[Resolved] Casino Club - robot or no bot?

[kimss]

As for intrusiveness into my PC - Well, POKER software does it, MICROSOFT does it, iTunes, etc - I don't see much difference in casinos doing something along the same lines. Many casinos already DO "invade the hard drive" upon start up, usually running a checksum on all components found within it's own program folder, but they could just as easily wander the entire drive, we would be none the wiser if they did.

Well that is why all casinos are installed via Virtual PC! Since I'm on a developer machine, I have learned the last years that very little software should be installed not to bog down the system, so naturally any Casino is in virtual mode! I know 3Dice ensured they had a tiny footprint, however I never trust anyone theese days when it comes to software. But yes, they may install whetever they like - they do it anyway - however all goes into vmWare and virtual machines!

better safe than sorry!

[RobWin]

I'll give you a concrete example: a while back I handled a PAB where bot use was claimed and the proof given was a trace where the player was "playing" at about 500 hands per minute. The casino claimed that was sufficient proof that a bot was in use and I agreed with them 100%. Would anybody here claim otherwise? I seriously doubt it. And so, voila!, we have a case where the play records and the conclusions drawn from them were pretty much beyond question.

That is 8.33 hands played per second, I don't see how that is even possible with the fastest servers, the fastest software and the fastest connection...you can't even say "BJ" 8.33 times per second !!

Surely you meant per hour Max...

Even that amount played per hour should work out to one hand being played every 7.20 seconds which does seem feasable...if my math is correct here or close at least !

[Zoozie]

500 hands/hour is just a semi-fast human playing. I can maintain over 500hands/hour at video-poker for hours. And here I can do click several cards in every hand. 500 hands/hour is not impressive.

[maxd]

Yes, sorry, I've looked back at the case and it was a sustained rate of 500/hr over some number of hours. Related data supported the conclusion.

I've corrected my post to indicate the error.

(Proof reading suffers after hours on the box. )

[Rusty]

Yes, sorry, I've looked back at the case and it was a sustained rate of 500/hr over some number of hours. Related data supported the conclusion.

I've corrected my post to indicate the error.

(Proof reading suffers after hours on the box. )

Even though that was a simple genuine error on your part Max you still obviously considered 500 hands per hour to be strong evidence as that is what you put forward as conclusive proof originally (agree 100% with casino).
Others do not see this as evidence at all.
I am not saying you are wrong or that "related data" did not show something out of the ordinary but I think it does prove just how subjective an opinion on the bot or human debate is even for someone who is trying to be neutral and objective.
I expect to see this issue crop up again soon.

[maxd]

No question, the subjectivity of all of this is certainly one product of this whole issue. I for one am now convinced that judging these case by what "seems reasonable" isn't sufficient.

In the first place it's obvious that skilled and dedicated players are capable of play patterns that well exceed what casual analysis might deem as "reasonable". In other words better data or more expertise are necessary to make these calls.

And secondly the scale of bot usage and the corresponding frequency of "false positives" demands better of us.

Either that, or as some have suggested, the issue of bot detection needs to be taken off the table entirely. From what we've heard and seen from the casinos though I seriously doubt whether that is an option.

[aka23]

Yes, sorry, I've looked back at the case and it was a sustained rate of 500/hr over some number of hours. Related data supported the conclusion.

I've corrected my post to indicate the error.

(Proof reading suffers after hours on the box. )

It is ridiculous to think 500 hands per hour is "sufficient proof that a bot was in use." And I'm shocked that you wrote that nobody here would think otherwise. A skilled BJ player who has memorized strategy tables would probably consider 500 hand/hr on the slow side. In the hours of play calculator on my site, I assume that a player who lists his skill as "Medium" can maintain 600 hands/hr. I assume players who list their skill as "High" can maintain 900 hands/hr (if the software supports higher speeds).

I don't have a problem with confiscating winnings when there is valid evidence of bot use (and terms restrict bot use). However, some of the methods of detecting bot use listed in this thread are not meaningful.

[maxd]

It is ridiculous to think 500 hands per hour is "sufficient proof that a bot was in use."

When it goes on for hours, when the breaks are totally regular and of fixed duration, when it is completely incongruous with the player's established play patterns, etc ... these are all good reasons used to call such play into question.

IMO, it is "ridiculous" to immediately assume the worst of us and show such scant respect for our efforts.
Mistakes made? Ya, some. Deserving of that kind of off-hand contempt? I think not.

... some of the methods of detecting bot use listed in this thread are not meaningful.

So we are discovering. Live and learn. See previous post.

[aka23]

When it goes on for hours, when the breaks are totally regular and of fixed duration, when it is completely incongruous with the player's established play patterns, etc ... these are all good reasons used to call such play into question.

IMO, it is "ridiculous" to immediately assume the worst of us and show such scant respect for our efforts.
Mistakes made? Ya, some. Deserving of that kind of off-hand contempt? I think not.


So we are discovering. Live and learn. See previous post.

In your original post, you did not mention that the play went on for hours, there were no breaks, or other issues. You only mentioned the rate of play and implied that 500 hands per hour alone was sufficient proof of bot use. I do respect your efforts and have defended them on other forums. However, I will correct an error, if I see one. I'd expect others to do the same to me.

[Casinomeister]

In your original post, you did not mention that the play went on for hours, there were no breaks, or other issues. You only mentioned the rate of play and implied that 500 hands per hour alone was sufficient proof of bot use. I do respect your efforts and have defended them on other forums. However, I will correct an error, if I see one. I'd expect others to do the same to me.

Just jumping in here on a Sunday evening...Max is under no obligation to state exactly what we deem as "exact" proof of bot play. You either trust us, or you don't - it's as simple as that. I think we go to great lengths to make sure what is fair is fair. Most of what we do is pretty transparent - and when it's not, we have our reasons.

The track record is pretty damn good at Casinomeister. And like in this situation, we had to relook at a number of things.

It's pretty sad that we have to be defended elsewhere. It really goes to show what a thankless job Max has - mine as well.

Further derailment...

I ought to change the PAB rules stating that 50% of any winnings recouped are donated to charity. Do you think anyone would PAB?? I think they would drop substantially.