accumulated
> number of hands per account remains reasonable, you may as well make
> sure that there's never a glimpse of a collusion suspicion. But more
> importantly, you'll only make net winnings if you take the money of
> players which are not part of the system. Bot plays vs. bot = only
> losses due to rake.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> So this is it. I hope my explanations were concise and consistent
> enough that you'll understand everything. Feel free to reply with any
> questions that arise. I'm afraid I may have been unclear here or
> there, after all I've spent a few hours on this in total now and may
> have lost concentration.
>
> As you can imagine, after this much work put into this, I just
> wouldn't buy it if you replied back with a default answer saying that
> nothing suspicious could be found.
I'm just way too convinced. >
> I'd like you to carry on the investigations, using said statistical
> tests, cross-checking IP addresses etc. - all the things that I
> couldn't do already. There may very well be more screen names that
> match all the criteria which I didn't uncover because I didn't have
> enough sample size/stopped at a certain number of hands. And I'm sure
> you should be able to link the list above to the list of screen names
> in "stats1.gif", taken last year in April.
>
> Please don't let any account that is affiliated with this go
> undiscovered. As things look to me, someone really made an effort to
> hide a (winning!) poker bot there, but with all this information you
> should now be able to bust them in their entirety. And if you ask me
> what should happen to those accounts (I'm sure you'll have your own
> rules to deal with it anyway); confiscating all the money and using
> it to improve PartyPoker one way or the other would be the best.
>
> [...]
>
>
>
> Best regards,
> Vlad
>
> [...]
>
----- Message transféré ----
De : Vladimir Poutine <...>
À : alerts [at] partyaccount.com
Envoyé le : Sam 4 décembre 2010, 1h 25min 18s
Objet : Re: Acknowledgement (KMM15454543I15977L0KM) (reference number: 7344409)
>
> Hi Rakesh,
>
> this is just a quick follow-up to my long report of yesterday. I
> understand that such an extensive report/case requires time to deal
> with on your side.
>
> I've observed a couple of tables with suspected accounts tonight
> because I wanted to see if evidence #2 on my list (timing tells)
> could be given some more weight. And indeed I found another piece of
> evidence which - in my opinion - would (almost) give away the fact
> those are bots on its own:
>
> As I wrote before, the timing tells are insofar perfectly balanced as
> there are never any "instant" or even just fairly quick moves.
> However, when I had several tables with the same suspected account
> sat down arranged in such a way that I could easily see the actions
> at all tables at the same time, it didn't take too long before a
> situation occured where two actions on two different tables occured
> virtually simultaneously. I.e. while each move seperately took the
> usual ~3 seconds on each table, the time difference between those two
> moves on the different tables was certainly well below 1 second. And
> since those "players" really never deviate from the "no faster than
> ~3 seconds" rule for each move at a table, this is just way too
> obvious. Take your time and monitor this behaviour, you will
> definitely see it yourself.
>
> I've also identified a couple more screen names which seemingly match
> all the listed criteria (with reservation because I didn't monitor
> those names before and because I have relatively small hands of them
> in my database):
>
> "R_yBadPenguy"
> "H_tbaby969"
> "d_ngerman321"
> "D_ddyknowZ"
>
> Alright, that's it. I hope the investigations are proceeding well.
>
>
> Best regards,
> Vlad
Quote:
----- Message transféré ----
De : Vladimir Poutine <...>
À : alerts [at] partyaccount.com
Envoyé le : Lun 6 décembre 2010, 21h 35min 26s
Objet : reference number: 7344409
>
> Hi,
>
> could you please let me know how you're proceeding with my report
> sent 3 days ago? I have perfect understanding that such an extensive
> case takes time to deal with, but after the first encouragement by
> Rakesh to go ahead and write that report, I haven't gotten any
> feedback about what's happening now. Also, I'm unsure if my follow-up
> email sent on Saturday was appended to this case, because I was
> assigned a new reference number (7418106) in the acknowledgement for
> that even though I had included the correct number 7344409 in the
> subject line...? It should definitely be appended because it contains
> more relevant information for the case.
>
>
> Best regards,
> Vlad
---- Original Message ----
From: alerts [at] partyaccount.com
To: Vladimir Poutine
Sent: Monday, December 06, 2010 10:25 PM
Subject: Kind Attention. (KMM15517654I15977L0KM)
> Dear Vlad,
>
> Thank you for contacting us.
>
> We wish to confirm the receipt of both your emails with the evidence
> and screen shots that you have gathered. Our investigation is
> definitely ongoing and to be honest, it would be premature to give a
> status update or timeframe in this regard. The sheer volume of
> evidence received will be dissected and investigated individually to
> form a collective resolution. As you have rightly stated, this
> process will take time. But you can be rest assured that any update
> in this regard will be duly communicated to you, as and when arrived
> upon.
>
> We appreciate your efforts in sending us a detailed report in this
> regard. If you were to come across any further evidence, we would
> like to hear from you.
>
> Your understanding and co-operation in this regard is deeply
> appreciated.
>
> Contact us anytime, we are available around the clock to assist you
> with your account related questions and suggestions.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Rakesh
> Game Fairness & Security Team
>
> Note: Your username and password are confidential information. No one
> from the company will ever ask for your password in a phone call or
> email message. Do not respond to any message or request that asks for
> your password.
