Bot solution.

[DeadMoneyDad]

Originally Posted by DblEntendre

Why don't you just state what you are getting at here. You do not like how FTP handled the situation and you want someone to pay for it (now and in the future) and affiliates just happen to be next on the food chain.

You admit that affiliates do not have the tools to monitor their players for potential, but you still want them to do it anyway and hold them responsible.

Wow. Just, wow.

My comments were directed at rake back affiliates in this instance only. I forgot how broad this forum is, and how broad the affiliate "economy" really is.

My suggestions are based on my on personal knowledge only of the limited amount of information I get from my own rake back affiliate. But even that limited amount of information gives me some idea of the accounting that goes on behind the scenes.

For example I never knew and many rake back earners don't know that FT charges a player a portion of the prize pool of any freeroll public or private. MTT's and regular rake are accounted for in two separate columns. I have a fee's charge for making a deposit. I have yet to make a withdraw but given my experience so far I'd bet there is an accounting charge for that as well.

Given the nature of the flow of information I would suspect that the amount of detail is greater for my rake back affiliate than the information they provide me.

Given all of that it seems the "poker accounting" is much more detailed than most people imagine, or it is on FT to a degree much greater than I imagined.

So if bots play something close to break-even poker and bank the rake, just given the limited information I have from my account I imagine I could spot the difference between a "casual player" and a bot almost with out effort.

Now getting in-between a truly dedicated multi-table grinder and a bot will be much trickier if the amount of rake back affiliate information is limited to only what I've personally seen. I'll admit I am a casual player. I looked into software enhanced with 24/7 data mined computerized multi-tabling grinding. I gave it serious consideration. Personally if my figures are even 1/2 way correct and my wife finds out I didn't do it I'm a dead man.

Don't take this the wrong way any multi-table grinders but I don't call that poker. I'm new to poker, but old school in my poker philosophy; if you can do it in a live event it has no place in my on-line game.

So if a number of multi-tabling software assisted data based HUD players get caught up in this mess and get their payments delayed I really don't care if it only catches one or two bots a month. The affiliates will have to make their own marketing decisions on what is best for on-line poker in general.

Personally I think the grinders are as much as a problem to the on-line industry as the bots, but currently grinding is legal. Well depending on how you read FT's T&C, but that isn't the issue.

The issue is some sort of legislation affecting on-line poker will come one day. Some time before that day their will be hearings to decide the regulatory burden placed on the industry in exchange for the licensing rights to once-again accept unrestricted "legal" US deposits. At that time the industry and the affiliates will make at least one claim that the industry is self regulating.

I'll tell you now as someone interested in that future legislation I am basing my decision on how much credibility FT and the industry really has on how it reacts to these types of issues now. Do not tell me then, how you are willing to stop whatever type of "made for TV sob story" the anti-gambling folks will trot out with some future computerized filter or highly developed security. I want to see action now.........

Or at least show a little concern for the future of on-line poker.

For you other casual players out there, who don't think this issue affects you, just consider who is ultimately going to pay for those fees, the cost of the regulatory burden, and any newly implemented filters or security!

If you think that FT or any one else in the poker "economy" is suddenly going to get charitable, you have a bad beat coming.........


D$Dfficeffice" />>>

[PPP]

"how it reacts to these types of issues now."

What issues?

It's like somebody ripped out the first 100 pages in a book. WTF is this thread supposed to be about?

[DblEntendre]

Originally Posted by PPP

"how it reacts to these types of issues now."

What issues?

It's like somebody ripped out the first 100 pages in a book. WTF is this thread supposed to be about?

I think he is not happy with how FT handled an issue where they refunded players that lost money to some bots. He also believes that affiliates should be held responsible to detect bot accounts, even though he admits affiliates do not have the tools to do it and based on his self-admitted limited knowledge of what data affiliates get.

He also seems to be trying to weave in his distaste for multi-tabling players into this and is more than willing to throw them under the bus in order to catch a bot account.

