Bot complaint

[MS Sunshine]

Below is a series of emails between myself and alerts@partypoker.com (usually very helpful folks)about a player that checked on the end with the nut hand. This player only barely misses my top player list every month(yes, I still make them, but I no longer post them here) because he is too tight and too passive preflop, for my tastes) Now anyone can misread a hand, but I thought I would have support look at him, because if they did find out he is a bot then the argument that a good-playing bot isn't possible no longer would hold water. The Langley thing also was a factor.

The formletter being back in minutes ticked me off, they should at least put a wait of an hour or so to make it seemed like they "researched" my complaint.

MS Sunshine


Dear ,

Thank you for contacting us.

We have received your complaint and have researched the account rorriecal. We have also examined the hand histories in order to verify your concern.

Lesley, we do understand your frustration about players who 'bluff' and bet or raise, to project a false scenario to other players, even though they do not have the best cards dealt to them. They only do this in an effort to intimidate the other players at the table to fold.

Furthermore, the anonymity of online poker players allows them to be more daring (and sometimes even play bad), as they don't have to sit in front of their peers and colleagues and justify calling bets with really bad cards. I can assure you that in the long run; the good players make the money.

Lesley, let me also assure you that the players you see at the table are all real players and it is not against the house that you find yourself playing. The easiest way you can convince yourself of this, would be to chat with the other players at the table. We have players from all over the world who access our tables and share the excitement. You would also be able to see their cities displayed. If you were to chat with them, you would be surprised to see how the world converges onto your computer, in your own home, through our tables. And Lesley, I am sure that you would find this surprise to be a pleasant one.

The bottom line is that at PartyPoker.com we do not use any form of robots or computer programmed players. All of the players you are playing against are real players. Sometimes you have to go through spells of what seem like horrible beats, but it is just part of the game, and what makes online poker more exciting than live poker.

The site uses the most sophisticated and state-of-the-art technology to run the games. Our teams constantly monitor the game play in an effort to identify and prevent possibilities of collusion.

Our continual commitment to the integrity of the site helps us to create and maintain fair, secure and a spirit filled environment where players enjoy an exciting gaming experience!

This is what we want for our players,

Fun you can bet on!

If you have any further questions, comments or concerns, please contact us at alerts@PartyPoker.com and we will be more than glad to assist you.

Best regards,

Faith Allen
Investigations Team
PartyPoker.com

--Original Message--
From:
Date: 2004-12-05 13:01
To: alerts@partypoker.com
Subject: possible bot?[#2047223]

Hello



Any chance rorriecal is a bot?



Thank you




***** Hand History for Game 1262457231 *****

$200 PL Hold'em - Sunday, December 05, 12:51:49 EDT 2004

Table Ho-Ho-Ho (Real Money)
Seat 5 is the button
Total number of players : 10

Seat 1: toohotty ( $617.15 )
Seat 2: rorriecal ( $414.9 )
Seat 3: rwboyle ( $216.7 )
Seat 4: Cobra289FIA ( $398.95 )
Seat 5: unbr8able ( $805.7 )
Seat 7: Cypressman ( $376.6 )
Seat 8: pnuthead ( $212.9 )
Seat 9: Babisababe ( $616.35 )
Seat 10: Mitchy_D ( $449.9 )
Seat 6: Grizzle420 ( $200 )
Cypressman posts small blind [$2].
pnuthead posts big blind [$4].
** Dealing down cards **
Dealt to pnuthead [ 9c 2d ]
Cobra289FIA: cause u SUUUUUCCCCCCCKKKKK
Babisababe folds.
toohotty calls [$4].
rorriecal calls [$4].
rwboyle calls [$4].
Cobra289FIA folds.
unbr8able folds.
Cypressman folds.
pnuthead checks.
** Dealing Flop ** [ Qd, 7d, 9d ]
pnuthead checks.
toohotty checks.
rorriecal checks.
rwboyle checks.
** Dealing Turn ** [ 2s ]
pnuthead bets [$14].
toohotty folds.
Cobra289FIA: allk yer chips go bye bye
rorriecal calls [$14].
rwboyle folds.
** Dealing River ** [ Ad ]
pnuthead checks.
rorriecal checks.
pnuthead shows [ 9c, 2d ] a flush, ace high.
rorriecal shows [ Kd, Ac ] a flush, ace high.
rorriecal wins $43.7 from the main pot with a flush, ace high with king kicker.

Hello

I wish to thank you for sending this form letter out so promptly, but I was hoping that someone would exactly look at my concerns about this player. He plays very long hours and is one of the big winners every month at this limit. He sees less than 12% of the flops and only raises preflop 1% of the time. It is possible that he overlooked the nut hand at the river and didn't bet it when he was last to act. I have to admit since that he is from Lanley I'm guessing he works for the government. A wild guess on my part.

I do not think Partypoker runs bots, but with programable bots from www.winholdem.com (http://www.winholdem.com) on the market this is a real fear on my part that some of your players DO run bots.. Since for over four years I don't think my husband and I have ever paid less than $3,000 a month in rake to you folks, you might take my concerns more seriously than an auto-generated form letter.

Thank you

[MS Sunshine]

Another prompt reply, I feel so much better now that Party completed their exhastive investagation in again record time. Why do I even bother?

MS Sunshine

Dear ,

Thank you for contacting us.

This message is to inform you that as part of our initiative to block artificial intelligence or prohibited software/programs that might give players an undue advantage over the other players on the table, we have proceeded to monitor and block the use of such software/programs from running in conjunction with our PartyPoker.com client.

As a part of our Technical Team?s continued efforts to render such applications and software/programs useless we have a security feature in place to detect the usage of the same. We would not be in a position to elaborate on this security measure for obvious reasons.

At the outset let me assure you that we do NOT take screen shots NOR do we have any screen shots of players desktop with us, and no information that is recorded would ever be used by us without the players consent. Further, please check our Terms and Conditions of Use available on our website. Please check Clause 6, Clause 7, Clause 17 and Clause 18 (viii).

http://www.PartyPoker.com/about_us/legal_information.html

We have proactively implemented security measures to identify and block PokerBot applications from running in conjunction with our poker software. As part of this initiative we have implemented technical changes that would ensure that any such applications and software/programs are identified, detected and rendered useless.

Lesley, we hope you understand our concerns in keeping up the fairness of our games and thank you in advance for your patience and cooperation in keeping up the spirit of the game and the integrity of our online poker card room.

If you have any further questions, comments or concerns, please contact us at alerts@PartyPoker.com and we will be more than glad to assist you.

Best regards,

Faith Allen
Investigations Team
PartyPoker.com

[BusterStacks]

How many times do we need to see the same kind of thread before people get it. You aren't up against bots.

[Robk]

common sense suggesets the hand you posted makes it less likely rorriecal is a bot. what am i missing?

[MS Sunshine]

Let's see. They sell bots on the web. Party takes the accounts of players for using bots. My guess is that we are sometimes up against bots.

Some unanswered questions are:

How good are they? How often do I play with them?

MS Sunshine

[IggyWH]

[ QUOTE ]
common sense suggesets the hand you posted makes it less likely rorriecal is a bot. what am i missing?

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly...

If there is such a bot out there that is good enough to play $200 PL (which I EXTREMELY doubt), then it's smart enough to know when it has the nuts.

[MS Sunshine]

We have two cases:

1. An excellent player misses the nuts at the river.

2. A bug in a series of logic equations of an otherwise good playing bot.

I agree case 1 is much more likely than case 2, but I feel that case 2 is NOT a zero probabilty.

MS Sunshine

[Forum Enforcement Division]

[ QUOTE ]
We have two cases:

1. An excellent player misses the nuts at the river.

2. A bug in a series of logic equations of an otherwise good playing bot.

I agree case 1 is much more likely than case 2, but I feel that case 2 is NOT a zero probabilty.

MS Sunshine

[/ QUOTE ]

The chances of there currently being winning bots in play are probably 90%.

The chance that there is any bot at all that could master NL is 0%.

The AI required for a winning bot at limit is inevitable. There is currently a Heads-Up bot that is said to be nearly unbeatable.

Programming a bot for NL is exponetially more difficult. Those few individuals talented enough to write winning bots would first tackle limit. I doubt there has even been any serious work at all in programming a NL bot.

Finally, even Dumb-bot at Ultimate Bet has never missed a bet with the nuts on the end. This would be covered in the simplest of code. Your fears are not unfounded, but don't worry about NL games.

[daryn]

i thought you were above this?

come on, people misclick all the time. people also misread boards once in a while. it doesn't matter if you are the best player on party.

how many emails a day do you think party gets along the lines of "is XXXX a bot?"?

i would expect this kind of post from the likes of... well let's not make anyone feel bad.

[Schneids]

How can this be anything but a misclick or misread?