>
> *Pay-Pro and PartyCashier are service names of PartyGaming Group
> companies.
>
>
>
>
----- Message transféré ----
De : Vladimir Poutine <..>
À : alerts [at] partyaccount.com
Envoyé le : Mer 8 décembre 2010, 19h 41min 07s
Objet : reference number: 7344409
>
> Hi,
>
> I have another small update on this case. I've identified two more
> screen names that are most likely part of the same network:
>
> "w_ntTThatcash"
> "H_rdhammer2"
>
> I lack significant sample sizes for both of them still, so the
> statistical evidence is weaker as in the other cases (albeit still
> sufficient imo as the postflop tendencies stand out perfectly). But
> they fulfill the other points of evidence in my original list. And I
> wouldn't be surprised if you could link those names, which are
> relatively new according to PTR, to accounts that used different
> screen names before, maybe appearing in my original, long list.
>
> Please bear in mind that I don't systematically monitor the table
> action all around the clock now, I just logged in occasionally and
> did a quick scan with SpadeEye to see if there are potential targets.
> Maybe this could provide another small piece of evidence; I seem to
> have noticed that at no point there were more than three suspected
> names playing at the same time. And on the other hand, there's at
> least one or two online seemingly at any time of the day (and night).
>
> As I wrote before, you should be able to evaluate this much more
> easily as you have the full picture.
>
>
> Best regards,
> Vlad
---- Original Message ----
From: alerts [at] partyaccount.com
To: Vladimir Poutine
Sent: Friday, December 10, 2010 3:49 PM
Subject: Your Kind Attention Required. (KMM15484328I15977L0KM)
> Dear Vladimir,
>
> Thank you for your recent mail, wherein you informed us of activity
> that you consider could potentially have led to a player gaining an
> unfair advantage.
>
> As a matter of regular operations, we vigilantly seek to identify and
> halt any player or account that attempts to gain an unfair advantage
>
> http://www.partypoker.com/about_us/g...advantage.html
>
> However, we do not comment on individual cases nor do we detail the
> techniques and tools we use as that would only serve to hamper
> efforts we make to maintain a fair environment for all players.
>
> Should you ever feel you have observed anymore players or accounts
> attempting to garner unfair advantage, please send us an email
> providing any relevant information to alerts [at] partyaccount.com
>
> Contact us anytime, we are available around the clock to assist you
> with your account related questions and suggestions.
>
> Sincerely
>
> Emmanuel Sandeep Jakkula
>
> Game Fairness and Security Team
>
> Note: Your account username and password are confidential
> information. No one from the company will ever ask for your password
> in a phone call or email message. Do not respond to any message or
> request that asks for your password.
>
>
> *Pay-Pro and PartyCashier are service names of PartyGaming Group
> companies.
>
>
>
>
----- Message transféré ----
De : Vladimir Poutine <...>
À : alerts [at] partyaccount.com
Envoyé le : Lun 20 décembre 2010, 18h 17min 31s
Objet : reference number: 7344409
>
> Hi,
>
> it is now 2.5 weeks ago that I sent you my first, detailed report
> about ongoing poker bot operations on your site, which was followed
> by two more mails containing additional evidence. It is also 2 weeks
> ago that I asked you for a confirmation of initiated investigations,
> which you replied with saying that the sheer amount of evidence
> simply required time to deal with.
>
> I had perfect understanding for that, but fast forward 14 days, I
> must say that I'm very disappointed now to realize that nothing
> happened about this case at all. The bots are still there, playing
> 24/7 as far as I can tell. You didn't contact me back with any
> information about what's going on. I simply can't imagine that
> investigations can take so long when I already provided you with so
> much information that you'd basically just need to verify.
>
> This clearly gives me the impression that you don't really care too
> much about the fact your site is home to a (thriving) bot ring and it
> reminds me of what a friend of mine told me some time ago, when I
> first talked to him about my suspicions: that the poker sites don't
> mind bots too much as long as no customer notices them and complains
> about them. After all, I'd guess that this network of bots must be
> paying at least a low 5-digit figure of rake each and every month.
> That sums up to a nice profit over the suspected 2+ years of
> operation...
>
> However, I'm still willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and
> wait for a couple more days to allow you to react. But if nothing
> comes out of that, I'm sorry to say that I feel obliged to make this
> case public. I know this sounds like blackmailing, and it probably
> qualifies as that, but since I don't have any financial interests
> (apart obviously from the fact that I don't want illegitimate
> "players" to suck money out of the pool) and what I'm asking for is
> fully backed by your terms, I don't have any qualms.
>
> Since I wouldn't want to appear like a fool when/if making this case
> public, I'd have to release all the evidence that I gathered. This
> would mean that not only the bot operator will have a chance to go
> beneath the radar after the screen names have been posted, but also
> that they will get vital information about the clues that gave away
> the bot nature of the "players", allowing them to fix those things
> (particularly true for the timing tells, cf. my mail sent on Sat 4th
> December) and make it so much harder in the future to become
> uncovered again. You'd have to take the full blame for that, as I
> gave you all the time to deal with this.
