I just tried to put her on a range of hands.

It took some times for FTP to release that. And of course when Sillysal also seems to have confirmed it, then the confiscation of the funds are reasonable.

I said before that I did expect FTP to come out with some sort of evidence. I hope that they will improve in the future when it comes to the art of communication.

I have two questions for Mike Haven:

1) Do you believe that a computer program was being used to make the playing decisions when i played poker at FTP?


2) Do you believe that FTP handled the review of my case in good faith?

Sillysal

How can someone smart enough to create a bot that can beat the stakes SS plays be dumb enough to leave clear timing evidence? Then again if I could see your hole cards I wouldn't play 95/60.

sillysal - Would still be curious as to your explanation of the whole situation/case and/or what all was discussed between you and Mike as well as FT.

It seems you have not been entirely forthcoming with 2+2. Assuming that is correct I have to say it is somewhat forthcoming.

What programs were you using? Why does FT think you were using a bot?
I think you have a fair idea of what exactly you were doing/using that made FT think this but you still seem reluctant to share.
What are your explanations for the other accounts you may have had?


I think you are rapdily coming to the point where you have nothing left to lose by becoming entirely forthcoming anyway.
If you think that the majority of the 2+2'ers would look at the WHOLE truth and determine that you were in the wrong and deserved to have your funds confiscated then I'm guessing the majority would probably be correct.

Since most people are leaning more towards you being guilty of something inappropriate on FT anyway i'm really not sure why it should matter. Just come clean with everything you did and what you believe FT thinks/knows.

She will never come clean. They never do. It is like our jails - they are only full of "innocent" people.

Well Mike, what do you say, this SHOULD be easy?

1.
2.

Oh, B.S.

The very NOTION that we here on some online forum are somehow entitled to thoughts, strategies, intuitions, proprietary facts, methods of impeaching alibi emails, is quite bizzare.

I for one, do not want FTP to disclose all (or even any) of their investigative techniques. Yes, that's correct, not even any of them.

All of these techniques are going to be out there in the wind? To do what? Amuse 2+2 voyeurs peeking in somebody else's window? 'Ratify" some decision? Ratify by whom? For what purpose does this ratification, or non ratification, take place?

Detectives (I can't think of a better word...I tried) need to have some techniques that are not common knowledge. In the 50's we had fingerprints.....in the 60's we had every criminal wiping down the crime scene, so there were no fingerprints. In the 90's we had DNA....and last year's movie, The Departed, had the final shootout shooter with a hospital gown, a hospital headwrap, and hospital footies on his feet, so that no hair, no dust, no fiber, might possibly fall to the ground, and thus no DNA. Hey, it's going to be the style, the next big thing.

And you guys really, really, want FTP to disclose their investigative techniques, eh? To protect your fifty buckaroos? To protect your thousand?
You just positively will not believe that FTP has your best interest at heart, unless you get some clear, concise, answers? And you're not easily pleased (you hombre, you)? Damn. You really are as tough as General Patton, aren't you?

I'll tell you this: I would MUCH prefer to drop my wallet on the floor, in the Flamingo Hotel's casino, than on the street in front of your house. Oh, yeah, you're gonna give me 'the speech'. Surveillance. Big Brother. Remember George Orwell? And you're not gonna put up with THIS, and you're not gonna put up with THAT, and after I 'appreciate' your 'courage', I'm not gonna get that wallet back. But in the Flamingo, I will. Because they have it on tape. Sheesh.

I know the price I pay for visiting the Flamingo. The house has a 5.25% advantage, every time I play roulette (except for one particular bet, which is worse), but more importantly, the Flamingo wants to protect, with security officers, and a security system, my 'ability' to go there and try my luck. I appreciate that. I do believe that my chances of having my pocket picked are less at the Flamingo than on the street. Here's the point: they have MORE invested in a fair game than I do. They spend a lot of money to prove it. So does FTP. So does Absolute Poker (with or without prodding: I'm aware of the story).

I have read all the ninety pages of posts, since this thread started. It took awhile. I suspect that you, gentle reader, have not taken the time to read each post: I recommend it. You will end up here, and then beyond here. So it goes. Some peeps are just not happy, eh? They 'demand' some answers, eh? Or what, actually? Who is going to think what of whom, and, more importantly, what does that mean to YOU? And your money. The safety of your 'ability' to get a fair game, at a disclosed price (rake)?