I know I've checked the river once or twice in spots I didn't mean to had I clicked right or read the board right.

[Bytestream]

[ QUOTE ]
then the argument that a good-playing bot isn't possible no longer would hold water

[/ QUOTE ]

There is no argument. I am a software engineer and I have a 4.7BB/100 win rate at Party's 2/4 games. I do not doubt for a second that I could program a bot to beat the game. If it wasnt for my conscience, and lack of free time due to a full time job and taking masters courses in engineering, I would be writing one. Heck, you can download half the source code to begin with from SourceForge (http://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=13546).

The argument that the best players could outplay a bot is irrelavant if they don't know its a bot to begin with. Knowing a player is a "bot" and is programmed to act "correctly" is far different then assuming the oppenent is human and prone to tilt, mistakes etc... Its further irrelavent because its not the bot's intention to challenge world class players to begin with. It may be up against one or two "better" players, but its still getting its share of the other eight. This, IMO is the biggest threat the bots propose. They are slowly and artificially bleeding the games and diluting your own bottom line.

Think of how "intelligent" a bot can be when it can has 10k hands youve played in its database. Simply logic structures can be coded to take action based on the bot's oppenents VPIP, agression factor, bluffs on the river % etc...

Regardless of all that, from what I've read, Winholdem was beating the game. And it wasn't even engineered worth a [censored]. Imagine Chris Ferguson using his PHD in Comp Sci and Artificial Intelligence and his world champ of poker expertise in programming some of the logic for Winholdem or his own "personal" application. Its just denial for anyone to think that there aren't simialarly talented people already doing this.

As far as Party being able to detect this software, impossible. Unless of course, you promote it, try to sell it and make the Poker room aware of its existence, they would never know youre running one in the same way the cable company can't detect youre getting HBO for free.

[Sandstone]

#1 Bots don't play NL/PL (Why would anyone bother with the incredibly complicated task of building a NL/PL bot, when limit would be MUCH easier to program for, and be much more profitable?)

#2 Bots don't check the nuts

[MS Sunshine]

The chances of there currently being winning bots in play are probably 90%.

The chance that there is any bot at all that could master NL is 0%.

I've mastered NL, it's not that hard.

The AI required for a winning bot at limit is inevitable. There is currently a Heads-Up bot that is said to be nearly unbeatable.

Are you referring to the Paradise bots from four years ago?

Programming a bot for NL is exponetially more difficult. Those few individuals talented enough to write winning bots would first tackle limit. I doubt there has even been any serious work at all in programming a NL bot.

I missed a couple issues of the newsletter Better Bots, was this in there?

Finally, even Dumb-bot at Ultimate Bet has never missed a bet with the nuts on the end. This would be covered in the simplest of code.

One person using winholdem, or someone who had seen it in action, posted that a line of code that would fold AA preflop if the pot wasn't larger than a certain value. It's tough to rule out any bug in a program.

Your fears are not unfounded, but don't worry about NL games.

I realize that you're trying to be helpful, but when it comes to gambling and MY money I worry about alot of things other don't.

MS Sunshine

[Sandstone]

[ QUOTE ]
I've mastered NL, it's not that hard.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well [censored], I didn't have any trouble learning to read and write creative works. I guess I should get started on writing a bot that can do that.

[Yeknom58]

If a person can't program software to recognize the nuts then there is absolutely no way it can be a winning machine. Now if you noticed he was online 23.5 hours a day for 7 days a week that would be a whole other story.

[MS Sunshine]

Poker is a simple decision tree. Four betting rounds and you try to make the best of 3-4 choices at each point. Not really writing is it?

Chess is more complex than poker and you can buy a program that will beat chess masters for less than $50. Poker now has much more money in it than chess.

Also for those that believe that making a bot that beats limit as opposed to NL, the reason I play NL is the games are easier than limit with less risk.

MS Sunshine

[crazy canuck]

First of all why are you people only focusing on whether the actual player in the hand is a bot or not? MSSunshine wanted party to investigate, but it seems party doesn't give a flying [censored] about detecting bots.

Secondly, I have undergrad level of AI knowledge (currently I'm applying them to financial markets and yes they can beat the same financial markets that some academics believe to be random!), and IMHO it would be fairly easy to make a bot that beats NL/PL. Sure it wouldn't necessarily beat the best players but this is party we're talking about.

[itsmarty]

[ QUOTE ]
I am a software engineer and I have a 4.7BB/100 win rate at Party's 2/4 games. I do not doubt for a second that I could program a bot to beat the game.

[/ QUOTE ]

I used to dominate the playground, so I'm sure I could have made the NBA if I didn't have to get a job instead of make the high school team. Unfortunately, my Wizards jersey is as real as your poker bot.

Please tell us how it can be done when you've done it. You haven't even shown that you can write a losing bot, never mind a winning one.

Martin

[crazy canuck]

I used to dominate the playground, so I'm sure I could have made the NBA if I didn't have to get a job instead of make the high school team.

Using Artifical Neural Networks to Model Opponents in Texas Hold'em (http://www.spaz.ca/aaron/poker/nnpoker.pdf )

If you wanted to significantly improve his method you could also use stas from pokertracker as input. And this is underdrad level AI.

[itsmarty]

[ QUOTE ]
And this is underdrad level AI.

[/ QUOTE ]

That doesn't change the fact that to declare something as a fait accompli because you conceptualized it on the couch one afternoon is perfectly idiotic.

If this Bytestream can write a poker bot, my pot head friends from college can fly a car powered by hemp to Jupiter and score with hot Jupiter skanks.

Martin

Note: I'm not saying bots don't exist, just that Mr. 2/4 playing software engineer has more hurdles in the way of proving his point than time and morality.

[Lazymeatball]

[ QUOTE ]
Chess is more complex than poker and you can buy a program that will beat chess masters for less than $50. Poker now has much more money in it than chess.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think you understand the complexities in writing a bot for NL poker, a game of many unknowns. Chess is a game of complete information, meaning that the position of all the pieces is known to the player, or in your case the bot. The bot can then run through every single combination of sequences and determine the best approach. Poker is a game of incomplete information because you do not know what cards your opponents hold. As difficult as programming a bot to play Limit poker would be, at least the bot knows what the bets are going to be on each round. In NL/PL even the betting amount on future rounds is an added ubnkown into an already complicated equation.

Oh yeah, and good bots bet the nuts. If I was writing a bot, that would be the first line of code I would write.

[crazy canuck]

If this Bytestream can write a poker bot, my pot head friends from college can fly a car powered by hemp to Jupiter and score with hot Jupiter skanks.

I believe if he is taking master's level engineering courses
and he is a winning player, then he has the intelligence to write a bot. I have taken grad level electrical engineering courses and in my opinion every one of my classmates has the intelligence to write the algorithm for a winning bot. Then you could hire a code monkey for the rest. Yes it is that easy.

[Luv2DriveTT]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think you understand the complexities in writing a bot for NL poker, a game of many unknowns.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's already been done. The university of Alberta now has a series of NL bots. They have been incorporated into Poki. Since the source code is freely available, someone with a medium amount of experiance can make this an unfortunate reality on Party.

PS: the WinHold'em website is gone. It looks like they won't be bothering us anymore!

TT /images/graemlins/club.gif

[bugstud]

DoingMyNails folds.
kingpin1_1 folds.
rorriecal raises [$18].
PatienceSon folds.
ButterBurger folds.
unbr8able folds.
beansteen folds.
dub07 calls [$18].
NJTOCAL calls [$16].
usatricia folds.
** Dealing Flop ** [ 5d, Qh, 9h ]
NJTOCAL checks.
rorriecal checks.
dub07 checks.
** Dealing Turn ** [ Kc ]
NJTOCAL checks.
rorriecal checks.
dub07 checks.
** Dealing River ** [ Jd ]
NJTOCAL checks.
rorriecal bets [$59].
dub07 calls [$59].
NJTOCAL folds.
rorriecal shows [ Qd, Qc ] three of a kind, queens.
dub07 shows [ Td, Th ] a straight, nine to king.

[crazy canuck]

Poker is a game of incomplete information because you do not know what cards your opponents hold.

So are the financial markets, and AI can beat them. Poker is not nearly as efficient (efficient means beatable) as the markets.

[fearme]

about a bot who checks the nuts?? saves u money

[MicroBob]

I honestly don't know if this could almost be further evidence that he is a crappily programmed bot or further evidence that he is NOT a bot and just a crappy player. But i suspect the latter.


FWIW - I had a guy call me down all the way yesterday with trip J's on a J-high board (15/30).
It wasn't the 'nuts' (there were a couple straights possible I think....no flush draw) but it was pretty weird that he didn't raise.

I also had an opponent who capped it PF with 42o (although he had the VPIP and PFR to indicate that this was possible).