>
> Please regard this mail, which I know is harsh in its tone, as a
> final call for justice and action. As I've told you before, this
> account isn't my real account on PartyPoker. If nothing comes out of
> this, I'm 100% certain that I will quit the site. I've actually not
> been to keen on playing at all lately due to the fact that I know I'm
> playing against a bot at many of my tables.
>
>
> Best regards,
> Vlad
>
> P.S.: Fwiw, at least some of the infringing accounts had their screen
> name changed in the meantime, or there are completely new accounts.
> When I logged on recently and monitored stats and timing tells of
> some players, I could say with virtual 100% certainty that
> "A_esAreSoFun" and "I_saneIngame" share all the common
> characteristics. I can't be so sure about "T_eLabRat" and
> "H_rdHammer2" simply because I didn't spend much time on observing
> them, but they seemed likely candidates too.
-------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------
This was my communication with PartyPoker. You might notice that their email
from December 10th was quite random, and in fact I had received two distinct
acknowledgement receipts for my preceding email in a space of two days. The
whole process seems to be a little fishy because I kept being assigned new
reference numbers in the acknowledgement receipts even though I explicitly
stated the original reference number every time. But I guess that's a different
story.
Let me summarize the facts now:
- the evidence listed as 4.-7. in my email from December 3rd is the prime
evidence
- the evidence originally listed as 2. in that email became another prime
evidence later on, as outlined in my email from December 4th (in fact, I've
verified this described dead giveaway of timing tells with some of the screen
names that I found later)
- another piece of evidence that I think I found (but did NOT verify by going
through my whole database) is that none of the screen names ever play more than
4 tables simultaneously (like evidence 1., 3. and the original 2., that's not a
strong evidence, but it just adds to the picture)
De : Vladimir Poutine <...>
À : alerts [at] partyaccount.com
Envoyé le : Lun 6 décembre 2010, 21h 35min 26s
Objet : reference number: 7344409
>
> Hi,
>
> could you please let me know how you're proceeding with my report
> sent 3 days ago? I have perfect understanding that such an extensive
> case takes time to deal with, but after the first encouragement by
> Rakesh to go ahead and write that report, I haven't gotten any
> feedback about what's happening now. Also, I'm unsure if my follow-up
> email sent on Saturday was appended to this case, because I was
> assigned a new reference number (7418106) in the acknowledgement for
> that even though I had included the correct number 7344409 in the
> subject line...? It should definitely be appended because it contains
> more relevant information for the case.
>
>
> Best regards,
> Vlad
---- Original Message ----
From: alerts [at] partyaccount.com
To: Vladimir Poutine
Sent: Monday, December 06, 2010 10:25 PM
Subject: Kind Attention. (KMM15517654I15977L0KM)
> Dear Vlad,
>
> Thank you for contacting us.
>
> We wish to confirm the receipt of both your emails with the evidence
> and screen shots that you have gathered. Our investigation is
> definitely ongoing and to be honest, it would be premature to give a
> status update or timeframe in this regard. The sheer volume of
> evidence received will be dissected and investigated individually to
> form a collective resolution. As you have rightly stated, this
> process will take time. But you can be rest assured that any update
> in this regard will be duly communicated to you, as and when arrived
> upon.
>
> We appreciate your efforts in sending us a detailed report in this
> regard. If you were to come across any further evidence, we would
> like to hear from you.
>
> Your understanding and co-operation in this regard is deeply
> appreciated.
>
> Contact us anytime, we are available around the clock to assist you
> with your account related questions and suggestions.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Rakesh
> Game Fairness & Security Team
>
> Note: Your username and password are confidential information. No one
> from the company will ever ask for your password in a phone call or
> email message. Do not respond to any message or request that asks for
> your password.
>
> *Pay-Pro and PartyCashier are service names of PartyGaming Group
> companies.
>
>
>
>
----- Message transféré ----
De : Vladimir Poutine <..>
À : alerts [at] partyaccount.com
Envoyé le : Mer 8 décembre 2010, 19h 41min 07s
Objet : reference number: 7344409
>
> Hi,
>
> I have another small update on this case. I've identified two more
> screen names that are most likely part of the same network:
>
> "w_ntTThatcash"
> "H_rdhammer2"
>
> I lack significant sample sizes for both of them still, so the
> statistical evidence is weaker as in the other cases (albeit still
> sufficient imo as the postflop tendencies stand out perfectly). But
> they fulfill the other points of evidence in my original list. And I
> wouldn't be surprised if you could link those names, which are
> relatively new according to PTR, to accounts that used different
> screen names before, maybe appearing in my original, long list.
>
> Please bear in mind that I don't systematically monitor the table
> action all around the clock now, I just logged in occasionally and
> did a quick scan with SpadeEye to see if there are potential targets.
> Maybe this could provide another small piece of evidence; I seem to
> have noticed that at no point there were more than three suspected
> names playing at the same time. And on the other hand, there's at
> least one or two online seemingly at any time of the day (and night).
>
> As I wrote before, you should be able to evaluate this much more
> easily as you have the full picture.
