Preflop Bot

[YoureToast]

I am generally a lurker here, posted a few times. I am fearful of getting flamed but I trust the thoughts of most of the 2+2ers and respect your opinions, so I felt I should write this post and see what happens.

I have developed a Party Poker preflop bot; it does one thing and one thing only, it folds hands that, given the relevant circumstances, should be folded. Thats all it does; it does not call, check or raise; it does not know what the "flop" is and therefore does not play after the flop.

My purpose in creating this was two-fold (pun intended): 1) it was an interesting project to do - I used the MS .net framework and 2) I thought it would be helpful to my game, and particularly for multi-tabling purposes, to not have to physically push the "fold" button all the time and to enforce a little discipline on me.

The program right now is about 95% effective; there are a few bugs that will be easy to correct. It has proven to improve my discipline and it does make it easier to play multiple tables.

My questions for the zoo are these:

1. Do you consider this ethical? I think it is because the computer does not process anything more difficult than I can process in my brain; the only advantage it gives me is the enforcement of discipline; and, quite frankly, it certainly does not provide me with anymore advantage than someone using PT or similar program. To me, it is different from an ethical perspective than a full-fledged bot. What do you think?

2. Do you think there is a market for this type of program? I have not used, nor will I use, Winholdem, but I do know that this program has a completely different purpose -- all it does it fold obvious folding hands. My fear about selling this to anyone is that if it became commonplace in any respect, Party would likely crack downa and stop it and since I have a day job, I wouldn't have time to do lots of rewrites; also, I don't want tables full of tight players. For this reason, if I decided to sell it, I would limit its distribution. Also, I would comply with all 2+2 advertising rules and policies; I'd let the zoo know it was avaialble and thats it.

3. Do you have any other thoughts on this idea? I'm sure someone else has done this already, but I haven't seen any similar posts.

Thanks and please be kind (or flame away if the holidays are getting you down and need to relieve some tension).

YoureToast

[sumdumguy]

If the zoo decides it's ethical.. I'm first in line for a copy!

[grinin]

Noooooooooooooooooo!

Preflop is the reason that many people on this forum can make better than 1 bb/100. If this became widespread which is probably inevitable, the tables would simply become too tight for most of us to overcome the rake.

[YoureToast]

Yes, and this is a big fear of mine....I would not let it become widespread and strictly limit the number of copies out there. Perhaps have some sort of subscription based license so when the limit it reached, those not renewing could be replaced by other interested parties. Trust me, I have a lot more interest in keeping the tables loose generally than in making money from this thing (although a little of both would be nice, no doubt.)

[BradleyT]

You're going to get 500 PMs asking for a copy.

I say keep it to yourself and enjoy it.

[usmfan]

Aside from the fact that I fear that this would make the tables very tight, I think it violates the anti-bot agreements with the poker rooms. While I see your point about the fact that this initial PF decision is a routine one requiring little thought, it is still a decision to be made by a person. I would guess that maybe you could write a program that gives you a recommendation as to folding PF or not, but doesn't actually do the action. Not sure if that violates the TOS or not. However, given PP's recent crackdown on winholdem and their ability to take screenshots, I wouldn't risk it. my $.02

[Rudbaeck]

It violates anti-bot agreements and will make clueless people tighter. If you absolutely HAVE to distribute this crap atleast make the default settings see 60% of all flops.

[SackUp]

Bots are bad, period, end of discussion.

I don't care if it only does preflop action and only foldsd hands, it is still standardizing the game too much and taking the human thought process out of the equation.

You said it yourself that you often have a hard time restraining yourself in hands. A program like this would eliminate that need for restraint and would take away lots of opportunities to take advantage of tilted players. Poker is as much a mental game as it is a game of numbers. The more bots and progams of that nature in place, the more standardized the game becomes and really it just ruins the game.