There have been a few times that I've been multi-tabling (usually when I'm too darn tired) that I failed to notice a 4-flush on the board.
I'm happily raising with my trips, then on the river I suddenly get raised (or check-raised even)...I look at the board and think "oh crap!!"
I don't think it's much of a stretch to see a similar occurance for someone who actually holds the top card on the board's 4-flush.



Finally -
You obviously got a slightly less competent representative at alerts@partypoker.
It is annoying that they can't understand the situation and won't look into his playing history.

I might recommend writing to them AGAIN at a later hour (when this representative is not on shift).
Don't forward this e-mail...just send a brand new one with no reference to this representative (because it might get forwarded back to them).

Instead of just asking them to 'look into it' and leaving it at that (meaning they actually have to decipher the HH which has a good chance of not happening properly)
Anyway....would something like this work better:
"I've noticed this player has been logged-on for excessive amounts of time. Additionally, here is a hand which he played rather bizarrely. I know that partypoker is taking measures to prevent players from using win-holdem or other similar bot-programs. I would like you to investigate this player specifically to make sure it is not a bot."



You say you have had success with the folks at alerts@partypoker before.
But I find that 1 and 2 line e-mails often get misinterpreted and they sometimes need to be steerd in the right direction.

[Robk]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree case 1 is much more likely than case 2, but I feel that case 2 is NOT a zero probabilty.


[/ QUOTE ]

So you concede that what happened is as follows.
1. apriori you suspected a small chance this player was a bot, yet said nothing.
2. you received a piece of evidence making it much less likely that the player was a bot.
3. you then wrote several emails to party asking them to investigate.

if you're interested, please come up with estimates of the following probabilities.

1. the chances that rorriecal was a bot, prior to the incident.
2. the chances that a human player would miss such a bet.
3. the chances that a successful bot would have a flaw in its code that would allow it to miss such a bet.

then we can use bayes theorem to make this precise.

[Bytestream]

Sorry Marty but I don't think you have the slightest clue of what you're talking about.

Do you doubt that I beat Party 2/4 for 4.7BB/100? I can easily prove this with pokertracker.

Is it that you doubt I can write software? I can prove othwerwise with a 3.5 gpa and B.S. in Software Engineering. That don't hand those out on the playground.

Maybe, despite knowing nothing about me, you doubt that I personally don't have the skills to combine poker and programming logic despite the fact that it has been done by many other people already?

Honestly, I just think you are completely ignorant. I don't think you have ever seen a line of software code, much less understand a thing about what it takes to develop it.

The simple fact is that for an educated professional, there is nothing difficult about writing software.

[MicroBob]

[ QUOTE ]
Do you doubt that I beat Party 2/4 for 4.7BB/100?

[/ QUOTE ]


I'm trying to figure out what bragging about your win-rate at 2/4 (whether legit or not) has to do with the topic at hand.

[Robk]

[ QUOTE ]
I've mastered NL, it's not that hard.


[/ QUOTE ]

that's why you spend your time in the 2/4 at party?

[ QUOTE ]
Are you referring to the Paradise bots from four years ago?


[/ QUOTE ]

no he's referring to the univ. of alberta's current bot, which defeated many good human players and held its own against gautam rao. the paper is posted on their website, you can read all about.

[ QUOTE ]
I missed a couple issues of the newsletter Better Bots, was this in there?


[/ QUOTE ]

mike caro did extensive research on this, and wrote about. he even programmed a NL bot called orac (which had very limited success under certain structures).

[ QUOTE ]
One person using winholdem, or someone who had seen it in action, posted that a line of code that would fold AA preflop if the pot wasn't larger than a certain value. It's tough to rule out any bug in a program.

[/ QUOTE ]

but you're referring to a successful program, not just any program.

[ QUOTE ]
I realize that you're trying to be helpful, but when it comes to gambling and MY money I worry about alot of things other don't.

[/ QUOTE ]

strange comment, given you seem remarkably uninformed about this issue.

[Robk]

[ QUOTE ]
Poker is a simple decision tree. Four betting rounds and you try to make the best of 3-4 choices at each point. Not really writing is it?


[/ QUOTE ]

this is such a ridiculous statement that im beginning to suspect you of trolling.

[BusterStacks]

yea this post goes to show that experience does not equal wisdom.

[Bytestream]

I could be the most talented and proficient software engineer on the planet, but if I didn't know anything about amortizing interest rates, I couln't develop a simple mortgage calculator.

Likewise, if I wasn't a consistent winning poker player, there is no way I could develop a program that could do it for me.

The basis step in proving that I could actually write a winning poker program is to prove that I can actually win at poker. No bragging, that's all.

[Bytestream]

Really? What is the 5th choice you can make?

[crazy canuck]

this is such a ridiculous statement that im beginning to suspect you of trolling.

By the way the author is on the U of A team who created Poki.

[Alobar]

I dunno why you are taking flack for this post. I'm glad there are intelligent players out there who are aware of the problem and take appropriate steps to further research their fears.

I also think that everyone who is giving you [censored] is missing the scariest point of this thread. The fact that party isn't doing [censored] about a top level players (i.e. a winning player who generates them tens of thousands of dollars of rake a month, and directly pays them thousands a month) concers. The retarded form letter from your intial email is absolutely absurd, and the second response isnt much better.

I have zero doubt there are bots out there (and that there are some that are winning), but the hope that party poker was at least doing something to thrwart them at least let me sleep at night. Its becoming more and more obvious that placing hope in a site that proves again and again how incompetant and stupid they are, is hope misplaced.

It also amazes me the egos of some people that think they will always be better than a bot because poker is some how really hard or something. It borders on funny, especially some of the names who ruitinely ridicule "can bots win?" posts.

[Yeknom58]

I 100% agree with you on all points..the problem is that I highly doubt a winning bot will check the nuts but I get what your saying.

[MicroBob]

[ QUOTE ]
Chess is a game of complete information, meaning that the position of all the pieces is known to the player, or in your case the bot. The bot can then run through every single combination of sequences and determine the best approach.

[/ QUOTE ]



This is true of course and must be the reason why there are chess-bots that can beat most of the top humans....whereas even the best poker-bots still aren't THAT good.

I really don't know anything about programming....and only a little bit about bots. I've read about poker-bots here....and I've read about chess-bots and have played against some good one's and some lousy one's on the Internet Chess Club (where they are allowed as long as the programmer lets everyone know that they are playing against a bot).


Even with the 'complete information' aspect it still isn't easy to run through all the different possibilities for a chess-bot.

I don't have the exact numbers with me because I can't seem to locate my copy of the book 'The Even More Complete Chess Addict' (or something like that) which contains a lot of interesting chess trivia (interesting to me anyway).


I seem to remember (and I'm only going from memory here) some numbers:
Number of possible chess games consisting of 40 moves is approximated at = 10^10^78
that is....10 to the 10th power to the 78th power.

That's a REALLY REALLY big number.
But to put it in proper context....they contributed a couple of other numbers.

Total number of words EVER printed (or it might have been...ever spoken...can't remember) =
10^10^40

Total number of estimated atoms in the universe =
10^10^58


Yes....the number of possible chess moves and combinations really is a freaking big number. The ways to maneuver the little pieces around a 64-square board is greater than the estimated number of atoms in the universe!!!




Seems they should be able to program a poker-bot to run through all the different possibilities that their opponents could be holding and have it compute pot-odds and make the appropriate decision.

Teach it a little aggression and add in the capacity to play differently against each opponent based on how they've been playing (program it to recognize that someone playing VPIP-17, PFR-9 is more likely to be on a certain range of hands) and I can easily see these things being very successful at some point.

And I still don't understand why it can't be done currently....but, again, I don't know diddly-squat about programming.

[Bytestream]

[ QUOTE ]
It also amazes me the egos of some people that think they will always be better than a bot because poker is some how really hard or something. It borders on funny, especially some of the names who ruitinely ridicule "can bots win?" posts.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, 2+2 books can teach "people" how to win, but applying the wisdom to a mathematical machine that would apply those principles flawlessly, calculating precise odds and having no emotional influence at every step of the way simply would not work.

Its easier to teach Joe Highschooldropout to check raise the nuts on the turn vs lag, but unreasonable that you can instruct a computer to perform this same operation?

I believe there are some psycological factors (defense mechanisms, reaction formation, displacement) influencing a lot of these attitudes towards bots.

[Bytestream]

[ QUOTE ]
This is true of course and must be the reason why there are chess-bots that can beat most of the top humans....whereas even the best poker-bots still aren't THAT good.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think there is a very simple and scary reason why poker bots haven't been developed to the point of chess bots... yet.

Up until recently, what would have been the point? Very little interest in poker and a bot couldnt gamble in a local cardroom. Mike Caro was about the only one writing computer software, and that was just a hobby.

