I saw that one Bob. Thanks. I thought there might be more...... but that is almost close enough to convince me of bots given the other contributions that were made.

Ummmm...which ones? Beatme1? Dean? I'm having trouble finding one relevant to this thread.

I'm sorry I haven't been able to say anything else.

I have been communicating with sillysal and FTP by PM and e-mail. I have been waiting for more than 24 hours for a corrected important spreadsheet, as I pointed out what I believe was a cell formula error for one of the columns, which could have affected a number of columns of statistics, imo. Of course, it is Sunday; or maybe they have serious business to attend to.

Ive never really had a huge opinion either way, but if the total evidence people are basing their conclusion of guilt on in this thread is that stat stuff then maybe im missing something.

As far as i can see, 3 accounts played very similarly. Hold the presses.

This doenst prove botting, this doesnt even prove multiaccounting. In my opinion anyway.

Put it this way, i could pull up PT which has a chunky database of mined hands - then pick out a 2+2er in that database. Then i could search for several accounts with similar stats. Then from this you will all know without a shadow of a doubt that this person is running an AI program and is a cheat. Right?

Again, not saying im taking any side here (i do love playing devils advocate however) - but whilst im sure there is more important "evidence" here what has been posted in this thread doenst come close to being anything.

Gatorade posted in this thread and addressed silly sal directly.

I doubt that this possible error will have any impact on the decision, but it does re-enforce my belief for disclosure and a chance for the accused to rebut any findings

You're right, he did. Where is his correct bot accusation?

Post deleted by Mat Sklansky

surprisingly good pole from a new poster

I'm pretty sure the amount of rake a good heads-up limit player generates does not compensate for the lost rake to the site that the weaker players would have otherwise generated by losing their money slowly in ring games.

Will we ever know for sure either way? Its up to Fulltilt to decide that but I don't expect so. At first, for me, it seemed that Sillysal was genuine and I really wanted to support her. Then cames Mike Haven's post but that alone was not enough to sway me that she was a bot. Then came gehrig posts and that started to sway me more towards a possible bot situation.
At this point it is not possble to to draw a valid conclusion. For this to happen I believe that Fulltilt has to be more forhtcoming with information (which I think they should be able to do without giving away their bot detection "secrets') or this will simply become a "he said she said" situation. As recent months exhibit, for some, it is getting more and more difficult to trust these online poker sites.

MH,

What was wrong with the pole?

*

Edit/MH: I didn't think the choices were good, clear or fair.

Sillysal did you really use these 3 accounts? are they belongs to you or not?
why would he was botting on 3 accounts and not only from the 1...?

Maybe you should actually try doing this and sees what happens. I'll bet you can't find two different LHE players with large sample sizes whose stats match in every respect. I think you'll find that if you look hard enough, player stat profiles in your PT DB are as unique as fingerprints.

Then keep in mind that FTP may have software that can analyze hundreds of additional stats that aren't in PokerTracker. Plus they can see and compare the hole cards. Even if two players both completed 38% of their SBs after two limpers, it's not likely they would both choose the exact same 38%.

Naturally two screennames with the same profile don't have to be bots. They could just be one human with two accounts. That's not even illegal in some cases.

I agree that those stats alone do not prove that OP was cheating/botting, however, i doubt FTP was basing its decision on those stats alone. Remember, that FTP said that it will not divulge much of its information because others would then know how to get around their security.

I know that if i was in OP's shoes i would demand that they present all their proof, but FTP does not operate under US Law and is under no obligation to turn over their findings.

Wow - how lame is this statement.

Whilst I have been defending FTP's handling of this matter I did state that sillysal was entitled to be able to challenge their findings.

Sillysal has had almost universal support here and whether or not her case is being reviewed by a third party this statement smacks of someone who is ungrateful and probably guilty.

For all you posters who have said that FTP should be more forthcoming with information what do you make of this?

that doesn't strike me as lame at all.


sillysal obviously has no obligation to this forum to post. i don't understand the thought process that seems to be along the lines of "frequency of posting is correlated to chance of innocence."

Josem, I agree she has no obligation to post. However, she posted this thread in the first place to gain support. Throughout she has received enormous support and now makes a couple of words posting saying she is not posting any more.

There appears so much double standards. FTP get blasted for not making public their actions in a private dispute. Then the person who makes the issue public decides they are not going to post anymore.

No thank you's for all the support or any updates. Nobody forced sillysal to post in the 1st place the least she could have done was kept this forum informed. But eh, there can only be one villian in your eyes here and thats FTP. I understand.

i would imagine that sillysal's comment that she won't post means that she won't post again until the independent person looks over it.

i don't think there's anything unreasonable about not commenting while you have someone independently investigate it - after all, that's more or less the rules of the australian court system.

more obviously, the time and resources required to post on here and keep updated and respond to the trivialities is huge.

p.s. also, given that i am routinely abused for being a shill for online poker operators, and you're now implying that i am excessively harsh on an online poker operator, i think that my balance is probably about right.

That may well be the case. In fact, this is why I felt FTP needed time at the start. They did not want to comment whilst their investigation was proceeding.

Come on, seriously you don't believe a few sentences whould go amiss in view of the support shown here.

I think we would all like to ensure the correct outcome is achieved here and that in future we feel we can defend ourselves if a site decides we have cheated.

The statement was still lame. If I had received the kind of support she had I would at least acknowledge that. How about:

"Guys, thank you for all the support during this investigation. I have now been accused of cheating and wish to defend myself and clear my name. The evidence is being reviewed by an independent party and I am unable to provide any further details at this stage. I will of course keep you updated when I have further news to report. Once again thank you."

There, that didn't take long. Sillysal, please cut and paste if you want to.

This is not a boxing fight. I do not choose side. I want to see facts, evidence, proof.

It's very simple. FTP state Sillysal as a cheater. Sillysal deny. FTP refuse to provide evidence.

If this was a personal thing between Sillysal and FTP, I would not care at all.

I just see very bad implications for onlinepoker. Technical tools, poker tracker, boots, AI in what ever form there are will probably not be a lesser problem in the future. And if this tools are so effective (I don't know if they are; I have never used anything, not even pokertracker), they will probably change the landscape radically. Player will use them in masses (like they use pokertracker today) and the similarity in winning playing style will create users with very similar statistic.

As a consequence, to provide statistic which show similarities between different players will not make any sense at all.

I have no problem if FTP nails cheaters. In fact I would love to see it. But I have a lot of problem if they nail cheaters and no one know how they did it and no one know if they really did. This create an unpleasant atmosphere where we just can speculate over how they did it and conspiracy theories will explode; aswell as fear, that maybe you will be the next to be accused. That atmosphere is very negative for the legitimacy of onlinepoker.

FTP should consider to make there findings public.

Obviously not simple enough for you. FTP have not refused to provide evidence. They just havn't made their findings public on this forum.

Evidence has been supplied to sillysal otherwise she would not be able to have a third party investigate on her behalf.

sillysal has since decided to stop posting. Draw your own conclusions.

I do not believe this to be the case. As far as I am aware, the respected third party has easy access to FTP personnel.

this has gone on wayyyyyyyyy to long.

Thanks for that correction.

Mike, in your opinion should we now just await further input from eithier you, sillysal or FTP? Speculation is getting us no further.