I'm going to chime in completely out of left-field here, but heads-up limit poker seems to me to be a game where an expert player does his very best to impersonate a robot, and that the reason why you may be seeing such "similar stats" is because the game theory of heads-up limit has almost been completely solved.

I mean, imagine the FTP crew looking at a top-level chess tourney.. OMG so many of the games start the same way! They must be chess computers, one and all!

No online poker site has any effective barrier method of preventing bots from playing poker. Bot security is built around the law enforcement model: you can do it, but you may be caught and punished.

Thus when you speak of security through obscurity you actually have the roles reversed. The botters are the ones that are trying to secure their computers so that no trace of botting can be detected. FTP is in the role of hacker/spy trying to break through the botters' security system and expose them.

Hackers and spies look for holes in their opponent's security. When they find a hole they exploit it as long as they can. Eventually the hole is exposed and closed. It should go without saying that "obscurity" is a fundamental tool for the successful hacker. Publicly announcing a security hole that you are exploiting is ridiculous.

Can't the sites set up some tables for bots to play at? They can openly play other bots or real players who choose to sit at designated bot tables.

That is enough for me to seriously doubt FTP's integrity on the issue. While I don't have anything more than a passing interest one way or the other (I do not now, never have and never will play for money on FTP) and will never know with any degree of certainty what the actual case was, the offer to go and play while absobing all the cost of the above is enough 'probable cause' to suggest innocence.

FTP simply could not afford to have her show up and play like her stats. I will concede that given the number of hands required to have statistical meaning, it would be more than a two day operation.

I'm out of popcorn again but looking for something else to entertain me now. This thread is pretty much finished.

Should Full Tilt reveal their detection techniques? Of course!

Answer this: assuming online poker is legal, and therefore sites were hosted in the United States, and the same situation re: SillySal went to court--wouldn't the host site have to reveal the facts of their case? Of course they would.

But not in a dictatorship. You see Full Tilt has said there is an overwhelming probability. Big deal. You can't confiscate 47K over that. Period. You know how many innocent people are in prison based on overwhelming probability?

My feeling now is I don't care if she used a bot or not. A 47K confiscation is not a fit punishment. Since Full Tilt has remedies in place to detect bots, and they also are able to return the 47K to its rightful owners, then they also (or should) have the ability to determine exactly when and where SillySal used a bot and to what degree. They would know exactly how much money she won botting and how much she won otherwise. Confiscate the relevant amount if you must, but not the whole 47K.

Sue em SillySal. Push this as far as you can. Make them prove it in a court of law.

Man, I can't disagree with this more.

Have you ever played live poker with a bunch of fish while they're talking about internet-poker.
So many say they will never touch it because it's all rigged and/or a bunch of bots.

So many times somebody new who knows nothing about internet-poker finds out that I play full-time I end up getting asked, "How do you know you're even playing real people? Man, I would never do that. You just know that they're out to take your money."


It's the fish and the total noob's who are SUPER paranoid of bots and your hole-cards being seen by those who have the special program, etc etc.

Bob,

The point I am trying to make is there is a world of difference between these two examples - bots and cheaters.

Fish do not care about playing bots imo - see Jbrennans video poker analogy above, or think of the people who pay good money for "WSOP 2007: XBox 360" and so on.

Fish may talk of bots, but only in the context that they are being cheated. Most fish I meet are far more concerned with a scummy site outright stealing there money (lol???) or being cheated by house players / collusion etc. Is this not your experience? When they talk of rigged - they are meaning the SITE is rigging it against them in favour of their preferred players, who may be "house bots"?

say: "How do you know you're even playing real people?" response: "I don't, and it does not matter. If I can beat a player, I don't care if they are real or not, their money is just as good. If I find myself against a player that I cannot beat - I don't care if they are real or not, I switch tables to find players I can beat".

Ser4iously, if you are beating up a table full of fish - do you even pause to consider how many of them may be bots?

Ok fwiw I am in contact with Gerald Boyle for those who dont know who he is , he was Jeffrey Dhamers/ Mark Chmuras criminal defense attorney. I was interested in knowing what if anything a US player on the net could do in this situation. He didnt get into great detail as hes a busy man but NOT MUCH. Internet gambling is illegal in the US. If you knowingly ingage in crimanal activities and are defrauded , you have very few legal rights. He said to advise against trying US courts, as you might find an attorney here who might take the case but in more cases than not it will cost you more in legal fees than the little or anything you would get back. The only alternative is to fight them in their country..But most of these offshore holding companies have so many ways to hide ..it.ll cost you more just to find who you really can sue. Since he didnt know more about Canadas laws he couldnt go much farther. Sorry this isnt incouraging.