Despite disclaiming that you [ QUOTE ]
know diddly-squat about programming

[/ QUOTE ], you pretty much just wrote the psuedocode to beat the low limit games.

With internet poker and the amount of $ that this software could generate, im sure more brilliant minds are working on this as we type.

[Rah]

I wouldn't say that I'm the greatest NL player in the world, but I know this; playing tight and betting hard with good hands is an easy way to make a lot of money playing Partys NL. People talk about NL like it's friggin' rocket science. Saying that it's impossible to make a profitable NL bot playing Party is just absurd.

[MrDannimal]

I'm not taking a side in the "can bots beat Party's NL/PL games", but just to play Devil's Advocate here...

- If you're in early position, do you bet or check? If you check, are you planning to fold to a bet, call the bet, or raise a bet? If you bet, what do you do in response to a raise (fold/call/re-raise)?

Yes, the # of decisions you can make when the action is on you is small. You're ignoring the large # of analyses that go into choosing one of those options, though. To do that analysis requires a lot more than "You only have 4 choices". You need to consider action on previous streets, what your opponents are likely to do in response to your various options, and so on. Not to mention that you need to store all the info you observe while playing and constantly re-evaluate your profiles of the other players.

As to your claims in a previous response (GPA/degree and win rate): First, you do realize that anyone can fabricate this data (if you have a large enough PT database, just find a person with a good WR at 2/4 and post their data), right? Second, a GPA and a degree don't mean you can program. I could provide you with enough names of people who graduated from University of Michigan (a pretty good engineering school) with high GPAs who couldn't program their way out of a paper bag.

The things required of an undergrad in terms of programming are a joke in comparison to the real world.

Personally, I don't doubt that you're both a winning player at 2/4, nor do I doubt that you're a skilled programmer. I'm just pointing out that a two-line, toss-off claim is a long way from actual proof.

There are thousands of things humans can do that we're unable to program computers to do right now. Look at computer sports games. The AI in these games (even at the highest settings) still routinly make stupid mistakes. How much success has there been in writing AIs that can have realistic, meaningful conversations with people?

[itsmarty]

[ QUOTE ]
Is it that you doubt I can write software?

[/ QUOTE ]

Whether I doubt your specific claims as to your poker or software skill is beside the point. My own qualifications are likewise moot, and your appeal to them is pointless.

The point I'm attempting to make is that you said there's no question that a winning bot exists, and offered as proof the fact that you win at poker and can write software.

Neither, were they to be proved true or false, is proof of anything. A winning bot is proof. Anything short of a poker bot is hoop dreams.

Martin

[emonrad87]

[ QUOTE ]


If this Bytestream can write a poker bot, my pot head friends from college can fly a car powered by hemp to Jupiter and score with hot Jupiter skanks.



[/ QUOTE ]



Can i tag along?

[Robk]

[ QUOTE ]
Really? What is the 5th choice you can make?

[/ QUOTE ]

i was referring to the argument that poker is not very complex because of the small number of possible actions. note that i included the comparison to writing in my quote. thanks for all your help.

[adamstewart]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Do you doubt that I beat Party 2/4 for 4.7BB/100?

[/ QUOTE ]


I'm trying to figure out what bragging about your win-rate at 2/4 (whether legit or not) has to do with the topic at hand.

[/ QUOTE ]


I'm wondering what your sample size is for this win rate??

I'm not trying to necessarily discredit you.

I'm interested in knowing if you are actually approaching an upper limit of possible winrate?

Sorry, I don't want to high-jack this thread, but I didn't want to start a new thread

Thanks.

Adam

[Bytestream]

[ QUOTE ]
How much success has there been in writing AIs that can have realistic, meaningful conversations with people?

[/ QUOTE ]

First semester, intro to computer science, you learn that

Computers are best at high-level cognitive tasks, like game-playing and decision-making, and not as well suited for low-level cognitive tasks, like vision and language.

[ QUOTE ]
Look at computer sports games. The AI in these games (even at the highest settings) still routinly make stupid mistakes

[/ QUOTE ]

Thats an entirely different business. I personally know a programmer for EA sports. They do not put a lot of $ or effort into the AI for these games. Graphics and mulitplayer gameplay sell, not AI. It is also much much more complicated AI for a console football game then it is for limit poker.

[ QUOTE ]
You're ignoring the large # of analyses that go into choosing one of those options, though. To do that analysis requires a lot more than "You only have 4 choices". You need to consider action on previous streets, what your opponents are likely to do in response to your various options, and so on. Not to mention that you need to store all the info you observe while playing and constantly re-evaluate your profiles of the other players.


[/ QUOTE ]

I wasn't ignoring it, it was a simplification from the most basic level, of course each decision needs to be broken down into smaller and smaller components. The fact is there really isn't all that much to consider in limit poker.

Two-dimes.net uses the open source code that evaluates enumerates the exact odds already. Using a db (like pt) that calculates VPIP and PR in real time is simple to add, and the code is already written. Winholdem already has the code to manipulate the party client and postback the actions. So, half the bot is already written.

All thats left is taking a blueprint like SSHE and translating it into a computer algorithm and tying it all together. I do not believe Winholdem used a db with its software, nor was the program designed for optimal poker playing but rater allowed the user to "program" the bots actions. HTML code couldnt be any simpler, but have you noticed the difference between a professionaly desingned website and a homegrown one?

[ QUOTE ]
- If you're in early position, do you bet or check? If you check, are you planning to fold to a bet, call the bet, or raise a bet? If you bet, what do you do in response to a raise (fold/call/re-raise)?


[/ QUOTE ]

Theres really not much to analyze here, honestly you make more decisions getting dressed in the morning then you do in this poker situation. Your entire thought process for this action can be translated and the computer can do it better. Unless you believe that intuition is the determing factor in these decisions, anything you consider in your choice can be easily programmed. And the computer will execute it better then you.

The computer will not make mistakes calculating pot odds and will not go on tilt. The computer won't get bored and play a hand for the hell of it, it won't be offended by chat, having a winning or losing session will not effect any decisions the computer makes, the computer will not misread the board nor will it misclick a button, the computer won't time out on a hand accidentily, or need to stop to pee... There are lots of things computers deal with much better then humans.

[ QUOTE ]
As to your claims in a previous response (GPA/degree and win rate): First, you do realize that anyone can fabricate this data (if you have a large enough PT database, just find a person with a good WR at 2/4 and post their data), right?

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure it can be fabricated, but it also can be proven if needed.

[ QUOTE ]
Second, a GPA and a degree don't mean you can program. I could provide you with enough names of people who graduated from University of Michigan (a pretty good engineering school) with high GPAs who couldn't program their way out of a paper bag.


[/ QUOTE ]

First of all, a 3.5 gpa is not considered high, its the bare minimum for getting into grad school for engineering at FSU. Second, I don't believe anyone that majored in sofware engineering and did well couldnt program their way out of a paper bag.

[Bytestream]

12k hands. 26% VPIP, 15% PFR

[MicroBob]

I'm sure it's AT LEAST 500 hands (not including the first 100 where he ran bady....those didn't count because he was still getting warmed-up).

[stinkypete]

[ QUOTE ]
12k hands. 26% VPIP, 15% PFR

[/ QUOTE ]

you'll need 10x that many hands and a winrate of at least 4.5 BB/100 to convince anyone around here that you're beating the game for more than 4BB/100.

[Bytestream]

So Sklansky writes that you can earn 1.5-2 BB/hr at 20/40 (whats that, 50 hands and hour at best?) Yet it is unbelievable that I can win 4bb/100 at 2/4.

I wonder exactly what DS and NPA meant when then said you should be crushing the low limit games and that solid player can make $50k a year at low limit. I didnt think they meant you needed to play 120 hours a week.

[MicroBob]

I have had a 10k hand stretch where I won over 7BB/100.
This is not uncommon. It is also likely not sustainable.

[Freakin]

[ QUOTE ]
At the outset let me assure you that we do NOT take screen shots NOR do we have any screen shots of players desktop with us, and no information that is recorded would ever be used by us without the players consent. Further, please check our Terms and Conditions of Use available on our website. Please check Clause 6, Clause 7, Clause 17 and Clause 18 (viii).

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm suprised no one has brought this up yet. Didn't multiple cheaters at the Winholdem forums find screenshots of their desktop inside their party folders?

Regardless, I think it's just stupid to say you can't program a poker bot. I mean hell, you could program a bot to identify the nuts, only play suited aces and pocket pairs, and not bet unless it hit the flop hard. You don't necessarily have to program a bot that can semi-bluff or check-raise to make it a winning player. You can play incredibly simple poker against the poorer players at party and still make money. Sure, you're not maximizing your winnings, but wtf do you care, you're sleeping while your bot is making money for you. It would appear that the big argument is this: Programming a winning poker bot is easy with proper knowledge of both fields; programming a perfect poker bot is near impossible.