But I do not want, in spite of what all these 'freedom fighters' (I presume, their label) or 'silly voyeurs' (my label) want, is for the investigative techniques to be aired, for everyone to comment upon. And for the bad guys to adjust to. It can really, really, be quite simple. Until the movies get ahold of it. Or until we air it all, and betch about it, here, in this, and other forums. Think about it: it really used to be a great technique, to say to one guy 'hey, your partner already confessed. We know all about it'...and then, (according to the movies) the suspect would tell the whole story, his version, anyway. Outstanding. But now, of course, we all know this. There are newer movies, aren't there? Newer movies, with scenes that say 'hey, they're gonna put you in a room, and they're gonna tell you, 'we know all about it', and our hero says 'I'm not dumb enough to fall for THAT.'

No. Of course not. It's common knowledge.

Here's what we have: one person complaining about funds being seized and accused of cheating. FTP was gracious (or smart) enough to allow for an independent view of the process, and the results of the investigation. FTP did not need to do that, but they did. At the moment, we have one of our own, Mike Haven, who says (among too many other things) "I have seen it. It's true. The verdict was accurate."

I do believe that my money, or my 'ability' to get a fair game will be lessened if Mike talks more, and increased if Mike talks less. The bad guys will adjust to what they have learned here, in this forum. They will not adjust to what they have not yet learned. I truly hope it's something simple, not outrageously complex, that will trip them up. But I don't want Mike Haven to talk about it, whatever it is.

And most of the questions raised in this forum need not be answered. The process might be examined, but I must assert that the addition of Mr. Haven's examination of the process solved any mystery, as far as I'm concerned. My request is that Mr. Haven not talk about it any more. How did they do that? I don't care to know. I think I'll go play some poker. For real money. And I do believe that I might win.

QFT amen NH TY GG

philies, that was quite a rant. You have some valid points mixed in amongst your one sided argument. If, as you say, you have read all the posts in this thread you will see that I have been leaning in favour of FTP throughout.

My view is that FTP (or any site) will only be locking accounts and investigating play when they have been alerted to suspicious play. It really is the last thing they want to do. There is generally going to be a smoking gun and they need to find out who fired it. That being said, any accused person surely deserves the right to know why their account is suspended and at the end of an investigation should be able to appeal. Surely that is only fair?

Also, much of the problems posters have here is the lack of contact FTP gave in the early stages. Even they agree they failed somewhat in this regard and will improve communication in the future. So hopefully some good has come from this saga.

I agree that FTP should not be divulging all of their fraud techniques but then again an accused player should know what they are accused of and be kept informed of proceedings. As I said, you have some valid points but just ignoring peoples concerns is not the answer. There needs to be a degree of trust between players and the sites. Hopefully, FTP will achieve that because I believe it is an honest site and I have enjoyed playing there in the past and I will do again. Improving their communication is not too much to ask though.

Like the man said, quite a rant and I really don't want to argue any of it with you but we have been lucky enough to have Sillysal come back with just 2 simple questions for Mike Haven, the man who has seen some evidence, and I would just like to see him respond. If this was a Terms of service violation, and they took her money so be it, if she was a bot who could not adjust timing of moves, so be it. And we have another Mike out there, Crazy Mike, did we ever hear a real position from him, did he think she was a bot, he never ratted her out on his site?

Nobody finds it wierd that op claims to never have used pokertracker??? what high stakes player doesnt use pokertracker unless there not even playing.

oh lord, so full tilt finally disclosed that TIMING TELLS is one of the things they use to catch bots. NO WAY!!!! COULDN'T GIVE UP THAT HIGHLY CLASSIFIED INFO BEFORE!

i dont find it weird. i play the same limits she does heads up, and i dont use it often at all. i know others who dont either.

I have not seen the "timing evidence", and now that a world-renowned AI expert, (the consultant is a member of the University of Alberta Computer Poker Research Group), has seen it and adjudged that the data verifies that your physical actions were outside the range of normal human behaviour, I doubt if I ever will.

If FTP and the consultant are telling the truth, and I would find it very hard to be persuaded to think otherwise, then either there is an incredible data error that is being overlooked by both, or, it must be the case that you used a computer programme to make the playing decisions, even though you gave me your own explanations for events.

Therefore, it is not a matter of whether or not I believe it. There comes a time when one just has to accept the opinions of experts who have studied all the available evidence and data as being as close to the truth as it is possible to obtain.

FTP appears to me to have gone overboard with trying to be as fair as possible in having your particular case thoroughly investigated; albeit that they always believed you were guilty, and this may have clouded their own judgement when looking at the data that they rely on normally to assist them in bot detection. On the other hand, the consultant informed me that they were very willing to provide him with any data and answers to questions that he required to come to his own carefully considered decision in the case.

Couple of questions for Sillysal:

1. How long were you using the bot?

2. How did you get away with it for so long?

3. Did you only use a bot at FTP, or are more sites involved?

4. Are bots a bigger problem then we realize?

5. Are they used mostly at HU tables or are they everywhere?

6. What made you think you could get away with it?

I'm sure that we will definitely get the answers to those questions.