Plus as stated before this will clearly violate the no bot policy of poker rooms. Why even risk it if your program does something that you can do very easily yourself anyhow? And why take the chance of improving so many fishes games? And why take the chance of potentially folding a monster when your program bugs out.

The whole mindset that "the program is only doing something I could do anyhow" is exactly the thought process that the creators of winholdem in the like have used. It obviously took someone time to create the program and to develop a game theory that they would employ if playing themselves so the program is really doing no more than what they would do. The fatal flaw is that it is doing more than what they could do themselves as it takes the human psyche out of the equation and thus it has something you can't do yourself.

Stay away from bots and don't give programs like this out to anyone. I wouldn't use it yourself either. Totally unnecessary and likely to just get you banned.

[OrangeKing]

[ QUOTE ]
It violates anti-bot agreements and will make clueless people tighter. If you absolutely HAVE to distribute this crap atleast make the default settings see 60% of all flops.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. While I'd rather you get rid of this program entirely, this should be the final line of defense for anyone who creates a bot and does let it out into the wild; make sure the default settings are horrible, and force the user to change them.

[NoTalent]

This is bad, bad, bad for too many reasons to list. Don't do it.....

The last thing you need is for a bunch of ><))*> to get this and all our $$$ dries up.

[gusly]

Here's my two cents.

1. Don't market this as a "bot." Market it as a "software skin" with added functionality. Said functionality being the ability to predetermine preflop actions, based on a "user-specified" set of rules.

Include a table of all possible starting hands, and have the user decide what action to take by checking off the appropriate choice based on position, pot size etc. Save the choices to an encrypted preferences file that can't be shared with other copies of the software. And don't include any suggestions other than telling the buyers that they can find advice on starting hands in poker books and on the Web. The appeal should lie in the ability to cut down on button-clicking, not in the ability to make calculations...

2. Include the option to modify those predetermined actions in real time. This will keep the fishes in play.

For example, say you're at x number of tables... your software skin could have a display of the cards you've been dealt and what the upcoming action will be, along with other relevant data, all in one spot. So for two tables:

<font color="green"> Table 1 </font> Kd Kh <font color="blue"> Action: </font> Fold Check Call <font color="red">Raise </font> ManualPlay
<font color="green"> Table 2 </font> Ac 6s <font color="blue"> Action: </font> <font color="red"> Fold </font> Check Call Raise ManualPlay

(To simplify things, I've left out relevant data such as position, number of callers etc.)

So a fish, having allowed the software to fold ace-rag twice in a row before the flop comes with two aces, decides that aces are hot tonight, and he's going to play his ace no matter what, goddammit. So he can change the predetermined action before it gets to him by clicking on ManualPlay or Call. +EV for the rest of us who know what we're doing.

Also, it would be cool to have something like this for SNGs and MTTs that will factor in blind levels etc.

EDIT: Just to clarify, I am against bots such as Winholdem and Robowhatever. I consider that cheating. My post here is simply about automating preflop button clicks that I would do myself anyway, based on knowledge acquired from books and the forums here.

[KJ o]

I'd be interested in the "general setup" code, mostly out of curiosity. I am not interested in the logic that fold hands specifically, but rather in the overall architechture of the program.

Could you give us a few tidbits. Is it based on screen scraping or does it listen to the network traffic?

Where this would be truly interesting for me is in automated data mining, for instance of SnG's. Now I manually have to open the tourney tables and thus can't let it run overnight. A simple software that navigated the lobby would be great.

[Pawtucket Pat]

I really hope that neither you or any other 2+2er uses this. I guarantee you its against the against Party's rules. This cannot possibly worth the risk of having your party bankroll confiscated. I am also completely against it because it not only would tighten up a lot of horrible players - why on earth would you want to do that?? and because it greatly reduces the only real challenge of multitabling, which is managing action on several tables.