Freakin

[Bytestream]

Im not here to convince anyone how much I win, I could care less if it's believable or not actually. On that note, I think you need to be beating party 2/4 for MORE then 2bb/100 to call yourself good.

[MicroBob]

[ QUOTE ]
I could care less if it's believable or not actually.

[/ QUOTE ]


Winning 4.7BB/100 over 12k hands is very believeable actually.
I don't know why anyone would doubt that you have done this.

[Mike Haven]

i think you might have missed the point that Faith Allen is the bot running the whole show out of Mike Sexton's garage:

"hi alerts

i was just reading a post in a forum about the possibility of bots playing at party

do bots play at party?

thanks"

* * *

Dear Michael,

Thank you for contacting us.

This message is to inform you that as part of our initiative to block artificial intelligence or prohibited software/programs that might give players an undue
advantage over the other players on the table, we have proceeded to monitor and block the use of such software/programs from running in conjunction with our
PartyPoker.com client.

As a part of our Technical Teams continued efforts to render such applications and software/programs useless we have a security feature in place to detect the usage of the same. We would not be in a position to elaborate on this security measure for obvious reasons.

Further, please check our Terms and Conditions of Use available on our website. Please check Clause 6, Clause 7, Clause 17 and Clause 18 (viii).

http://www.PartyPoker.com/about_us/legal_information.html

We have proactively implemented security measures to identify and block PokerBot applications from running in conjunction with our poker software. As part of this initiative we have implemented technical changes that would ensure that any such applications and software/programs are identified, detected and rendered useless.

Michael, we hope you understand our concerns in keeping up the fairness of our games and thank you in advance for your patience and cooperation in keeping up the spirit of the game and the integrity of our online poker card room.

If you have any further questions, comments or concerns, please contact us at alerts@PartyPoker.com and we will be more than glad to assist you.

Best regards,

Faith Allen
Investigations Team
PartyPoker.com

Faith Allen
Investigations Team
PartyPoker.com

Faith Allen
Investigations Team
PartyPoker.com

Faith Al

[null]

[ QUOTE ]
Im not here to convince anyone how much I win, I could care less if it's believable or not actually. On that note, I think you need to be beating party 2/4 for MORE then 2bb/100 to call yourself good.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm curious, what do you think of the future for online poker? Do you think measures will be put in place to deter bots, such as "type in this distorted text" that places like yahoo use to prevent automated signups (although a human could sit around and do that).

If you're going to come off as a member of the intellectual elite and brag about your winrate, you may want to read this thread (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=1342415&page=0&view=colla psed&sb=5&o=14&fpart=1) first.

[BusterStacks]

Bots do play on Party, and I'm not talking about WinHoldEm either, that is a steaming turd of a bot. The problem is that Party cannot admit to the problem as it would be a PR nightmare. Think how much money Party would lose by admitting that Poker AI exists on their site. It's like when a bank gets hacked into, it's much easier to just keep it quiet than to prosecute those who have gotten away with it. The most hillarious part of bot discussions however, is posts like these which assume a bot would be detectable due to obvious errors in game play. This is not true.

Edited: Just wanted to throw one other thing out there. The bots being used are not some kid in his basement either. We are talking large dollar amounts in profts and extortion for silence.

[wdbaker]

BusterStacks,
That's not a bot, that's just me playing, I promise... /images/graemlins/wink.gif /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

One Street at a Time
wdbaker Denver, Co

[adamstewart]

[ QUOTE ]
So Sklansky writes that you can earn 1.5-2 BB/hr at 20/40 (whats that, 50 hands and hour at best?) Yet it is unbelievable that I can win 4bb/100 at 2/4.

I wonder exactly what DS and NPA meant when then said you should be crushing the low limit games and that solid player can make $50k a year at low limit. I didnt think they meant you needed to play 120 hours a week.

It's called MULTI-TABLING.


[/ QUOTE ]


By the way... your 12K "sample size" combined with your claim to be "beating $2/$4 for 4.7BB/100" discredits all of your other posts.

I, nor anyone else, will currently convince you of your rationale errors.

Threfore, save this thread Play 50,000 more hands at 2/4... then re-read your posts. As a bonus, you may even want to post your win-rate after 50,000 hands.

Later,

Adam

[bpb]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
then the argument that a good-playing bot isn't possible no longer would hold water

[/ QUOTE ]

There is no argument. I am a software engineer and I have a 4.7BB/100 win rate at Party's 2/4 games. I do not doubt for a second that I could program a bot to beat the game. If it wasnt for my conscience, and lack of free time due to a full time job and taking masters courses in engineering, I would be writing one. Heck, you can download half the source code to begin with from SourceForge (http://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=13546).

The argument that the best players could outplay a bot is irrelavant if they don't know its a bot to begin with. Knowing a player is a "bot" and is programmed to act "correctly" is far different then assuming the oppenent is human and prone to tilt, mistakes etc... Its further irrelavent because its not the bot's intention to challenge world class players to begin with. It may be up against one or two "better" players, but its still getting its share of the other eight. This, IMO is the biggest threat the bots propose. They are slowly and artificially bleeding the games and diluting your own bottom line.

Think of how "intelligent" a bot can be when it can has 10k hands youve played in its database. Simply logic structures can be coded to take action based on the bot's oppenents VPIP, agression factor, bluffs on the river % etc...

Regardless of all that, from what I've read, Winholdem was beating the game. And it wasn't even engineered worth a [censored]. Imagine Chris Ferguson using his PHD in Comp Sci and Artificial Intelligence and his world champ of poker expertise in programming some of the logic for Winholdem or his own "personal" application. Its just denial for anyone to think that there aren't simialarly talented people already doing this.

As far as Party being able to detect this software, impossible. Unless of course, you promote it, try to sell it and make the Poker room aware of its existence, they would never know youre running one in the same way the cable company can't detect youre getting HBO for free.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why, after reading this post, is everyone getting bogged down in the "you aren't a proven long term winner at 2/4 because you've only played 12K hands." He makes several valid arguments. Winning low-limits at party isn't brain surgery, and anyone who thinks that it takes more than ABC poker to pull off 1-2 BB/100 is seriously overestimating what it takes to beat that game.

To summarize:

ABC poker can be described by a rules based system.
ABC poker wins money at party low limits.
A bot can be constructed to follow a rules based system.
A bot can play ABC poker.
A bot can win money.

[Bytestream]

Thanks for your input, but I don't require you or anyone else to convince me of my rationale errors. I have a thorough education and understanding of stats and probability. I am well aware of the confidence interval of my "sample size" and the meaningfullness and interpretation of the data.

It is only PokerTracker that I am new to, I only began using it about 3 months ago, hence the relatively small sample size. However, I have been playing online poker recreationally for over 3 years and the amount of money I have won during the previous 3 months while collecting the data with PokerTracker has been fairly consistent with my previous earnings. I have plenty of experience with the game and recognizing when I have been running either good or bad or neither.

I am certaintly aware of possible errors in this rationale as well. However, I am making the conjecture that my winrate will continue to exceed 3bb/hr over the next 38K hands as well. We are not talking about Vegas 20/40, this is Party 2/4, the majority of players are absolutely horrendous** and such winrates shouldn't be so unbelievable.
I used to play in a home game on campus a few years back when I started to take the game seriously and picked up my first poker book (Thursday Night Poker, Steiner?). After reading that and some others, I NEVER lost a single night for the next year and half. The players were simply "that bad" because it was all just beer, luck, fun and gambling. While the players at Party 2/4, are ironically, "better" they are not very much so. Yes, I do have my fair share of losing sessions at this limit but it doesnt take much to beat the game. You can certaintly expect to achieve a much higher winrate then you would expect at 20/40 or above.


** Only 40% are winners in my db, again I am aware of the small sample size, however I am interested to see how this number changes with a much larger sample size. Im sure it is still below the majority if anyone cares to post thier own data)

[null]

[ QUOTE ]
Bots do play on Party, and I'm not talking about WinHoldEm either, that is a steaming turd of a bot. The problem is that Party cannot admit to the problem as it would be a PR nightmare. Think how much money Party would lose by admitting that Poker AI exists on their site. It's like when a bank gets hacked into, it's much easier to just keep it quiet than to prosecute those who have gotten away with it. The most hillarious part of bot discussions however, is posts like these which assume a bot would be detectable due to obvious errors in game play. This is not true.

Edited: Just wanted to throw one other thing out there. The bots being used are not some kid in his basement either. We are talking large dollar amounts in profts and extortion for silence.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you have any proof? Just asking because your post sounds kind of tinfoil hat-ish.

[Rudbaeck]

[ QUOTE ]
The chances of there currently being winning bots in play are probably 90%.