>
>
> Best regards,
> Vlad
---- Original Message ----
From: alerts [at] partyaccount.com
To: Vladimir Poutine
Sent: Friday, December 10, 2010 3:49 PM
Subject: Your Kind Attention Required. (KMM15484328I15977L0KM)
> Dear Vladimir,
>
> Thank you for your recent mail, wherein you informed us of activity
> that you consider could potentially have led to a player gaining an
> unfair advantage.
>
> As a matter of regular operations, we vigilantly seek to identify and
> halt any player or account that attempts to gain an unfair advantage
>
> http://www.partypoker.com/about_us/g...advantage.html
>
> However, we do not comment on individual cases nor do we detail the
> techniques and tools we use as that would only serve to hamper
> efforts we make to maintain a fair environment for all players.
>
> Should you ever feel you have observed anymore players or accounts
> attempting to garner unfair advantage, please send us an email
> providing any relevant information to alerts [at] partyaccount.com
>
> Contact us anytime, we are available around the clock to assist you
> with your account related questions and suggestions.
>
> Sincerely
>
> Emmanuel Sandeep Jakkula
>
> Game Fairness and Security Team
>
> Note: Your account username and password are confidential
> information. No one from the company will ever ask for your password
> in a phone call or email message. Do not respond to any message or
> request that asks for your password.
>
>
> *Pay-Pro and PartyCashier are service names of PartyGaming Group
> companies.
>
>
>
>
----- Message transféré ----
De : Vladimir Poutine <...>
À : alerts [at] partyaccount.com
Envoyé le : Lun 20 décembre 2010, 18h 17min 31s
Objet : reference number: 7344409
>
> Hi,
>
> it is now 2.5 weeks ago that I sent you my first, detailed report
> about ongoing poker bot operations on your site, which was followed
> by two more mails containing additional evidence. It is also 2 weeks
> ago that I asked you for a confirmation of initiated investigations,
> which you replied with saying that the sheer amount of evidence
> simply required time to deal with.
>
> I had perfect understanding for that, but fast forward 14 days, I
> must say that I'm very disappointed now to realize that nothing
> happened about this case at all. The bots are still there, playing
> 24/7 as far as I can tell. You didn't contact me back with any
> information about what's going on. I simply can't imagine that
> investigations can take so long when I already provided you with so
> much information that you'd basically just need to verify.
>
> This clearly gives me the impression that you don't really care too
> much about the fact your site is home to a (thriving) bot ring and it
> reminds me of what a friend of mine told me some time ago, when I
> first talked to him about my suspicions: that the poker sites don't
> mind bots too much as long as no customer notices them and complains
> about them. After all, I'd guess that this network of bots must be
> paying at least a low 5-digit figure of rake each and every month.
> That sums up to a nice profit over the suspected 2+ years of
> operation...
>
> However, I'm still willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and
> wait for a couple more days to allow you to react. But if nothing
> comes out of that, I'm sorry to say that I feel obliged to make this
> case public. I know this sounds like blackmailing, and it probably
> qualifies as that, but since I don't have any financial interests
> (apart obviously from the fact that I don't want illegitimate
> "players" to suck money out of the pool) and what I'm asking for is
> fully backed by your terms, I don't have any qualms.
>
> Since I wouldn't want to appear like a fool when/if making this case
> public, I'd have to release all the evidence that I gathered. This
> would mean that not only the bot operator will have a chance to go
> beneath the radar after the screen names have been posted, but also
> that they will get vital information about the clues that gave away
> the bot nature of the "players", allowing them to fix those things
> (particularly true for the timing tells, cf. my mail sent on Sat 4th
> December) and make it so much harder in the future to become
> uncovered again. You'd have to take the full blame for that, as I
> gave you all the time to deal with this.
>
> Please regard this mail, which I know is harsh in its tone, as a
> final call for justice and action. As I've told you before, this
> account isn't my real account on PartyPoker. If nothing comes out of
> this, I'm 100% certain that I will quit the site. I've actually not
> been to keen on playing at all lately due to the fact that I know I'm
> playing against a bot at many of my tables.
>
>
> Best regards,
> Vlad
>
> P.S.: Fwiw, at least some of the infringing accounts had their screen
> name changed in the meantime, or there are completely new accounts.
> When I logged on recently and monitored stats and timing tells of
> some players, I could say with virtual 100% certainty that
> "A_esAreSoFun" and "I_saneIngame" share all the common
> characteristics. I can't be so sure about "T_eLabRat" and
> "H_rdHammer2" simply because I didn't spend much time on observing
> them, but they seemed likely candidates too.
-------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------
This was my communication with PartyPoker. You might notice that their email
from December 10th was quite random, and in fact I had received two distinct
acknowledgement receipts for my preceding email in a space of two days. The
whole process seems to be a little fishy because I kept being assigned new
reference numbers in the acknowledgement receipts even though I explicitly
stated the original reference number every time. But I guess that's a different
story.
