Hey guys. Long time lurker, and I'm sure some of this info is here, but I just can't find it. All help appreciated.

After a long hiatus following the scandals and UIGA, I got back online about a year ago with BOL. I'm a rec player, winning a bit, and having some fun, but realize there's just a ton I don't understand about the merger of technology with on-line play.

On BOL, I routinely see players who according to Sharkscope, and consistent with what I've seen -- play roughly EVERY MTT on the site, EVERY day. That's about 30 MTT/day. They'll play $1.50 buy-in while also playing $110. Are they actually doing this?, or is there some sort of technology assist? And one of these guys (well known player at the site) quite literally has ZERO variance in his Sharkscope chart. It's just straight 45 degrees up.

All insights appreciated.

I know nothing about that site, but some players on other sites (e.g. Stars) will play 30 MTTs at the same time, never mind the same day. There are certainly some (legal) software tools that help with multi-tabling, but some people are just really good at clicking buttons.

Winning players that play tourneys (especially SNGs) with small fields tend to have very straight graphs if they put in high volume. The variance doesn't look so crazy on graphs when sample sizes are large. If you're concerned about a particular player, do a screengrab but blank out his name and post it. Someone with experience of that network will be able to tell you if the graph is suspicious/anomalous.

Thanks for the reply. Here's the chart of one of players I'm talking about. So far as I can tell, all of these are MTTs. (This particular player plays a mere 15/day, every day. https://imgur.com/a/xrMoa

uh .......

BOTS or BOTS.


whats the discussion here? guy asks about some players who freakishly have EXACT EXACT stats over lots of hands in lots of MTTs...and ply an obscene amount of these all day everyday at the same time.


this is simply BOTS, right ?

I must have missed this part.

A thousand-buyin breakeven stretch is no variance to you?

^ This ^. Between tournament 600 and 1500, the player made no profit at all (his total hovered around $6k, but he had a $2000 downswing lasting for about 200 tourneys). The graph looks pretty standard to me. I've seen "swingier" graphs, for sure, but that's just the graph of a typical winning grinder in small-field tournaments.

That's fair. Thanks. To my eye, the absence of more substantial downswings looked unusual, even in the context of a strong upward trend.

well, you didn't really miss it. cuz its not there.

I speed read OP and read sharkscope but thought pokertracker.

rest easy, I will go back to NVG as soon as that pokermania crime drama thread comes to conclusion.

queue Law and Order chime