The chance that there is any bot at all that could master NL is 0%.

The AI required for a winning bot at limit is inevitable. There is currently a Heads-Up bot that is said to be nearly unbeatable.

Programming a bot for NL is exponetially more difficult.

[/ QUOTE ]

Uhm, almost everything that makes live nl more complex than live limit is gone online. The reason so many feel it's more complex is because many of the decisions are based on unquantifiable data. Tells are way more important for example. There are basically no online tells.

The math of nl is even simpler than limit, and frankly so is much of the decision making. Bluffing and snapping off bluffs can be perfectly worked out using game theory, and in fact must be done for both limit and no limit bots.

The decision tree for what a limit bot should do in a large pot with many contestants is more complex than that for a no limit bot actually. Bot is SB, has tptk in a 11sb pot on a non coordinated flop, there are five people left to act. A bet doesn't protect his hand, it's possible even a check raise can't protect his hand, but there is most likely a way to protect his hand, if nothing else on the turn.

You make more decisions that concern a big part of your stack, but they aren't necessarily harder to make. And the advantage you gain from an understanding of the 'art' of no limit might well be made up by the bot never ever making an error in the 'science' part. Even a minor steam every 10-12 hours on your part might be enought to make up the difference, or if you multitable and ever mistake two opponents and make the correct play against a calling station against a tight-aggressive player.

Tracking opponents style and varying your play based on that is more important in nl, but it's still very important in limit, and can probably make up for a leap from 1BB/100 to 3BB/100 once you got the ABC part down. Has to be done for both.

[adamstewart]

Bytestream,

You come off as an intelligent-sounding poster. However, your story begins to degenerate....

First, you claim a 4.7 BB/100 winrate at Party $2/$4. Then you offer a 12,000 sample size as support (and claim to have the education to understand the implications of such a small sample size, yet continue to believe that this is actually representative of your longterm winrate).

I don't disagree, though, that you are a statistical wizard. Not everyone can magically turn a 2.7 BB/100 winrate over a 12,000 sample size, into a 4.7 BB/100 winrate over 12,000 - OVER THE COURSE OF 10 DAYS.

For those who are wondering what it is I am talking about, I refer you here. (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Board=smallholdem&Number=131 4056&Forum=,,,,,All_Forums,,,,,&Words=&Searchpage= 0&Limit=25&Main=1314056&Search=true&where=&Name=13 607&daterange=&newerval=&newertype=&olderval=&olde rtype=&bodyprev=#Post1314056)

Only time (and 50,000 to 100,000 more hands) will tell. I look forward to hearing from you in a month or two.

Adam

[crockett]

I have a few things I'd like to add:

1. If your posting replies along the lines of "Programming a bot to beat Poker would be nearly impossible"

Just Stop. Your making a fool of yourself. Some people just have no concept of the power of computers to make quick repitive decisions based on INCREDIBLE amounts of information.

2. If your posting replies along the lines that "Chess is easier for a computer to beat because it's a game of complete information" or "Poker is not a simple game (in comparison to Chess)"

Just Stop! Your making a fool of yourself.

Look, I don't care what you call Chess; either a game of complete information or not a game of complete information, but to say Poker is one and Chess is the other is foolish.

In Poker I DO KNOW YOUR TWO HOLE CARDS. It is 1 of 168 possiblities (I hold one of the 169 possiblities). After the flop I narrow it further, the turn even further, etc.

In Chess I DO KNOW YOUR NEXT MOVE. It 1 of X moves based on the current layout of the board.

To a computer both these scenarios are a game of COMPLETE information. It has everything it needs to know to make the BEST decision.

A chess bot predicts what you will most likely do next based on many different variables; your previous decisions, layout of the board, history of how you play (in some cases), ranks your best decisons to worst decisons, etc.

A Poker bot will just do the same but it knows you only have a lousy THREE decisions to make. Yes there are other variables such as your position vs. the bots position, previous decisions, actions of others, etc. but these variables are minimal in comparision to the # of scenarios a chess bot must calculate. And why is everyone assumming that a Poker bot won't take this in to account? It will, it will take EVERYTHING in to account, it's decision will be based on it's position, it's opponents position, it's opponents tendencies, it's opponents likely holdings, pot size, the current board, current limit it is playing, players left to act, texture of the table as a whole (passive, loose, aggressive, tight, etc), and even more I'm sure. Of course, this bot is not one written by a high school programmer but to think that this isn't a simple thing for experienced computer programmers in combination with experienced hold'em players is ridiculous. In fact, it is very likely that it is being done right now as we type about it.

Two clowns devised a laser device to calculate the speed of a roulette ball. This laser device sent information back to a computer through a cell-phone (modified to be a transmitting device). The computer interpted the data and sent back what it thought were the most likely numbers for the ball to land on. It worked. In fact, it worked too well.

Oh yeah, us dumb humans could never program a computer to beat limit Poker. Gosh a simple game like chess yes but Poker no. Give me a break.


Finally, as time goes on, programs to beat Poker (limit) will be more and more sophisticated. They will start incorporating databases such as Poker Tracker, they will know your tendecies. For example, they will know without a doubt after playing a large number of hands against you that there are only certain hands you play or raise from UTG. This will of course give their decisions more weight becasue they have considerably narrowed your possible holdings.

Finally, I'm not saying a bot would ever have a bug that failed to recognize the nuts on the river. But one thing I do know, is it won't do it again. Any half-brained programmer would see it whie playing back the hands and correct the bug. A human will not do this. He will eventually misclick again and fail to bet the nuts on the river.

[Sephus]

oops.

[Freakin]

I honestly can't believe that the biggest hang up people are having in this thread is whether or not bytestream is a winning player at 2/4.
It would not be too difficult to program a bot to interact with Party poker. It's been done.
It would not be too difficult to program a bot to play ABC poker with no read-dependent decisions.
It would not be too difficult to believe that ABC poker with no reads can win on party poker.
It would not be too difficult to take your feet out of your asses and get off your high horse about sample size & win rate. Didn't Homer's post just show that at 480,000 hands you still could only be 95% certain that your winrate was w/n .5BB of your true number? And even at 96,000 hands, it was still +/- 2BB. So those of you saying "Play another 38k hands and then we'll see who's right" clearly are wrong about something too. Does that mean everything you say from this point on is meaningless? Good grief. Accept the fact that bots can win money, and that people can clearly make poker bots. Do you think that even a player who uses Winholdem and has programmed their bot to win is gonna be posting all over the place talking about it? They certainly won't need to ask the stupid questions like "How do I keep my bot from folding Aces preflop?"

[itsmarty]

[ QUOTE ]
Not everyone can magically turn a 2.7 BB/100 winrate over a 12,000 sample size, into a 4.7 BB/100 winrate over 12,000 - OVER THE COURSE OF 10 DAYS.

[/ QUOTE ]

Heh.

Martin

[adamstewart]

[ QUOTE ]
Didn't Homer's post just show that at 480,000 hands you still could only be 95% certain that your winrate was w/n .5BB of your true number? And even at 96,000 hands, it was still +/- 2BB.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good, so we're in agreement

Thanks,

Adam

[Bytestream]

There is actually a fairly simple explanation for this and it was a mistake on my part. While I was working on the recent PokerStars bonus last week, I was only getting the last 60 or so hands sent to me by my hand history, when i requested it for the last 10 hours. This was the first time I used Pokerstars data in my PT, up unitll then I had just used Empire and Party. I don't play much due to other other commitments, about 3-4k hands a month depending on what the bonus scene looks like.

Anyway, I emailed support and asked them to send me the rest of my hands and for the past month or two if they could (longshot, but what the heck, figured if they could send it for the last week, why not longer) and lo and behold they sent me a link to download a zip file with exactly that. I was about 4k hands, and there are actually close to 17k hands in Pokertracker now. In memory, I updated my winrate but not my hands. Simple honest mistake. This didn't start as a thread about my winrate and I didn't intend for it to become one, I was just my rant on the existence and ability of bots in online poker.

Either that or I am just a cluess, disposable, fraudulent lying troll. Thats for you to decide.

Either way, I stand by my assertion that a winrate greater then 3bb/100 is acheiveable at 2/4 party.

[Bytestream]

Bravo! Everything I've been trying to say, yet written so much better.

[adamstewart]

[ QUOTE ]
Either way, I stand by my assertion that a winrate greater then 3bb/100 is acheiveable at 2/4 party.

[/ QUOTE ]

Whoa, whoa, whoa.... hold on a sec. This was not, nor has it ever been until now, your assertion.

Adam

[Rick H]

Winholdem site is still up, I just checked it out. Last thread is about some guy complaining about a phone call from Pacific and how can he avoid getting caught, again.