I just hope that he is not a part of any group that is working to get online poker "legalized" in the U.S. He would just cause more problems and be a detriment to the process.

[PPP]

"He also seems to be trying to weave in his distaste for multi-tabling players into this..."

Blame it on Nixon.

Can we not feed the trolls and delete this now?

[DeadMoneyDad]

Originally Posted by DblEntendre

I think he is not happy with how FT handled an issue where they refunded players that lost money to some bots. He also believes that affiliates should be held responsible to detect bot accounts, even though he admits affiliates do not have the tools to do it and based on his self-admitted limited knowledge of what data affiliates get.

He also seems to be trying to weave in his distaste for multi-tabling players into this and is more than willing to throw them under the bus in order to catch a bot account.

I just hope that he is not a part of any group that is working to get online poker "legalized" in the U.S. He would just cause more problems and be a detriment to the process.

I knew mentioning my personal opinion about grinder would be an issue, but since I use the same user name eveywhere someone would ask eventually.

Please don't misunderstand I feel the poker sites are the one who have the ultimate and primary responsibility for all cheating and fraud issues.

But in any situation where a player intentionally plays the game to maximixe their rack back payments with total disregard for winning in their main account I feel at least the rake back affiliate should be on board with doing what ever they can to the limit of thier ability.

I posted my questions and suggestions in this forum because my knowledge is limited to my rake back affiliate and how it interacts with FT. But because they make all rake back payment to FT accounts monthy, their position is if FT wants to delay payment on any "unusal account" activity based on the reports they get from FT, that is fine with them. Since they only do rakebacks on FT they are a minority in the rake back affiliate program.

I'm sorry I'll be involved in the future legislation, if only as a casual recrecational poker player, politics is my main job.


D$D

[xpertadvice4u]

It will be much harder to legalize poker in the U.S. if the industry appears to turn a blind eye to the level of cheating that appears to be going on.

There was a post at 2+2 suggesting that the rooms turn a blind eye to the majority of bots because they are good for the "ecology" - due to the fact that most bots lose, or just churn the rake over and over.

Jeremy - himself- has mentioned how much colluding goes on in online poker *in general* in his blog post regarding the AP allegations.

This is kind of like steroids in Sports.

Either open it up, and let everybody use bots/steroids, or make it harder for people to get away with it.

And, yes, I am aware that there are special sessions on security and detecting cheating at every gaming conference just about.

So, it is not like they are doing nothing....

It is just that when the time comes for regulation, people will be remembering these various "scandals" and making an issue out of them.

As far as making affiliates accountable, affiliates are already accountable and can have their earnings held back under the "fraud" regulations of pretty much every affiliate agreement....even if they did not know fraud was going on.

[DeadMoneyDad]

Originally Posted by xpertadvice4u

It will be much harder to legalize poker in the U.S. if the industry appears to turn a blind eye to the level of cheating that appears to be going on.

There was a post at 2+2 suggesting that the rooms turn a blind eye to the majority of bots because they are good for the "ecology" - due to the fact that most bots lose, or just churn the rake over and over.

Jeremy - himself- has mentioned how much colluding goes on in online poker *in general* in his blog post regarding the AP allegations.

This is kind of like steroids in Sports.

Either open it up, and let everybody use bots/steroids, or make it harder for people to get away with it.

And, yes, I am aware that there are special sessions on security and detecting cheating at every gaming conference just about.

So, it is not like they are doing nothing....

It is just that when the time comes for regulation, people will be remembering these various "scandals" and making an issue out of them.

As far as making affiliates accountable, affiliates are already accountable and can have their earnings held back under the "fraud" regulations of pretty much every affiliate agreement....even if they did not know fraud was going on.

Well then I guess the affiliates are already off the hook!

Now if we can just convince FT or another major to take pro-active steps to keep some future regulation to a minumum. Heck I'll do all i can and if they want they can write off any costs to good will or advertising.


D$D