Let me summarize the facts now:
- the evidence listed as 4.-7. in my email from December 3rd is the prime
evidence
- the evidence originally listed as 2. in that email became another prime
evidence later on, as outlined in my email from December 4th (in fact, I've
verified this described dead giveaway of timing tells with some of the screen
names that I found later)
- another piece of evidence that I think I found (but did NOT verify by going
through my whole database) is that none of the screen names ever play more than
4 tables simultaneously (like evidence 1., 3. and the original 2., that's not a
strong evidence, but it just adds to the picture)
Quote:
- due to the possibility to change screen names on PartyPoker, tracking accounts
can be a hassle, and there's a possibility that a former legitimate screen name
was taken over, or a former bot screen name was taken over by a legitimate
player. This could weaken the evidence with those few screen names that I marked
with an asterisk, potentially additional ones. Please bear in mind that my
coverage with data mining will never reach yours, even though I tend to let it
run for many hours a day on average.
- I now deeply regret not having taken the time to investigate this when I
noticed the statistical peculiarities in 2009 (cf. 4.), because I'm very
positive that statistical tests would have led to very significant results for
that group of screen names, based on my datamined hands. The statistical
variance in the new screen names -seems- to be larger, but then again my sample
sizes are smaller.
can be a hassle, and there's a possibility that a former legitimate screen name
was taken over, or a former bot screen name was taken over by a legitimate
player. This could weaken the evidence with those few screen names that I marked
with an asterisk, potentially additional ones. Please bear in mind that my
coverage with data mining will never reach yours, even though I tend to let it
run for many hours a day on average.
- I now deeply regret not having taken the time to investigate this when I
noticed the statistical peculiarities in 2009 (cf. 4.), because I'm very
positive that statistical tests would have led to very significant results for
that group of screen names, based on my datamined hands. The statistical
variance in the new screen names -seems- to be larger, but then again my sample
sizes are smaller.
Quote:
- I haven't (and can't) made sure that I caught all the screen names. I used my
database and sizeable hand counts to start with. And over the past two weeks or
so, I logged on occasionally to see if PartyPoker had finally taken some action
(...) and managed to find a few more screen names that I still lack sample sizes
for, but which fulfill the other pieces of evidence. For clarity, I'll repeat
the entire list of suspected screen names here (as for the asterisks, cf. what I
wrote under 7.):
(original list)
"A_SENAL505"
"b_rserk007"
"b_rdOfPrey"
"B_bbleGun85" *
"C_azyKM9"
"c_ysta1Mind"
"D_rkHawk565"
"F_rtOOK5"
"H_irrrypilot"
"h_lluvalukkk"
"I_otanApple"
"I_ateriverzz"
"k_Ep_cOOL" *
"k_ndaImortal"
"K_Y4e_BCeXXX"
"L_kiFan003" *
"M_dCowboy"
"M_rtaza" *
"N_izMakr"
"p_th2pot"
"p_cketDoNuts" *
"p_Kertender" *
"P_1mer7"
"r_trochildAK"
"s_condStorm"
"s_arker911" *
"s_erlock965"
"s_bject2win"
"T_PHOBHiK"
"T_eo_felix"
"V_lkyrie777" *
"X_EHBAM"
(found later, lacking sample sizes in most cases, but at least timing tell is
100% on, plus 7. in some cases)
"A_esAreSoFun"
"D_ddyknowZ"
"d_ngerman321"
"H_rdhammer2"
"H_tbaby969"
"I_saneIngame"
"T_eLabRat"
"R_yBadPenguy"
"w_ntTThatcash"
database and sizeable hand counts to start with. And over the past two weeks or
so, I logged on occasionally to see if PartyPoker had finally taken some action
(...) and managed to find a few more screen names that I still lack sample sizes
for, but which fulfill the other pieces of evidence. For clarity, I'll repeat
the entire list of suspected screen names here (as for the asterisks, cf. what I
wrote under 7.):
(original list)
"A_SENAL505"
"b_rserk007"
"b_rdOfPrey"
"B_bbleGun85" *
"C_azyKM9"
"c_ysta1Mind"
"D_rkHawk565"
"F_rtOOK5"
"H_irrrypilot"
"h_lluvalukkk"
"I_otanApple"
"I_ateriverzz"
"k_Ep_cOOL" *
"k_ndaImortal"
"K_Y4e_BCeXXX"
"L_kiFan003" *
"M_dCowboy"
"M_rtaza" *
"N_izMakr"
"p_th2pot"
"p_cketDoNuts" *
"p_Kertender" *
"P_1mer7"
"r_trochildAK"
"s_condStorm"
"s_arker911" *
"s_erlock965"
"s_bject2win"
"T_PHOBHiK"
"T_eo_felix"
"V_lkyrie777" *
"X_EHBAM"
(found later, lacking sample sizes in most cases, but at least timing tell is
100% on, plus 7. in some cases)
"A_esAreSoFun"
"D_ddyknowZ"
"d_ngerman321"
"H_rdhammer2"
"H_tbaby969"
"I_saneIngame"
"T_eLabRat"
"R_yBadPenguy"
"w_ntTThatcash"
"S_arkEater53"
"b_ainyhorse2"
Quote:
(exemplary list of screen names referenced in evidence 4. - all inactive now
but quite possibly/very likely associated with exactly those suspected accounts
that have the new screen names now)
"A_azvedka"
"B_stOfGuest"
"B_gBaptist"
"c_lob0c"
"d_vastatorR"
"G_lavastik"
"K_sarA"
"K_otGT"
"K_zmich9"
"L_stbinom"
"m_loman666"
"P_wovar"
"S_mbionick"
"S_eransky"
"S_rikyan"
"T_pnyak"
Let me finish by saying that I'm really hopeful that you won't let me down like
PartyPoker did. I know it'll still be some work for you to verify all my points,
and (hopefully) also add the kind of statistical proof that you could use in the
PokerStars case.
