However, it seems to me that you’re quite a bit out of touch / rather naïve concerning this BOT issue.
1) Support.
You obviously won’t take shot at them but during the 6 months of my correspondence I can assure you that at no point it seemed to me that the management had any asset in its team that would be competent enough to even grasp the BOT problematic.
And they clearly won’t take measures to change that – it would cost them time and money - because they can’t grasp how this matter is of the utmost importance.
As I told them, the 2 pillars of a poker site: / Guarantee the players’ funds are safe.
/ Guarantee the integrity of the games.
2) Your view on BOTS and botting in general.
It is at best outdated. The fact that you go as far as to say that collusion is a higher threat than botting is astonishing.
You probably should check some threads about it on 2p2 like:
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/28/internet-poker/888poker-safe-haven-bots-1554591/?highlight=
Or any threads about individual Site / network in the “Internet poker” section and you will see all the BOTS spotted that did get banned through players action and, sadly, all of those who do run wild to this day.
You seem as well to fall into the trap of dismissing BOT issue by saying that good players can beat them. It does not matter.
The fact that good players can still beat – actual – BOTS is irrelevant. The problem of them being losers or not pre-RB against a tougher competition is not the problem at hand. The issue being that they are winning against the RECS and therefore hitting the liquidity of each site.
In doing so, they hit by ricochet every player: top / good / BE / bad ones.
Now, you are as well at best quite naïve if you don’t think that botting is not making huge improvements each month goes by, integrating results of offline work using solvers (and I’m only talking about the public ones there) that are now available for everyone to work on their game.
When the day comes where public computers will be able to run solvers in real time, it will be the end for everyone. Online poker would be dead af as online chess for money is now.
The fight against BOTS must be taken place now or it will be all over in a few years. That means that each site needs to invest a lot of resources to fight this plague.
3) BOTS at hand on Betcoin.
You’re right that if you use only stats then you need a huge sample size for each account. However, if you read my post I have been quite clear about the fact that I did not use sole stats to spot them.
Quote
The accusation of them being BOTS is not a wild speculation, it is relaying on:
/.Stats on key points
/.Sizings
/.Timing tells
/.Antics at the tables.
Each alone not being enough (tho, the stats converging on a lot of key points over a large sample size is enough but you need to have a big DB), altogether them using the same based BOT is an evidence.
I would not go into specifics as I did with Betcoin management because I certainly do not want to help the BOT maker to tweak it and render it harder to spot.
/.Stats on key points
/.Sizings
/.Timing tells
/.Antics at the tables.
Each alone not being enough (tho, the stats converging on a lot of key points over a large sample size is enough but you need to have a big DB), altogether them using the same based BOT is an evidence.
I would not go into specifics as I did with Betcoin management because I certainly do not want to help the BOT maker to tweak it and render it harder to spot.
If I go too much into specifics, new accounts will pop-up in the next month and I would have to find other BOTS failures to spot them. Rinse / repeat.
My goal, as I already said, is to raise awareness about the issue. If you’re a competent player you probably already had your doubts, if you’re more a rec player then you just have no clue about what’s going on.
Once I spot them, I don’t play them anymore.
If everyone is ready to do the same and create new tables instead of the ones where the BOTS are playing, it would fix the issue by itself. Just a bandage on a more broader issue, indeed, but that’s the best we can come up with as players if Betcoin management do not intend to act.
What I can bring as a beginning of proof by sole stats - as I think the BOT maker would have a hard time changing that unless rewriting everything on how it plays its ranges - is the fact that the 3 of them seem to have a WAY HIGHER Agg Freq. OTT than any other reg. This stat is gonna as well converge faster than some others.
The BOT at hand seems to be a variation of this one:
Quote
I am not the only one who is saying that, Lessu is much competent than me and he already proved that those users are bots.
They are all big winners and they have overaggressive stats, they are not strictly table selecting and often they play 3 or 4 handed vs regs.
I am big winner on 100/400 also and i cant believe that someone without great table selection, on 888 where is huge rake, is taking so much money with so much aggression.
They all have identical stats, aggression turn frequency 45-50, iso bb vs sb limp over 70%, flop bet vs missed cbet IP 75% and stab turn OOP 80%. And they are not nits, they play 28/23, 29/21...
I am playing these game for years and i've never saw any winning reg from nl20 to nl600 with turn aggression nowhere near 40.
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showpost.php?p=50432578&postcount=16930They are all big winners and they have overaggressive stats, they are not strictly table selecting and often they play 3 or 4 handed vs regs.
I am big winner on 100/400 also and i cant believe that someone without great table selection, on 888 where is huge rake, is taking so much money with so much aggression.
They all have identical stats, aggression turn frequency 45-50, iso bb vs sb limp over 70%, flop bet vs missed cbet IP 75% and stab turn OOP 80%. And they are not nits, they play 28/23, 29/21...
I am playing these game for years and i've never saw any winning reg from nl20 to nl600 with turn aggression nowhere near 40.
Confirmed by Lessu (who is quite the authority when it comes down to the fight against BOTS) who also said that he already found 2 different profiles for that particular BOT.
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showpost.php?p=50433329&postcount=16932
My sample size is way too small for the other stats, BUT for the Agg. Freq. OTT, which again should converge faster, I can hint that for all the 3 accounts suspected the number is over 50%.
Filters on: 4-6 players (so that HU and 3handed stats do not interfere in the aggression results).
Durrr (548 hands and 66 occurences for that particular stats)
http://imgur.com/gni1qyv
8microman (very small sample size only 133 hands and 19 occurences)
http://imgur.com/79EUH3m
Duremar22 (376 hands and 41 occurences)
http://imgur.com/0emNvBm
I am sure some regs got a WAY bigger DB.
They can fact check what I am saying and do see for themselves if indeed this particular stat converge to something hovering 50% over a larger sample size.
Then they just have to take the winning regs that they know for sure are human at the stakes in question (50NL to 200NL) either on BTC or FIAT sites and try to find any of them with such high Agg. Freq. OTT.
They probably won’t find any, even at 40+% let alone around 50%.
The fact that the 3 accounts suspected ALL HAVE this super high Agg. Freq. OTT is quite telling.
