Glad you weighed in here Juk.

And this is exactly my point - under the current status-quo, these realtime advisory apps *are* allowed.

I do nnot believe this is a good thing - for reasons you state - but I believe it is key to these cases.

If there is a chance you can have your funds confiscated / account closed for using these - it must be made clear.

If it is fine to use these sort of programs - well, FTP better have much more significant evidence than "similar stats".

Where the line is drawn is currently very unclear, it must be addressed.

This is an interesting field. Particularly for games which may be prety much "solved" with current hardware (SNGs, HU Limit, Shortstack NLHE)

Are we to really consider that the primary problem with bots is their expert play? Why not therefore punish winners?

This is probably a subject for a different thread, lol

Re-timing: http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=0&Number=6843913&an=0 &page=0

I'd hate to be accused of being a bot

actually i think ur right

i took it for granted just from the fact that the stats were posted that daurgman was the same as pokergirl/grego, but it's clear that pokergirl/grego/beatme play the same which is unlike any other regular.

My post was more based on the realtime ICM softweare Juk linked to rather than the nlnut threads.

My point being, if one can legitimately write a strategy on paper and follow it - with this being allowable - then there is no difference in automating that strategy retrieval via software.

Take for example a full ring NL setminer "bot".

Written on paper (or memorized):

"PRE FLOP: play all pocket pairs & AK following 5/10 rule. If unopened, raise yourself.

POST FLOP: If TPTK or set, bet/bet/bet else check fold"

This bot will win $$$ (slowly). Given 27% rakeback, it will certainly profit.



Does it really matter if the human reads from paper / memory or an on screen display? I say NO.

Does it matter if the human need not be present / able to click buttons fast enough? HELL YES.

that is the real danger of botting, not their play but the fact that their volume of play is limited by a human's ability to follow instructions / not tilt.

some PT screen shots









the daurgman shots are from the last few months only

Leader your point falls down when you consider the two people have likely been playing a different cross section of people.

It's completely possible. You're judgment, as someone that has played with these players, is much more convincing to me then a bunch of almost of the same stats.

Leader,

It seems as if this new batch of bots learned from their old mistakes and are taking precautions. It's well known now that the sites (and many concerned players too) are making stat comparisons as a way of identifying potential bots.

It would be very easy to make the bot configurable so that stats don't converge exactly, even though the underlying logic is essentially the same. Think, for example, of making small adjustments to stealing and defending ranges that will have very little impact on your bottom line.

from those screens i just posted the most curious stat is the check flop after pre flop raise stat. checking 12% is very uncommon

I agree - If the sites are clearly allowing any type of realtime advisor application (even the output from a pseudo-optimal LHE HU bot) then stats are not in anyway helpful in deciding if a player is using automated software or not.

I bumped my old thread to see if it sparks any new discussion about this.

Juk

I believe I pointed that out in the OP. However, no one knows the nature of that variation or how much effect it has. The point of the stats is that it shows that these players are the same. I think most people that understand how these stats converge would be uncomfortable with that conclusion. That is not to say it necessarily shows the opposite because of the number of factors that effect the variation.

theres three groups of players

1) the old school bots which were really obvious to spot and all got banned a long time ago except daurgman
2) the new bots which are trickier to find and seem to play a little different from the old bots
3) the accounts used by the bot maker/buyer who is a competant but not very good player.

i dont think the bots ever ran on the third group

theres a stat profile for each group and all the accused accounts fit in smugly into one of the three. pretty much nobody else has a stat profile that looks much like those three

This was a bad way of putting what I meant here. These players could easily be the same person. The stats posted by MH however are not good evidence of this.

[/IMG]



rooster, daurgman and cenizo have never played each other in my database. two of them have played me and i'm the best, and the one that hasn't has played other big winners.

man this is easy, i haven't even bothered to look in my database the last couple months for more bots

Yes? I'm about to deposit at either Stars or Full Tilt and I really was leaning toward FT because of the rakeback. FPP?? I don't want anything out of some online store. I want cash.

Anyway, now I don't know what to do...

I agree with this. Just looking at PokerAcademy's "Sparbot" it's obvious how this could be accomplished. Basically they created two different "Sparbots":

a) The first "Sparbot" has no preference for choosing a fold, call or raise action in any given state.

b) The second "Sparbot" uses the idea that humans tend to make the most mistakes when faced with aggressive play so if both a call and a raise action have the same EV, then it will always choose the raise, etc.

The two models play quite differently, yet both are still approximating the NE solution and I guess would have quite different stats. You can then combine the mixed F/C/R output (ie: probability triples) of the two systems using a weighted average (eg: 30% SparbotA + 70% SparbotB) to create all sorts of different "hybrid" bots.

Juk

Yes, obviously that evidence alone is not good at all. It is suggestive though and I am sure used by FTP only as a starting point to determine accounts that need further examination. That's my guess anyway.

You can buy cash from the FPP store.

You know offhand what percent rakeback the cash rewards would turn out to be? My guess is not very high but I'm not sure.

You can? Link?

Jeff

nm

Should this be taken to some Stars thread instead?
We're still talking about sillysal and bots and FT's professionalism and stuff like that.

http://www.pokerstars.com/vip/gold/fpp/

For example, 25K FPP = $285

Depends on what games you play. there are many threads in this forum debating the % values. Generally between 20%-40% for a reasonably high volume player (after attaining SuperNova status). Potentially >100% if you believe OnlinePro and play 1/2 FR limit games.

http://www.pokerstars.com/fpp/store/...l/vip-bonus-1/

I just found the post explaining how this was accomplished (see here):

Juk