Besides, if you're a winning player, would it really be worth tigthening up the masses so you could sell a couple hundred copies at $20 or $30 a pop? You can make that in a couple months of honest play. We poker players like to think in terms of the long run, so look at that way. Would you want this program or this idea to get out there and be widely used? I sure don't, and I doubt you do either.

[Pawtucket Pat]

I would like to add that I applaud your effort to ask everyone here about it, I for one certainly appreciate.

[carlo]

1) No way you'll limit its sales--how foolish do you think we are?

2) This type of PF Bot can only make a player worse--NO Think-NO Pay.

3) Players, good and bad, will catch on and play will adjust.

4) If you don't understand starting hands, you're in the dark and it won't matter. If you do understand starting hands it matters even less.

5)Anything can sell--check the internet ads for Viagra,Cialis,Cortislim,etc. /images/graemlins/grin.gif Your choice.

regards,
carlo

[smoore]

I started a project exactly like this, got it to scrape and then realized that as soon as I gave it to one person, EVERYONE would have it in a matter of time. Shift+Del the project folder. There's also the TOS and possible loss of bankroll.

Please do not release this... it may even bring out the old IRC warrior in me on any machine I find it on /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[gusly]

[ QUOTE ]
I am also completely against it because it not only would tighten up a lot of horrible players - why on earth would you want to do that?? and because it greatly reduces the only real challenge of multitabling, which is managing action on several tables.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you're coming to a black/white conclusion when the reality is gray. What if poker sites didn't have buttons for predetermined preflop action? That would make multitabling harder, but would it be more fair? And is it fair that some players can afford multiple 1600x1200 LCD displays so tables don't overlap? Is that fair to someone who's trying to multitable on a 17 inch monitor and fighting to manage cascading tables?

What's wrong with giving someone the software equivalent of a bigger monitor with a little button clicking automation?

[scurvydog]

As far as it being "ethical", I think it clearly is. Anyone claiming that it isn't is just saying that our of self-interest and fear. If a bot such as this isn't "ethical" than neither is using PokerTracker nor reading a poker book or using any other external tool to improve your game.

I don't think distributing it is a particularly horrible thing. People are lazy. Anyone smart or ambitious enough to use it and set it up would be ambitious enough to eventually improve their game to the point where it wasn't necessary. People who gambool and are undisciplined aren't going to use it. The only money it would take off the table would be from players who would quickly take that money off the table themselves anyway.

I think marketing/selling it would be a huge mistake, though. It's clearly in violation of the terms and conditions of assorted sites. While you could make it expressly clear to customers that once they buy it, buyer beware (as far as possible crackdowns on users by Party et al) you would constantly be dealing with angry, angry customers who had their account frozen and/or seized by Party. You don't want that and couldn't charge a price high enough (given the limited scope and functionality of what it offers) to deal with that nightmare.

[gusly]

One other thing: people are overestimating the appeal of automation. Yes, I know this is about making money for us, but there's a ton of people out there that love gambling and the adrenalin rush it gives. They're always going to want to push the buttons themselves. There's no thrill in having a machine make all your decisions.

There's a certain thrill in doing things yourself and making your own decisions. Just ask any teenager. There will always be a ton of people who will never buy a car with an automatic transmission even with all the convenience it provides. The feel is just different.

[lorinda]

I think it's against Party rules, and rightfully so as it is best to draw the line in a tough place than in one that I personally don't have a problem with.

As for fears of fish drying up, there is 0 chance that they will be interested in a stupid program that does outrageous things like folding 57s preflop UTG.

Ethically I think it's fine, but I don't think Party will agree with you.

Lori

[Pawtucket Pat]

Gusly, the thing is, you don't want the fish to understand that tightening up pre-flop is a good thing. A bot designed for that at least suggests that its profitable. I want those idiots playing 27s until the day they die "because its sooted." You are right about the button pushing though, that little thrill of theirs pays my rent every month. Thats a good point, comforting as well. I drive a stick and 4-table on my 1600x1200 LCD, simply because they both make their each respective activity. The manual makes driving more fun, and the monitor makes poker more profitable. While automation wouldn't be much fun for the fish, I still don't anything that disturbs the balance in their world by changing the way they play.

