PDA

View Full Version : Are the days of online poker numbered?


LinusKS
09-27-2004, 11:54 AM
I picked this up from another site.

I tend to think he's being overly pessimistic, but I have zero technical skill, so perhaps someone who knows more can fill me in.

Unless the people behind Party et al are total morons, they're going to do whatever it takes to stop this.

It seems to me there are a few easy measures they could take (discussed here before).

--Disguising hole cards. There are any number of ways to hide the identity of cards from computers.

--Human verification. ("What color is the sky?" "What's 2+2?") This would be annoying, but better than playing against bots, IMO.

I can't think of anything sites can do to stop someone who's willing to sit there and the info back and forth, though.

On the one hand, that's not too much of a threat at the low levels. Not too many people are going to want to sit around doing data entry at a poker site for two to four dollars an hour (Unless somebody outsources the work to Mexico).

On the other hand, I can't think of any way to stop this at the $5-$10 level and above.

Is the future of poker purely brick & mortar?

[ QUOTE ]
A few common misconceptions: Making a poker bot to beat pp $2/4 wouldn't be difficult at all. Nor would the creator need to be a good poker player. Most people suck at poker because they are impatient and don't understand the odds. For most people, playing bad poker is far more fun that playing good poker.

For someone at my level of computer science, all the difficult problems have been solved and published by University of Alberta's game group: http://www.cs.ualberta.ca/~games/poker/ A lot of their work - and I've read it all - deals with heads up but there is plenty enough information to create a very good bot at a full table.

I've implemented some screen scraping and event reading for party poker. Combine some ANN's, game theory, hand strength evaluator, and you could have a very strong bot. If I worked on it full time, it would take me max 3 months to have a winning bot, maybe less. I can't think of anyway that party poker would ever be able to detect that I'm using a bot. There are almost certainly bots out there thought I doubt they are widespread. They are certainly not all strong nor winning.

Someone from MIT claims to have implemted a bot with friends.



Reading his post it sounds like they implemented an 'expert system' for play, which is certainly the most simple, but also the least pure and least adaptable system to implement. Expert systems are the most basic but can still be powerful. Basically, expert systems have some hardwired plays they always make. Good players would be able to exploit the predicitability of expert systems.

Here's my prediction - there will be a technological battle between sites and bots. This battle has had a few skirmishes (i.e. party poker and winholdem). (For those that don't know, winholdem is a commercial program that will play your cards for you.)

These skirmishes haven't been pretty. There have been innocent casulties, including some reports of people having their accounts closed for running microsoft's calculator in the background. Poker sites will work hard to improve their defense and eliminate false positives, but I think there will always be false positives. People who did nothing wrong will be accused of cheating and their accounts may become forfeit.

I've already considered some of the things that poker sites can do to combat bots. PokerStars is already a lot more protected that party poker. This is because they don't write each action into a text box that is easily readable by another program, as party does. That doens't make it impossible to get the information, it just makes it non-trivial. I havn't specifically dealt with some of the issues that come up with creating a bot on poker stars, but there are plenty of code libraries out there to help capable programmers.

In summary, there's not a lot the sites can do. Given time and energy, the bots will probably win out. I remain hopeful the sites will come up with some technological savior, but since I understand the technological challenges, I remain skeptical. We'll see, and online poker is certainly a field I am considering working in someday.

Legally, there is little to no recourse for the poker sites, as Loic Dachary points out. Unfortunately, the same laws that protect poker bots protect valid and important rights of software developers and consumers themselves. It may be possible to carefully construct laws to protect against bots but leave other rights in check, though enforcing these laws would be difficult since Loic is completely right about the impossibility of detecting bots. I think Loic trivializes some of the options poker sites have to make life difficult for bots, but otherwise he is completely on the mark.

The future looks bleak for honest poker players who want to compete against other humans. I'd like to end this post on an optimistic note, but I just can't think of one.

[/ QUOTE ]

http://professionalpokergrad.blogspot.com/

Phil Van Sexton
09-27-2004, 12:50 PM
Bots can and will be defeated. There's too much money on the line for the poker sites to allow this to ruin their business. They have a license to print money right now, and this is their only credible threat.