I always wondered about this as well.

A review by Darse B. or colleague of him is realiable, if it's not, nothing is.
I only wonder why in such cases you guys don't give stat. confidence with which you believe he/she is a bot. That should not be a big deal (not hard, and nor revelaing hints -- the views I see over here of "not reealing tells how to catch bots" are very simplistic).

I'm sure sillysal won't answer the quetions, so I will, to the best of my knowledge

> 1. How long were you using the bot?
You can approximate this by the number of hands which were posted.

> 2. How did you get away with it for so long?
Hints collected based on statistics need a lot of hands to be reliable. But I also believe some time ago FullTilt didn't cared so much (which is in general wise thing to do).

> 3. Did you only use a bot at FTP, or are more sites involved?
I don't see a reason why any site shouldn't be involved.

> 4. Are bots a bigger problem then we realize?
No. You actually think it's bigger than it actually is.

> 5. Are they used mostly at HU tables or are they everywhere?
They are everywhere, but only HU limit is closed to solved as a game (for other games the ratio of winning/losing bots is approx the same as the ratio of winning/losing non-bot players, that is 80-90% losing). Back to HU limit - this game will be practically dead soon. If it is a bot, or a second PC that runs a program, or a calculator - it's nota big difference. SNG are also going to be havily challenged. All in all - it will take years until any bots effect become visible even for some games only (and bot is irrelevant in the case, it's important if the game is solved. If the player clicks himself, or hires someone to clickfor him, or it's a program that automate the clicking - it doesn't matter).

> 6. What made you think you could get away with it?
She tried to produce maximum effort for the site. People that got ***'ed up try to make maximum damage to the casinos that f& with them. I think this is good - more work and money for guys like Darse, for a work they would enjoy, and they deserve the money.

These are all my opinion and I already proved to be wrong in this thread

I'm convinced. gg FTP.

I honestly don't know what to believe anymore. Both sides have said things to raise doubts in my mind.

Sillysal has apparently lied to us about multi-accounting and various other details. Furthermore, an independent consultant examined the evidence and ruled that her timing was impossible for a human.

That's pretty powerful stuff.

However, some thins aren't sitting right with me. If the main evidence against Sillysal is her timing, that would suggest a bot was manning the controls. However, I played against her on three different sites (including Full Tilt) and noticed a few non-bot-like behaviors. Namely, she chatted and, when losing, she tilted. Regarding her timing, I don't remember it being unusually fast or slow. She just reacted in the time an experienced heads-up player would typically react -- which is usually pretty fast. Therefore, I am a bit suspicious about the "timing similarities", given that we're honestly not dealing with a wide range of possible timing on each street.

Sillysal would have been better off by coming out with all of the details from the start. Many of us, myself included, seem to believe that she's holding back details that could potentially make her look bad -- such as admissions of multi-accounting. She's not running for office here. She's trying to make a case that FTP unfairly shut down her account. If she covers up various details, that makes her just as suspicious as Full Tilt's tight-lipped handling of the situation. Honesty is always the best policy in situations like these. It's very possible that Sillysal is innocent, but given that she has not been completely forthcoming, it's too hard to give her much credit for anything.

Just remembered that she posted this.

sillysal, you can do a lot to help your cause right here.

There are a ton of pictures of that party at this link:

http://www.pokerroom.com/newsroom/ph...es/photos.html

Click on WSOP 2006 Part I. As you'll see, there are several pictures of you, such as pictures 51-53.

Click on "WSOP 2006 Mixed Pictures" , and you'll find yourself in pictures 64-66 (among others).

Given the sheer volume of pictures taken at that party (and the WSOP main event), there must be at least one picture of redgar3/Beatme1/Lisa. Tell us in what picture number we can find her. If you can prove that you really did simply meet her at the '06 WSOP party, your story will become a lot more credible.

In a small way, this vindicates those of us who have long suspected that bots were an epidemic on the major sites. Frankly, I think PS and UB games are also filled with bots. This helps explain, to an extent, why smaller sites are juicier than the big sites.

Philes: I can only assume that you do not entrust any meaningful sums of money to online poker rooms. If you did, you would probably feel the need for balance between the rights of innocent players to be sure that their funds will not be unjustly seized, and insuring that bots are not being used.

I don't need to know why, where, what or how. All I needed to hear is that a real and independent expert (not crazy mike or another high stakes player with an axe to grind) took a look at this situation and determined with a high level of probability that a Bot was used.

Silly Sal: its really not fair for you to ask questions but refuse to answer any. i understand that you say you can't talk because of your lawyer's advice, but this isn't merely a forum for your agenda. If you refuse to add anything beyond a blanket statement of your innocence, I can't see how that is going to advance your cause, at least on this forum.

dan druff, more pics of pokergirlz!