[OldLearner]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, the # of decisions you can make when the action is on you is small. You're ignoring the large # of analyses that go into choosing one of those options, though. To do that analysis requires a lot more than "You only have 4 choices". You need to consider action on previous streets, what your opponents are likely to do in response to your various options, and so on. Not to mention that you need to store all the info you observe while playing and constantly re-evaluate your profiles of the other players.


[/ QUOTE ]

This analysis actualy sounds very "mechanical":

[ QUOTE ]
consider action on previous streets

[/ QUOTE ]

A bot can do this without "forgetting sometimes" and having to check the chat.

[ QUOTE ]
what your opponents are likely to do in response to your various options

[/ QUOTE ]

If you are using PokerTracker stats, a bot can do this. A bot can also store and retrieve exact instances of the same player in the same situation flawlessly. A bot could even determine more accurately whether an opponent is "mixing it up". Most people's memories aren't that good.
A bot can also be programmed to apply game theory (mix it up) better than you.


[ QUOTE ]
Not to mention that you need to store all the info you observe while playing and constantly re-evaluate your profiles of the other players.

[/ QUOTE ]

Pokertracker already does this to a limited degree in that it summarizes the specific information. A bot can go a step further and re-evaluate its player profiles much more accurately, as it can store and examine the "specific" information rather than "summarized" statistics.

A bot can do these things and do them SO MUCH better than you.

- do it faster (when you have limited time to make a decision this determines how deep you can take your analysis)
- do it more accurately (store and observe, Pokertracker already does this to a limited degree in summarizes the specific information)
- do it unadulterated (by fatigue, "tilt", any form of distraction including multi-tabling, ...)

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, the # of decisions you can make when the action is on you is small. You're ignoring the large # of analyses that go into choosing one of those options

[/ QUOTE ]

This is one of the most important considerations.

How large of an analysis can you do in 30 seconds?
Do you have any idea how much analysis a bot can do in 30 seconds?

Can WinHoldem bot do these things. NO. Although by considering a limited number of factors, it can still win.

Can POKI (UofA bot) do these things. YES. Can it win? Well, it can compete with one of the best Shorthanded online limit Holdem players in the world (The Count) and that while it was still in its infancy.

The number of people capable of creating a POKI type bot are limited. As stated in an earlier post, prior to the online poker boom, there was little motivation. A BSC in Computer Science and knowledge of AI is also a requirement so not "anybody" can do this.

We know there are Winholdem bots online now. (or were).

Are there POKI type bots in online poker now?

Is there other intelligent life in the universe?

[CORed]

[ QUOTE ]
In Poker I DO KNOW YOUR TWO HOLE CARDS. It is 1 of 168 possiblities (I hold one of the 169 possiblities). After the flop I narrow it further, the turn even further, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with your points, but, being the anal retentive nitpcicker that I am, I have to point out the error in the quoted statement. There are 1326 unique hole card combinations. The 169 number comes up if you, for example, consider all AKo as equivalent (which they are in terms of preflop EV). So, there are still 169 possibilities for your opponent, but the probability that he holds the same one you do is reduced (significantly of you hold a pocket pair).

[Bytestream]

[ QUOTE ]
Whoa, whoa, whoa.... hold on a sec. This was not, nor has it ever been until now, your assertion

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes it has, a few posts above I stated that exactly:

[ QUOTE ]
I am certaintly aware of possible errors in this rationale as well. However, I am making the conjecture that my winrate will continue to exceed 3bb/hr over the next 38K hands as well. We are not talking about Vegas 20/40, this is Party 2/4, the majority of players are absolutely horrendous

[/ QUOTE ]

[CORed]

I'm going to way in on a few points:

1. Party's reponse on this sucks. I think it is much more likely that your emails were answered by a bot than that the opponent in question is a bot.

2. Given that he checked in last position with the nuts, I think it is highly unlikely that your opponent was a bot.

3. I think the posters who believe that writing a winning bot is impossible are fooling themselves. I am a winning player and a programmer. I believe I could write a bot to beat low limit games pretty easily, and I don't think writing a bot to beat good players, at either limit or no limit is impossible. No I haven't done so, and have no plans to do so. That doesn't mean somebody else hasn't.

[MS Sunshine]

Welcome Bytestream. Sorry you're getting Bar-B-Qed, but it's your own fault you actually put out numbers(oh yeah, and that higher schooling stuff) to show that you might know what you are talking about. My wife is just like these guys. If one of her girlfriends asks how I'm in bed she says, "I really don't want to say yet, because I don't have a big enough sample size" /images/graemlins/blush.gif

Last month's PT DB has 166K hands with 37% winners. DbBaker, from here, has claimed to be the player in question. I believe him.

I don't go around with my hands in the air yelling that Party is filled with bots and that's why I'm not winning. I had my reasons to think that it was possible that this player might be a bot. That is why I wrote to support. Who I didn't think did squat.

I have 6348 players in PT for last month. This player was #12 for most money and #9 for for most hands. Players like this I like to look at more carefully. When the hand in question happened that was enough for me to see if the site would take a look at him. I don't think I've ever made this request before. I can see where Party might just lump this with all the other emails claiming bots. The problem is I think Party doesn't do anything when someone claims bot, but try to appease the player that complained. I think they have some way to spot winholdem bots only and do a sweep of most accounts on a regular basis for the winholdem bot. I also think that there are much better bots out there that don't have a web page and spam the poker forums. As long as they don't Party doesn't have a problem, can't find the problem, or will happily deny that there is a problem.

I don't think that a NL bot is so hard to program to win at Party. It doesn't have to play perfect, but like me, just good enough to win. I think that for the low limits even a basic game selection program using PT data would have real value.

MS Sunshine

Winning player
Sample size: over one million hands online
NO JOB

[MrMoo]

[ QUOTE ]
2. If your posting replies along the lines that "Chess is easier for a computer to beat because it's a game of complete information" or "Poker is not a simple game (in comparison to Chess)"

Just Stop! Your making a fool of yourself.

[/ QUOTE ]


[/ QUOTE ]
Your ignorance is astounding. I suggest you do some further research into the area. My impression is that you have very little experience with computers or with game theory. I'd suggest you start by reading this link: http://www.cs.ualberta.ca/~jonathan/Grad/papp/node29.htm

If you'd like to continue your research and further realize you have no idea what your talking about, please start reading here: http://www.cs.ualberta.ca/~games/poker/

You can "feel" your right all you want. The sad truth is that people that are likely much brighter than you or I have spent years doing research into this and have PROVEN you wrong.

[Ulysses]

1) As Rob mentions, this play makes it much less likely that this player is a bot.

2) Programming a winning NL bot is way, way easier than programming a winning limit bot.

[bpb]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
2. If your posting replies along the lines that "Chess is easier for a computer to beat because it's a game of complete information" or "Poker is not a simple game (in comparison to Chess)"

Just Stop! Your making a fool of yourself.

[/ QUOTE ]


[/ QUOTE ]
Your ignorance is astounding. I suggest you do some further research into the area. My impression is that you have very little experience with computers or with game theory. I'd suggest you start by reading this link: http://www.cs.ualberta.ca/~jonathan/Grad/papp/node29.htm

If you'd like to continue your research and further realize you have no idea what your talking about, please start reading here: http://www.cs.ualberta.ca/~games/poker/

You can "feel" your right all you want. The sad truth is that people that are likely much brighter than you or I have spent years doing research into this and have PROVEN you wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

After reading crockett's original post and your response, I have concluded that.

A. I largely agree with what crockett has to say and (what I think is) his overall thesis that "Building a poker bot that can beat your average Party yutz ain't that hard"

B. You are an [censored].

[crockett]

Sweet! Thanks for the links. I didn't know such a thing even existed.

I think you meant to say "proven me right".

According to those articles a winning bot already exists, they just haven't perfected it yet to compete at world class level. Just as I had suspected.

[ QUOTE ]
Q: How good is Poki?

A: The older version of Poki that plays in full 10-player games is better than a typical low-limit casino player, and wins consistently against average opponents; but it is not as good as most expert players. The newer programs being developed for the 2-player game are quite a bit better, and we believe they will eventually surpass all human players, perhaps within a few years, or less.



[/ QUOTE ]

This quote is a couple years old, so you can imagine they are leaps and bounds further than mentioned above.

Pretty cool! It took them decades to beat children playing chess. They've done it with Hold'em in a few years. Maybe this is because there are obviously more "tools" avaible to programmers than there were in the sixties. I don't know.

Also, they use that "chess is a game of complete information" line as well. How do they know my next move? If just makes me laugh everyone time I read it. Maybe they should rephrase it. I see what their saying, I obviously don't have any chess pieces up my sleeve but you certainly don't know my next move. You can make a guess at what I'm most likely going to do.

I think the same can be said for Hold'em. You don't know my hole cards but you can make a very good guess at what they are.

