Chat Cheats?

#36 05-01-2008, 4:32 AM

Well zachvac, looks like to me you got this whole online thing figured out. No one cared about bots, multi-accounting, selling accounts to pros late in tournaments, and let's not forget about Absolutes insider scam, until it was brought out into the open. This online poker is just all roses and blue skys.

#37 05-01-2008, 5:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zachvac

That is amazing. That's my goal by the summer, not to be at that point in profit, but to be good enough that I can profit close to that.

But the amazing part isn't the 10k in a year, the amazing part is that's only 16,615 hands. Now that may seem like a lot, but that thread is a video of him 6-tabling. If he played every day of the year (probably not, but read on) that's only 45 hands per day. Even single tabling that's little more than half an hour. And 6-tabling? 8 hands per table? That's just over an average of 10 minutes per day. So sure he probably didn't play 365 days in a the year, but even at once a week that's about an hour per session. I don't know how many tables he usually plays, but even at 1, that's 6 hours a week.

IIRC from his blog he's in school now, but that win rate is more than enough to make a living playing full time. Even if 99% of this was single-tabling, multiply that by 6 to get 36 hours a week (that leaves 4*52 = 208 hours vacation at actually working 40 hours a week, or 5.2 weeks of vacation), that comes out to 60k a year. And then throw in the fact that he probably is multi-tabling, and winning at that rate full time is making 6 figures a year. This is why I question people who say that you have to play at least $10/$20 to make a living at poker. Maybe that's true live, but when you can play multiple tables and play as well as some of the people do here, you don't need to cheat or play high stakes.

Sorry, I messed up here somewhere. I'm averaging about 80 hands/hour, so I tested that figure, and at 6 BB/100 hands ($6 at those stakes), that's 0.8*6*40*50 = $9,600 per year full time single tabling, no idea where I messed up the math getting 60k. OK, I figured it out, thought he made 10k, but he actually made 1k lol. This still means if he is 6-tabling that full time puts him at $57,600. Not too shabby for $50NL.

#38 05-01-2008, 5:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by quads

Well zachvac, looks like to me you got this whole online thing figured out. No one cared about bots, multi-accounting, selling accounts to pros late in tournaments, and let's not forget about Absolutes insider scam, until it was brought out into the open. This online poker is just all roses and blue skys.

The burden of proof is on you. I have presented logical problems as to why a collusion team would do better by just going and working on their own. Multiple accounts hurts mainly the poker site, mainly because of bonuses but that's it. Bots hurts no one unless you think a computer can beat you at poker. Absolute was not a scam, it was a security flaw, and then they refused to see when there was actual proof. There is no actual proof that a collusion team can make any kind of profit (at least not that I've seen). The absolute scandal had support behind it. You just have a "well I know it happens, and just remember not everyone is honest" argument. The burden of proof is on you in this argument, until you can prove that not only collusion COULD work, but that it DOES work and is being done now, no one will take your claims seriously. Of course if it could work your best plan would be to start one up on your own. Get a team of your own, collude away, and if it works you know how reluctant us idiots are to accept conspiracy theories. Call me back when you're making 15k a year (even though as mentioned, this is not a lot. In fact it's 5k short of the poverty line for a family of 4. That's right, if you tried to support your family with this, you would also be considered not having enough on your own to actually live).

#39 05-01-2008, 7:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zachvac

The burden of proof is on you. I have presented logical problems as to why a collusion team would do better by just going and working on their own. Multiple accounts hurts mainly the poker site, mainly because of bonuses but that's it. Bots hurts no one unless you think a computer can beat you at poker. Absolute was not a scam, it was a security flaw, and then they refused to see when there was actual proof. There is no actual proof that a collusion team can make any kind of profit (at least not that I've seen). The absolute scandal had support behind it. You just have a "well I know it happens, and just remember not everyone is honest" argument. The burden of proof is on you in this argument, until you can prove that not only collusion COULD work, but that it DOES work and is being done now, no one will take your claims seriously. Of course if it could work your best plan would be to start one up on your own. Get a team of your own, collude away, and if it works you know how reluctant us idiots are to accept conspiracy theories. Call me back when you're making 15k a year (even though as mentioned, this is not a lot. In fact it's 5k short of the poverty line for a family of 4. That's right, if you tried to support your family with this, you would also be considered not having enough on your own to actually live).

You must be kidding me. Of course collusion can work. You have more information then other players so you can make better decisions. Here is your proof.

I once did it with a friend at play-money tables. We wanted to play good poker, but a maniac kept going all-in preflop too often which is very irritating at play-money tables. So we decided to bust him. I think that site had restrictions how often you can re-load.

We basically sandwitched him when one of us had very good hand, like KK or AA. He calls a raise, my friend raises a little to give me the chance to re-raise a lot. Didn't take very long to bust him.

Whether collusion is wide-spread, is another question. I would like to think that it is not because poker sites have interest to battle it. But of course no one really knows that.

#40 05-01-2008, 10:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cheetah

Bots may work for low limits Limit Holdem, but at present it would be difficult to make them work for NL and higher stakes.