They have several big advantages in this fight...
1. They control the client software (ie there are no GnuPartyPoker clients). They can upgrade at any time to combat any threats.

2. They already have the player's money on deposit. No need to file lawsuits to punish people. If they catch someone, they take their whole bankroll.

3. They operate without regulation. No "innocent until proven guilty", no right to privacy....if they catch you, they take your money and you have zero recourse.

They can change their client software constantly to break existing bots. Alternatively, they can find tendencies of common bots (ie always click Raise button on 0x0 pixel) and release new versions as honeypots to trap cheaters. Sure the bots will be upgraded to avoid detection, but not before a lot of people have lost their whole bankroll.

Bottom line, bots are getting better at playing poker, but their reliance on screen scraping is an Achille's heel that will never allow them to succeed.

LinusKS
09-27-2004, 01:24 PM
Well, it won't take too many "Party stole my bankroll" posts to scare a lot of people away.

I know I wouldn't play at a site where I thought they might take my bankroll for no reason.

Well, I guess I can constantly withdraw to Neteller. But then, bots can do that even easier than I can.

But the real question is, how do you stop the guy who sits down at a couple of $10/20 tables, and simply does what his poker program tells him to do?

Boring, yes, but for $40-$80/hour, you know there's about a billion people who will buy that software, as soon as it comes out.

Phil Van Sexton
09-27-2004, 01:48 PM
[ QUOTE ]
But the real question is, how do you stop the guy who sits down at a couple of $10/20 tables, and simply does what his poker program tells him to do?

[/ QUOTE ]

You likely can't. However, doing this at 10/20 will likely require a $4000 bankroll to start and a lot of mind-numbing hours in front of the computer. Your bot will often need to be upgraded for screen-scrape issues. And there will still be a threat of somehow being caught and losing it all. Seems like a lot of hassle and I don't see a lot of people doing it. If few people want to do it, then the commercial bots go out of business and then no one can do it.

Also, having people sitting at their computers playing 10/20 with a bot helper isn't going to "kill" online poker.

Having bots run unattended playing multiple 2/4 games 24/7...that's a problem.

LinusKS
09-27-2004, 03:09 PM
You're not screen-scraping if you're the one entering the stuff.

There's virtually no way to get caught (and if there was, you could simply empty your account on a regular basis -- not a bad idea anyway).

If you make 1BB per hour at two tables, that's $40/hr.

A lot of people do things that are much less pleasant than sitting around at home in front of their computer, for much worse pay than that.

You would need a bankroll, though, but I'm not sure that's enough to stop it.

Would you want to be sitting at $10/$20 table if only 4 of the other nine players were humans?

Phil Van Sexton
09-27-2004, 04:02 PM
[ QUOTE ]
You're not screen-scraping if you're the one entering the stuff.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was assuming that the software would read the bets and cards off the screen for you. If using the helper software required that you manually enter the actions of each player, your cards, cards on the board, cards at showdown....that's a major hassle, and pretty impractical to do for multiple tables.

SoCal_Mike
09-27-2004, 04:55 PM
[ QUOTE ]

I was assuming that the software would read the bets and cards off the screen for you.

[/ QUOTE ]

Or in the case of Party Poker just read it in real-time from the hand history file that's being updated on your local machine. It sure seems like their latest patches actually encourage this data-mining. (Granted access to real-time information is very different from a never-sleeping automaton.)

Is it cheating to have perfectly calculated pot odds and player tendancies? I'm sure Pat could have Poker Tracker working in real-time without too much effort.

I don't think it will kill online poker, however it will increase the gap between the haves and the have-nots.

BusterStacks
09-27-2004, 05:24 PM
The problem with this theory is exactly that, it's a theory. Party Poker is not new... bots are not new... yet there is not a widespread problem with them. See, it only sounds easy, but if it actually were that easy it would be done. Bottom line.

Jaycie
09-27-2004, 05:47 PM
The problem is even if only a tiny minority of players use it, those few could create an unlimited amount of bots/players/screen names.

swami
09-27-2004, 06:50 PM
Bots have no chance at NL/PL games. That is where poker is going, especially as it is becomming a worldwide game and limit has historically only been played in North America. Europe is all PL.

Richard Berg
09-27-2004, 10:14 PM
Keep thinking that.