All I said was that people are fools if they don't think a bot will/is beating Poker or in the near future will be and to make statements that Poker is some vastly more complex game than chess is foolish.

Those articles prove both my points. The programmers are handling both games just fine.

And just think, online Poker is in it's infancy. A decade ago there was very little if any motivation to beat Poker. Now that there is money to be made, how long do you think it will be?

[BusterStacks]

[ QUOTE ]
Welcome Bytestream. Sorry you're getting Bar-B-Qed, but it's your own fault you actually put out numbers(oh yeah, and that higher schooling stuff) to show that you might know what you are talking about. My wife is just like these guys. If one of her girlfriends asks how I'm in bed she says, "I really don't want to say yet, because I don't have a big enough sample size" /images/graemlins/blush.gif

Last month's PT DB has 166K hands with 37% winners. DbBaker, from here, has claimed to be the player in question. I believe him.

I don't go around with my hands in the air yelling that Party is filled with bots and that's why I'm not winning. I had my reasons to think that it was possible that this player might be a bot. That is why I wrote to support. Who I didn't think did squat.

I have 6348 players in PT for last month. This player was #12 for most money and #9 for for most hands. Players like this I like to look at more carefully. When the hand in question happened that was enough for me to see if the site would take a look at him. I don't think I've ever made this request before. I can see where Party might just lump this with all the other emails claiming bots. The problem is I think Party doesn't do anything when someone claims bot, but try to appease the player that complained. I think they have some way to spot winholdem bots only and do a sweep of most accounts on a regular basis for the winholdem bot. I also think that there are much better bots out there that don't have a web page and spam the poker forums. As long as they don't Party doesn't have a problem, can't find the problem, or will happily deny that there is a problem.

I don't think that a NL bot is so hard to program to win at Party. It doesn't have to play perfect, but like me, just good enough to win. I think that for the low limits even a basic game selection program using PT data would have real value.

MS Sunshine

Winning player
Sample size: over one million hands online
NO JOB

[/ QUOTE ]

Hillarious that it takes someone to actually fess up to being the player before you retract your bot claim. Are we going to have to listen to you every time someone makes an obvious error? The assumption on most people's part was that you were wrong until proven right. Instead you are actually proven wrong, and still, rather than apologize, say something to the effect of "well ok, maybe THAT wasn't a bot, but I'm sure they're out there!" Unreal.

[dogsballs]

[ QUOTE ]
i thought you were above this?

come on, people misclick all the time. people also misread boards once in a while. it doesn't matter if you are the best player on party.

how many emails a day do you think party gets along the lines of "is XXXX a bot?"?

i would expect this kind of post from the likes of... well let's not make anyone feel bad.

[/ QUOTE ]


You remind me of Stew.

[schwza]

if there were one thing that would make me thing an account were not a bot, it would be checking behind the nuts on the river.

if this bot is so bad that it makes this mistake, there's no way i see it winning anything at all.

[MrMoo]

Glad you enjoyed the links.

And I should apologize for my earlier tone. I reread what I wrote and I was quite a bit more rude than I should have been. Sorry.

[MS Sunshine]

"Now anyone can misread a hand, but I thought I would have support look at him, because ......"

"Any chance ...... is a bot?"

Hillarious that it takes someone to actually fess up to being the player before you retract your bot claim.

As you can see from my first post quote and my request to Party, I was far from certain, but felt it should be looked into.

Are we going to have to listen to you every time someone makes an obvious error?

You do not have to listen at all, I can see from your replies you're well on your way to this goal, but my post here was more directed to the auto-responses from Party on this subject.

The assumption on most people's part was that you were wrong until proven right.

This is exactly why I want signatures brought back. So, I can forever save little jewels like this.


Instead you are actually proven wrong, and still, rather than apologize, say something to the effect of "well ok, maybe THAT wasn't a bot, but I'm sure they're out there!"

No, I still believe that Party is treating any bot question as a PR problem with their auto-response form letters. And yes I'm sure THEY are still out there. I'm also sure that Party wouldn't recognize a bot on their site unless they were being sold on the street corners of New Delhi by six foot clowns in flared yellow checked coats and tiny red hats.


Unreal.

Real. The only disturbing thing about this thread is how you could have gotten so many posts before I finally realized you were such a dick.

MS Sunshine

[BigBaitsim (milo)]

[ QUOTE ]
I have had a 10k hand stretch where I won over 7BB/100.
This is not uncommon. It is also likely not sustainable.

[/ QUOTE ]

My best 10K stretch was something like 7.8BB/100. Totally unsustainable, but very nice just the same.

[_And1_]

"1. An excellent player misses the nuts at the river."

Well i agree that most excellent players dont, but then again, if you consider that this player might be playing 6+ tables it is very possible that you once in in awhile do misread the hand and check the nut hand, it shouldnt happen to often couse if it does you better play less tables..

[Victor]

its actually a lot easier to program a bot to beat low limit nl tables. here, i will even give you the algorithm.


Raise preflop 4xBB with AA-JJ, AKs, AKo. Push if reraised. Push on the flop regardless.

[Rah]

Second line: see the flop cheap with smaller PPs and push if a set flops.

Wow now we have a bot that can make a lot of profit on Party. Any comments from people saying it's next to impossible to make a profitable NL bot?

[Victor]

we are geniuses rah

[Richard Berg]

[ QUOTE ]
Also, they use that "chess is a game of complete information" line as well. How do they know my next move? If just makes me laugh everyone time I read it. Maybe they should rephrase it. I see what their saying, I obviously don't have any chess pieces up my sleeve but you certainly don't know my next move. You can make a guess at what I'm most likely going to do.

[/ QUOTE ]
You have obviously never read a single book on game theory. These terms have precise (mathematical) definitions. To answer your specific challenge: in a game of perfect information, your next move doesn't matter since -- by virtue of being able to see all the pieces -- we can plan for all of the possible outcomes.

[Richard Berg]

Your claims are ridiculous, MS Sunshine. It is much, much easier for a computer to identify the nuts than for a computer to be a winning player in the first place. Writing the former function would take any competent programmer about 5 minutes.

Party support, on the other hand, is clearly run by bots.

[Rudbaeck]

[ QUOTE ]
Party support, on the other hand, is clearly run by bots.

[/ QUOTE ]

Finally a bot claim I am willing to believe!

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
If this Bytestream can write a poker bot, my pot head friends from college can fly a car powered by hemp to Jupiter and score with hot Jupiter skanks.

I believe if he is taking master's level engineering courses
and he is a winning player, then he has the intelligence to write a bot. I have taken grad level electrical engineering courses and in my opinion every one of my classmates has the intelligence to write the algorithm for a winning bot. Then you could hire a code monkey for the rest. Yes it is that easy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Another post by someone who fails to understand that it is not currently possible.

[eastbay]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If this Bytestream can write a poker bot, my pot head friends from college can fly a car powered by hemp to Jupiter and score with hot Jupiter skanks.

I believe if he is taking master's level engineering courses
and he is a winning player, then he has the intelligence to write a bot. I have taken grad level electrical engineering courses and in my opinion every one of my classmates has the intelligence to write the algorithm for a winning bot. Then you could hire a code monkey for the rest. Yes it is that easy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Another post by someone who fails to understand that it is not currently possible.

[/ QUOTE ]

Total nonsense. Why do people talk about things they don't know about? You, for example.

eastbay

[crazy canuck]

Wake up call, have you taken engineering /cpsc classes at research level? Or are you familiar with the problems these people are trying to solve? Building a bot that beats party low limit wouldn't even get you a master's thesis at most places. I was browsing the net to look for neural network research and came across this scandinavian undergrad class where they built poker bots that played against each other. This wasn't even an undergraduate thesis...was simly a class project.

[GrannyMae]

nothing to add

just noticed it was at 99 replies and wanted to make this flame.

MsMoonpie deserves a flaming thread on this revolutionary topic

http://smilies.sofrayt.com/%5E/0/pikachusgoodbye.gifhttp://smilies.sofrayt.com/%5E/0/pikachusgoodbye.gifhttp://smilies.sofrayt.com/%5E/0/pikachusgoodbye.gifhttp://smilies.sofrayt.com/%5E/0/pikachusgoodbye.gifhttp://smilies.sofrayt.com/%5E/0/pikachusgoodbye.gifhttp://smilies.sofrayt.com/%5E/0/pikachusgoodbye.gif

[jskills]

As a software developer, I just have to throw in my 2 cents. A bot that *successfully* plays limit poker would be difficult to write as it is, but pot limit or no limit would be extremely difficult.

However, I'm sure they do exist. That said, writing the logic to analyze the cards on the board to determine it had the nuts is ridiculously easy. There can be no way any bot would miss that. It would be the foundation of the code, ranking hands, and recognizing when it could not be beat.

Like I said, just my 2 cents ...