There's one thing I'd like to ask of you: if you manage to nail the case even
without taking the timing tell evidence into account (which, in my opinion, is a
100% giveaway on its own - please take the time and open the maximum 4 tables
that you'll find a screen name of the list on at every given time, watch the
action for some time and wait for the "player" having to act on two tables at
the same time once, ideally being given the same time to consider the move, and
you'll be instantly convinced), then please don't bring it up in a possible
public report. The programmer of this bot clearly put some thoughts into it
(trying to conceal it by splitting the hands on many accounts, regularly
renaming them, and - most of all - creating a winning bot), so I found it a
stroke of luck that he forgot to synchronize the timing tells across tables.
Makes it so much easier to notice without having to resort to more elaborate
methods.
Feel free to write me with any questions you have. I may well have forgotten
something now, keeping my fingers crossed that I haven't...
Also feel free to give PartyPoker all the blame that they deserve. With their
knowledge at hand to match screen names and accounts, and possibly IP addresses,
things would have been so much easier. It gives me a very bitter taste that they
aren't capable OR willing to prosecute this.
Best regards,
Vlad
P.S.: Please notify me of your receipt of this email and when you start looking
into this.
but quite possibly/very likely associated with exactly those suspected accounts
that have the new screen names now)
"A_azvedka"
"B_stOfGuest"
"B_gBaptist"
"c_lob0c"
"d_vastatorR"
"G_lavastik"
"K_sarA"
"K_otGT"
"K_zmich9"
"L_stbinom"
"m_loman666"
"P_wovar"
"S_mbionick"
"S_eransky"
"S_rikyan"
"T_pnyak"
Let me finish by saying that I'm really hopeful that you won't let me down like
PartyPoker did. I know it'll still be some work for you to verify all my points,
and (hopefully) also add the kind of statistical proof that you could use in the
PokerStars case.
There's one thing I'd like to ask of you: if you manage to nail the case even
without taking the timing tell evidence into account (which, in my opinion, is a
100% giveaway on its own - please take the time and open the maximum 4 tables
that you'll find a screen name of the list on at every given time, watch the
action for some time and wait for the "player" having to act on two tables at
the same time once, ideally being given the same time to consider the move, and
you'll be instantly convinced), then please don't bring it up in a possible
public report. The programmer of this bot clearly put some thoughts into it
(trying to conceal it by splitting the hands on many accounts, regularly
renaming them, and - most of all - creating a winning bot), so I found it a
stroke of luck that he forgot to synchronize the timing tells across tables.
Makes it so much easier to notice without having to resort to more elaborate
methods.
Feel free to write me with any questions you have. I may well have forgotten
something now, keeping my fingers crossed that I haven't...
Also feel free to give PartyPoker all the blame that they deserve. With their
knowledge at hand to match screen names and accounts, and possibly IP addresses,
things would have been so much easier. It gives me a very bitter taste that they
aren't capable OR willing to prosecute this.
Best regards,
Vlad
P.S.: Please notify me of your receipt of this email and when you start looking
into this.
That's it, I cba writing even more about this (although there might be more things I forgot). I was actually thinking something had been done by PartyPoker when I noticed that there was none of the suspected names playing for some time around New Year. But when I saw one after another appear again, and then most of all H_irrrypilot on the tables just now, that was the last straw for me. Sorry to make the timing tell evidence public like this, but it's surely better people are aware (or have a chance to convince themselves of the facts I named) of it than letting this go on forever. My guess is that nothing will happen anyway. And if even bots that are somewhat elaborated, but still detectable, get away like this, I really fear the worst for the future.
Screen names:
PTR screenshots / HM player vs. player sheets:
http://www.mediafire.com/?9g8fgj2e7cxckcd
Cliffs:
- suspected bot ring running for >2 years on PartyPoker FLHE lowstakes (0.50/1$-5/10$), providing plenty of evidence
- communication with PartyPoker anti-cheating department led to nothing
Last edited by VladPoutine; 01-05-2011 at 04:44 PM.
Reason: typo
01-05-2011
, 04:53 PM
01-05-2011
, 04:56 PM
I just read your whole article. I URGE people to read this. This will be the next big scandal. This is going to be the top story over the next few months.
It makes me think, if this is going on at party poker, I wonder whats going on at other sites?
A+++++
HIRE THIS GUY.
It makes me think, if this is going on at party poker, I wonder whats going on at other sites?
A+++++
HIRE THIS GUY.
Last edited by koop149; 01-05-2011 at 04:56 PM.
Reason: spelling
01-05-2011
, 05:13 PM
01-05-2011
, 05:39 PM
There is no risk for a criminal fine...worst that could happen ohhh they close my account
And of course there are still good bots that win up to NL 200 and there are enough poorer ones that shuffle Rake to the sites. A player is a player and also bots pay to play poker ...that business like usual.