"He didnt get into great detail as hes a busy man but NOT MUCH. Internet gambling is illegal in the US. "


Having defended Dahmer does not make him an expert on the UIGEA or the legality of internet-gambling in the U.S.
IOW, there are many people who disagree with his assertion including many lawyers.
Although his is a popular misconception that I'm sure is shared by many other lawyers who know virtually nothing about internet-gambling.

Is it your contention that Internet gambling is Legal in the USA?

Is it your contention that Internet gambling is illegal in the USA?

I think that the correct statement is: "Internet gambling is not illegal in the USA"

Either your keyboard is missing some letters or you are using some alternative alphabet.

Suppose this is the daily fairy tale...

Can you not post in a coherent manner?

To whom is that comment addressed?

QFT.

People really need to pay attention and take note of the fact that the new forum software does not show who you are replying to. If you are not replying to the previous post, you need to either quote the post you are replying to, or you should address your post to the person being replied to.

In this case, I assume our new all-star poster daisybreezey is being addressed. Hopefully he/she (daisy) improves in a hurry or bores of posting here, because his/her posts are like fingernails on a blackboard right now.

i never said you couldnt do anything it depends i guess on how much u are willing to go with it..every one has legal rights depends case to case..i just asked a broad question to him didnt get into details of anyone in piticular...some people might need to know just asked his office a question...they called back its free to consullt a lawyer and i happened to have groomed his newfies , not meant to be legal advise to anyone.everyone here that gambles on the net fears that something like this could happen to them .

daisybreezey

Ty for the tip. Quite right about who I adressed. "She's" the new star...

qpw: explain what you mean by coherent. Do I miss something? Are you levelling me?

Am I the only one that would like to see sillsal and daisy get it together?

lol...great idea

This thread is getting out of line but as an alternative to your suggestion I think daisybreezey and qpw has a higher entertainment value...

How difficult is it for people to become an expert player?
How difficult is it to clone an expert bot?

The innocent man (or woman) has nothing to hide. They want all the facts out in the open, so as to shame their false accusers and prove them wrong.

Sillysal apparently does not want all of the facts out in the open. This makes her position (and innocence) highly questionable.

For example, I asked Sal a simple question that she seems to have purposely ignored. She claims to have met fellow accused botter BeatMe1 (also coincidentally female, also coincidentally originated from Pokerroom) at the 2006 WSOP Pokerroom party.

There are tons of pictures of that party on their site, including many of Sillysal herself.

I asked her to point us to a picture of BeatMe1. Of course I got no response to that. I think that's very possibly because she made up the story of meeting BeatMe1 at that party -- and perhaps they have some association that we aren't supposed to know about.

She is also guilty of multi-accounting. That much is quite clear. However, Sal won't explain what other accounts she used, nor will she explain why she did it. Again, it's a strange information blackout that an innocent person is unlikely to engage in.

There's something very wrong with this situation, and something very fishy about Sillysal's story.

I'm all for protecting fellow poker pros from the heavy-handed tactics of online poker sites, but it looks like we're dealing with someone here who hasn't been forthcoming and may very well be guilty. I say we give Full Tilt a pass on this one.

More than you cited, even. She said she passed along to the mods all of her stats and evidence, "even the bad stuff." What bad stuff? I also believe that the mods are not out to railroad anyone and will judge the situation fairly, so it's worth noting what side of this they came out on.

I've spent days lurking through this thread and I myself went from thinking "those bastards at FT!" to "looks like I was wrong about them (here)."

If she is a cheater, I'd say she realizes the importance of rallying people to your side while things are being decided to assist your cause. Even the FT spokesposter, at first, was dealing with her very sympathetically and apologetically.

Edited to add:


This isn't unilaterally true. Someone accused but innocent of, I don't know, corporate money laundering, might want to supress facts that would absolve them but also reveal they are a low-level drug dealer. (Just an example. If you don't like it, I am sure you can think of another one).

But I think in this case, it's true, since I would think the scope of Full Tilt's investigation wouldn't reach beyond poker and her dealings with Full Tilt and other Full Tilt players.