And the reality is even if a software assistance user had knowledge that this kind of video check was a possibility and took every precaution to make it undetectable, if you're normally regularly looking at charts/something else in some sort of illegal HUD that you can't use during your 70 minute video, there will be very detectable differences that can't just be statistical anomalies.

It's one thing to argue that there might be false positives due to incompetence, but saying that the method is "completely ineffective" is just naive.

But you do have a point, HU Hyper Turbos in particular are just turning into a competition to see who can bot/hybrid/cheat the most effectively and having specific rules on what is and isn't allowed is a pretty big joke. Getting rid of the format completely probably makes the most sense.

BTW tc sorry to hear you've been losing to other regs lately without your charts that gave you a hudge edge

Yep. If a 6-max hyper SNG player's "play after the 3rd level agrees with the output of ICM Nash calculator" stat is 100%, and they can't do it closer than 90%-95% when they are being filmed over 70 minutes then the sample is plenty big enough.

Mixed feelings on this.

When they made the software changes, I was more in line with the camp that said that they were going to be very hard, if not impossible to enforce. I didn't think that made the changes an automatic error though, as many rules Stars has are basically impossible to enforce if someone takes some basic precautions (example, postflop charts, which were always banned and almost nobody was arguing in favor of unbanning, or your neighbor coming over to play on your poker account...).

This type of account review by PokerStars looks like a mechanism that could absolutely detect someone who is breaking these rules. Where I'm a bit concerned, is on who is reviewing these cases, and how much experience they have in understanding if someone is normally using something disallowed normally, but not in the 70 minute video.

If you tell me someone like Noahsd is in charge of these cases, or their appeals, then I think this is an absolutely great move. If the same people that announced these software changes in the first place, the ones that bungled so many instances of communication with players in the last year or two, are in charge of these security reviews, then I think it's a big mistake.

I don't think there is anything really wrong with the mechanism though, it's all about the competence of the people involved in enforcing it.

I thought out one reason why it can be bad for players. If stars want to get rid if these players regardless of them using external help or not, they could use this procedure as excuse to "we ban you but here's your money" since ban without fund withholding require way lower proof to be legit in public opinion.

The first part is probably wrong. TC is by far the most qualified to conclude anything itt afaik, so I'll just say this one more time then defer to what he says. What they are doing is a statistical test. If you went to the hospital for a blood panel and it showed you had dangerously high liver enzyme counts would you want the doctor to go to the parking garage, show the fat chick in the booth a pic of your face, ask her to guess if you drink too much then somehow factor that into the diagnosis? It's a statistical test, there's no place for opinion, even expert opinion. There's a set procedure which if violated invalidates the output making it worthless.

Ruh roh.

They can do that already for any reason I believe.

Banning a player for suspicions of cheating happens already. If it is done widely without any real justification, there will likely be a major outcry.

If we're talking about qualified people that know how to administer a statistical test by comparing 70 minutes of verified honest play with x amount of suspicious play, then yes, I think we would want them doing this.

Q8 example is spot on, if someone at Stars looks and sees that a suspicious player X shoved Q8 30/30 times over the last 3 months, then doesn't shove it at the same stack depth in this video, it would be ashamed if they were banned purely based on that.

If they shove Q8 at one stack, T6 at another, 75 at another, always fold 32o... then take different actions in 70 minutes with all those hands, when they took 100% the same actions each time with them before... then I'm very happy that they have found someone violating the rules with their test.

Those examples are each simplistic and a bit extreme, but if the person in charge of this requires something closer to the second example to close an account and refund money, then I think this is a big security improvement.

It is a lot of power and a difficult task to entrust someone with, which is why I think either side of this is a fair viewpoint to have.

It could be an algorithm as well to determine if someone is not playing consistently, but the quality of that algorithm would depend on who built it.

Yeah, and Monsanto is by far the most qualified entity to conclude anything regarding the safety of GMOs, so we should just defer to what they say.

The truth is nobody who isn't a stars insider is qualified to comment on the validity of the security check because we can only guess what they might be looking for.


This is just wrong. There is a ton of room for opinion regarding what constitutes a well-designed statistical test when we lack complete information.

I worded that poorly. I was getting at the fact that once its designed and the procedures are set you can't have administrators improvising and violating procedures based on gut feelings.

What have you little degenerates done to my beloved formulas

I would never, ever, play on pokerstars if they came to the U.S. with these regulations. Shame on them. Honestly if botting is the problem why are we paying for it. WE pay rake for them to do their job, which they can barely do at a sub-par level. This is seriously disgusting.

Stars support asked me to record a video last summer and I did it.
As a result I resumed playing on PS. I have already written here about it -
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/39.../index126.html
But unfortunately after six months I received another letter from support
I'm still waiting. Hope they are not going to worrit me with video. It's really infuriating

seems legit

pokerstars - 2
belowtail bot v1.0 - 1
belowtail bot v2.0 - 0

i'm more surprised to the fact that he is winning at the tables, than he is a bot lol

From June 2015

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...own_inventions