01-05-2011
, 05:57 PM
*bump. If its happening at PartyPoker, its sure as hell happening on FT and PS as well.
01-05-2011
, 08:35 PM
Also, the work required to write a simple tool like FPHG is about 2-3 man days tops whereas to write a winning bot might take months and months of work.
I am surprised though that it's happening at Party (although not fully read your post yet...) as I always thought Party were pretty keen on bot-detection (compared to the other "non-top-two" sites).
Juk
01-05-2011
, 09:42 PM
All we need is PTR to investigate this and make an article about it!
Here is what will happen:
1. PTR releases a devastating article about the current super mega bot collusion on PartyPoker.
2. The PartyPoker staff (you have seen the picture of the lead programmer already) will make a statement saying that they never saw a COLLUSION when investigating, and that they never looked for BOTTING possibilites.
3. PartyPoker releases a username list of botters identical or smaller to the PTR article.
4. PartyPoker will claim that they released this list before PTR.
5. PartyPoker staff will then rub their bellies with plastic paper, make smack sounds with their mouth and go home from work.
Rock
Here is what will happen:
1. PTR releases a devastating article about the current super mega bot collusion on PartyPoker.
2. The PartyPoker staff (you have seen the picture of the lead programmer already) will make a statement saying that they never saw a COLLUSION when investigating, and that they never looked for BOTTING possibilites.
3. PartyPoker releases a username list of botters identical or smaller to the PTR article.
4. PartyPoker will claim that they released this list before PTR.
5. PartyPoker staff will then rub their bellies with plastic paper, make smack sounds with their mouth and go home from work.
Rock
01-06-2011
, 01:47 PM
01-06-2011
, 07:08 PM
However, I just got an interesting email:
Quote:
---- Original Message ----
From: alerts [at] partyaccount.com
To: Vladimir Poutine
Sent: Thursday, January 06, 2011 11:39 PM
Subject: Kind Attention. (KMM15688717I15977L0KM)
> Dear Vladimir,
>
> It has been a while since you were appraised of the ongoing
> investigation into your complaint. We understand that the delay might
> have caused inconvenience and made you question our commitment to the
> cause. However, you can be rest assured that the investigation is
> indeed gathering steam and requires a little more time in order to
> arrive at the right decision.
>
> As you would agree, apart from the proof collated by you, it is
> imperative that we conduct our own investigation and gather further
> information on the data submitted. Once we have deliberated over the
> evidence, we will be able to duly communicate the decision. Kindly
> allow us to justify the time you have spent in sending us the
> required information.
>
> This correspondence might not be the answer you were looking for, but
> it is aimed at keeping you informed about the status of our
> investigation and that, a decision will be communicated in good time.
>
> Contact us anytime, we are available around the clock to assist you
> with your account related questions and suggestions.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Rakesh
> Game Fairness & Security Team
>
> Note: Your username and password are confidential information. No one
> from the company will ever ask for your password in a phone call or
> email message. Do not respond to any message or request that asks for
> your password.
>
> *Pay-Pro and PartyCashier are service names of PartyGaming Group
> companies.
>
>
>
>
> Original Message Follows: ------------------------
>
> Hi,
>
> it is now 2.5 weeks ago that I sent you my first, detailed report
> about ongoing poker bot operations on your site, which was followed
> by two more mails containing additional evidence. It is also 2 weeks
> ago that I asked you for a confirmation of initiated investigations,
> which you replied with saying that the sheer amount of evidence
> simply required time to deal with.
>
> I had perfect understanding for that, but fast forward 14 days, I
> must say that I'm very disappointed now to realize that nothing
> happened about this case at all. The bots are still there, playing
> 24/7 as far as I can tell. You didn't contact me back with any
> information about what's going on. I simply can't imagine that
> investigations can take so long when I already provided you with so
> much information that you'd basically just need to verify.
>
> This clearly gives me the impression that you don't really care too
> much about the fact your site is home to a (thriving) bot ring and it
> reminds me of what a friend of mine told me some time ago, when I
> first talked to him about my suspicions: that the poker sites don't
> mind bots too much as long as no customer notices them and complains
> about them. After all, I'd guess that this network of bots must be
> paying at least a low 5-digit figure of rake each and every month.
> That sums up to a nice profit over the suspected 2+ years of
> operation...
>
> However, I'm still willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and
> wait for a couple more days to allow you to react. But if nothing
> comes out of that, I'm sorry to say that I feel obliged to make this
> case public. I know this sounds like blackmailing, and it probably
> qualifies as that, but since I don't have any financial interests
> (apart obviously from the fact that I don't want illegitimate
> "players" to suck money out of the pool) and what I'm asking for is
> fully backed by your terms, I don't have any qualms.
>
> Since I wouldn't want to appear like a fool when/if making this case
> public, I'd have to release all the evidence that I gathered. This
> would mean that not only the bot operator will have a chance to go
> beneath the radar after the screen names have been posted, but also
> that they will get vital information about the clues that gave away
> the bot nature of the "players", allowing them to fix those things
> (particularly true for the timing tells, cf. my mail sent on Sat 4th
> December) and make it so much harder in the future to become
> uncovered again. You'd have to take the full blame for that, as I
> gave you all the time to deal with this.