You make it sound like hey ..... only might work at low limits ......no big deal. Seriously, if there were reliable bots (and there are) that could turn a profit even at low limits like $1/2 FL holdem for example, It would be raking in a helluva a lot more on a daily basis than you might think.........prolly more than 70-80% of the players reading this forum by perfect mathamatical play alone. add to that the hours played factor and well.......a virtual money machine.

#41 05-01-2008, 1:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cheetah

You must be kidding me. Of course collusion can work.......

There are definately a lot of friends around the world who will be IMing whilst playing and then decide on a whim to collude. I think zach's point applied to teams of multiple people who specifically go around together on a regular basis to exploit these edges.

#42 05-01-2008, 1:19 PM

The bottom line here, is to realize and take online poker for what it really is. Find your niche if you could find one, always try to improve, and proceed with caution.

Many more players are losing then winning. Just hope you could get into that small percentage of winners online and stay there. Online is certainly the best place to learn and develop a good game.

#43 05-01-2008, 5:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cheetah

You must be kidding me. Of course collusion can work. You have more information then other players so you can make better decisions. Here is your proof.

I once did it with a friend at play-money tables. We wanted to play good poker, but a maniac kept going all-in preflop too often which is very irritating at play-money tables. So we decided to bust him. I think that site had restrictions how often you can re-load.

We basically sandwitched him when one of us had very good hand, like KK or AA. He calls a raise, my friend raises a little to give me the chance to re-raise a lot. Didn't take very long to bust him.

Whether collusion is wide-spread, is another question. I would like to think that it is not because poker sites have interest to battle it. But of course no one really knows that.

But it's impossible to do that and not get caught. How suspicious is it when the same two people start this raise war often at the table and the two never reach showdown, one always folds. Now you can imagine what it looks like when pokerstars sees someone with total trash raising and re-raising the exact same person with people trapped in the middle. This is easy to catch and could never be done profitably, because they'd get caught.

#44 06-01-2008, 2:58 AM

Okay this is just too funny. I love that people are saying that the cheaters could make a lot more money by just playing good poker. I dunno, I think it's kind of obvious they can't play good poker and that's probably why they're cheating in the first place.

No matter, I don't agree with everyone as to what counts as cheating anyway. For instance, I consider an application that tells people when and what actions to take to be cheating. Then again I don't have any respect for people who do use those apps. Sorry I just don't.

Would someone post a bullet style list of warning signs when people are colluding? I know I get a feeling when things just aren't right. I also know that the little three strikes thing will cut my losses, but at the same time I would like a nifty list for how to spot the colluding that goes beyond just a funny-feeling in my tummy ya know?

#45 06-01-2008, 3:39 AM

There is no way to stop people from communicating while playing poker, via aim, skype, phone etc. but the site should always be on alert for signs of collusion. Just the fact that they may have been communicating with someone, in my opinion, isn't enough to get them kicked off the site, since that will be happening every day.

#46 06-01-2008, 11:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by N.D.

Okay this is just too funny. I love that people are saying that the cheaters could make a lot more money by just playing good poker. I dunno, I think it's kind of obvious they can't play good poker and that's probably why they're cheating in the first place.

No matter, I don't agree with everyone as to what counts as cheating anyway. For instance, I consider an application that tells people when and what actions to take to be cheating. Then again I don't have any respect for people who do use those apps. Sorry I just don't.

Would someone post a bullet style list of warning signs when people are colluding? I know I get a feeling when things just aren't right. I also know that the little three strikes thing will cut my losses, but at the same time I would like a nifty list for how to spot the colluding that goes beyond just a funny-feeling in my tummy ya know?

It is not a clear cut where to draw the line. Let me list several levels:

No knowledge of odds, just plain old poker
Learn to calculate simple odds
Use a printed sheet with more complex odds
Use an application to show you the odds for the hand at play
Use notes how people play
Use poker-traker
Develop an automated strategy, but don't interface with the poker application. Instead manually enter the current hand and look at optimal play.
Use an application that has good auto-fold strategy so you can play 20 tables.
Train a low-paid person to fold for you and you only play the good hands
Develop an almost complete pre-flop strategy so you usually only play post-flop
Interface a bot with a poker application and let it play most of the time except in difficult situations so you can play 100 tables
Interface a bot and let it play 100%. Of course if the bot loses, you can't get your money back from it

Every additional automation that assists during poker play is one step closer to full automation. But where is the "cheating" line drawn? I think different people will draw it differently.

One could argue that bot-usage is not cheating since no additional information is available to the bot. Clearly this is very different from collusion which is definitely cheating.

The problem of saying that bots are cheating is that the line has to be drawn arbitrarily. Poker sites already have this problem where they allow some applications, and not others and sometimes they change their mind and ban previously "OK" applications.

Similar Threads for: Chat Cheats?
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
"Full Tilt Support - Chat Suspension"	TheAssasin27	General Poker	4	01-12-2007 1:34 AM
chat at UBET	donaldnice	Poker Rooms	3	29-09-2007 10:00 PM


Absolute Poker Referral Code CCHAT will get you a 100% upto $500 bonus at AbsolutePoker.com.	PokerStars is one of the best poker sites on the internet. They accept US players and using PokerStars marketing code CARDSCHAT you get a $75 bonus.