>
> Please regard this mail, which I know is harsh in its tone, as a
> final call for justice and action. As I've told you before, this
> account isn't my real account on PartyPoker. If nothing comes out of
> this, I'm 100% certain that I will quit the site. I've actually not
> been to keen on playing at all lately due to the fact that I know I'm
> playing against a bot at many of my tables.
>
>
> Best regards,
> Vlad
>
> P.S.: Fwiw, at least some of the infringing accounts had their screen
> name changed in the meantime, or there are completely new accounts.
> When I logged on recently and monitored stats and timing tells of
> some players, I could say with virtual 100% certainty that
> "A_esAreSoFun" and "I_saneIngame" share all the common
> characteristics. I can't be so sure about "T_eLabRat" and
> "H_rdHammer2" simply because I didn't spend much time on observing
> them, but they seemed likely candidates too.
From: alerts [at] partyaccount.com
To: Vladimir Poutine
Sent: Thursday, January 06, 2011 11:39 PM
Subject: Kind Attention. (KMM15688717I15977L0KM)
> Dear Vladimir,
>
> It has been a while since you were appraised of the ongoing
> investigation into your complaint. We understand that the delay might
> have caused inconvenience and made you question our commitment to the
> cause. However, you can be rest assured that the investigation is
> indeed gathering steam and requires a little more time in order to
> arrive at the right decision.
>
> As you would agree, apart from the proof collated by you, it is
> imperative that we conduct our own investigation and gather further
> information on the data submitted. Once we have deliberated over the
> evidence, we will be able to duly communicate the decision. Kindly
> allow us to justify the time you have spent in sending us the
> required information.
>
> This correspondence might not be the answer you were looking for, but
> it is aimed at keeping you informed about the status of our
> investigation and that, a decision will be communicated in good time.
>
> Contact us anytime, we are available around the clock to assist you
> with your account related questions and suggestions.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Rakesh
> Game Fairness & Security Team
>
> Note: Your username and password are confidential information. No one
> from the company will ever ask for your password in a phone call or
> email message. Do not respond to any message or request that asks for
> your password.
>
> *Pay-Pro and PartyCashier are service names of PartyGaming Group
> companies.
>
>
>
>
> Original Message Follows: ------------------------
>
> Hi,
>
> it is now 2.5 weeks ago that I sent you my first, detailed report
> about ongoing poker bot operations on your site, which was followed
> by two more mails containing additional evidence. It is also 2 weeks
> ago that I asked you for a confirmation of initiated investigations,
> which you replied with saying that the sheer amount of evidence
> simply required time to deal with.
>
> I had perfect understanding for that, but fast forward 14 days, I
> must say that I'm very disappointed now to realize that nothing
> happened about this case at all. The bots are still there, playing
> 24/7 as far as I can tell. You didn't contact me back with any
> information about what's going on. I simply can't imagine that
> investigations can take so long when I already provided you with so
> much information that you'd basically just need to verify.
>
> This clearly gives me the impression that you don't really care too
> much about the fact your site is home to a (thriving) bot ring and it
> reminds me of what a friend of mine told me some time ago, when I
> first talked to him about my suspicions: that the poker sites don't
> mind bots too much as long as no customer notices them and complains
> about them. After all, I'd guess that this network of bots must be
> paying at least a low 5-digit figure of rake each and every month.
> That sums up to a nice profit over the suspected 2+ years of
> operation...
>
> However, I'm still willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and
> wait for a couple more days to allow you to react. But if nothing
> comes out of that, I'm sorry to say that I feel obliged to make this
> case public. I know this sounds like blackmailing, and it probably
> qualifies as that, but since I don't have any financial interests
> (apart obviously from the fact that I don't want illegitimate
> "players" to suck money out of the pool) and what I'm asking for is
> fully backed by your terms, I don't have any qualms.
>
> Since I wouldn't want to appear like a fool when/if making this case
> public, I'd have to release all the evidence that I gathered. This
> would mean that not only the bot operator will have a chance to go
> beneath the radar after the screen names have been posted, but also
> that they will get vital information about the clues that gave away
> the bot nature of the "players", allowing them to fix those things
> (particularly true for the timing tells, cf. my mail sent on Sat 4th
> December) and make it so much harder in the future to become
> uncovered again. You'd have to take the full blame for that, as I
> gave you all the time to deal with this.
>
> Please regard this mail, which I know is harsh in its tone, as a
> final call for justice and action. As I've told you before, this
> account isn't my real account on PartyPoker. If nothing comes out of
> this, I'm 100% certain that I will quit the site. I've actually not
> been to keen on playing at all lately due to the fact that I know I'm
> playing against a bot at many of my tables.
>
>
> Best regards,
> Vlad
>
> P.S.: Fwiw, at least some of the infringing accounts had their screen
> name changed in the meantime, or there are completely new accounts.
> When I logged on recently and monitored stats and timing tells of
> some players, I could say with virtual 100% certainty that
> "A_esAreSoFun" and "I_saneIngame" share all the common
> characteristics. I can't be so sure about "T_eLabRat" and
> "H_rdHammer2" simply because I didn't spend much time on observing
> them, but they seemed likely candidates too.
01-07-2011
, 06:34 AM
All sites are not created equal.