[lorinda]

you don't want the fish to understand that tightening up pre-flop is a good thing.

Most fish understand this. They don't care.

Lori

[tripdad]

a lot of responses are leaning toward "protect my bankroll. do not release this gold mine to the fish i prey upon!".

this is absurd. fish are fish because they know no other way. they are interested in winning lots of pots, apparently with no regard to the many they lose. if a "fish" was interested in improving their game, it wouldn't matter if they got their hands on this program, or simply a good book...they would improve somehow, someway.

i used to be the one who played any Ace, any position(sometimes any face), any 2 suited, etc...i actually fared pretty well in my first Vegas Hold'em sessions playing this type of thing. i really thought i was the bomb. then, while waiting for the plane for the trip home, i scanned through a poker book(can't remember which one, but it was really rudimentary and basic). i bought the book, and read it on the plane trip back. i was kicking myself for not buying one before going to Binion's and playing with the big boys at the $2/4 table...oh, the money that had slipped through my fingers! well, long story short, i was determined to be good at Hold'em, and i had the internet as a resource. i simply took the time to browse different strategy-type sites...yada, yada, yada. i'm a fish NO MORE! (though i can be a bit of a LAG at times /images/graemlins/grin.gif). and i didn't need a bot to do it!

cheers!

[BradleyT]

I have extensive experience with bots and MMORPGs. I bought a Sims Online bot for $100. It could make money in game about 60x faster than a human could and would run non-stop for 12+ hours on end. I used it to make over $25,000 real cash. The bot creator sold 50 copies and made $5,000 and spent the whole time modifying, tweaking, and adjusting the software over many months. Those of us who owned it created such a huge influx of money in the game we basically collapsed the economy (regular players were delighted to make $20,000 simoleans in a day - we were making $10,000,000) which resulted in the value of money we had dropping 10 fold (what we could sell for $40 two months ago was now selling for $4). Eventually word got out and all of us got banned from the game (they started checking how fast players were making money and then looking at what programs we had running). At the time I was banned I had over $4,000 worth of simoleans on my characters. If he'd kept it to himself he probably could have made $200,000+.

Right now I have my own crafting bot for Everquest II. While it's not as nice as the Sims Online bot I bought, it's undetectable because no one has any copies and Sony would have no clue what .exe file or windows process to scan for on my computer. Sure I could sell it for $50 and probably make $5000 (minus all the hours spent helping and supporting moron users) before we all get caught or the economy collapses - or I can keep it to myself and make $25,000.

Like I said, keep it. Game economies are like the fish ponds. One single person can't dry up the pond, but multiple people can.

[BradleyT]

[ QUOTE ]
a lot of responses are leaning toward "protect my bankroll. do not release this gold mine to the fish i prey upon!".

this is absurd. fish are fish because they know no other way. they are interested in winning lots of pots, apparently with no regard to the many they lose. if a "fish" was interested in improving their game, it wouldn't matter if they got their hands on this program, or simply a good book...they would improve somehow, someway.

i used to be the one who played any Ace, any position(sometimes any face), any 2 suited, etc...i actually fared pretty well in my first Vegas Hold'em sessions playing this type of thing. i really thought i was the bomb. then, while waiting for the plane for the trip home, i scanned through a poker book(can't remember which one, but it was really rudimentary and basic). i bought the book, and read it on the plane trip back. i was kicking myself for not buying one before going to Binion's and playing with the big boys at the $2/4 table...oh, the money that had slipped through my fingers! well, long story short, i was determined to be good at Hold'em, and i had the internet as a resource. i simply took the time to browse different strategy-type sites...yada, yada, yada. i'm a fish NO MORE! (though i can be a bit of a LAG at times /images/graemlins/grin.gif). and i didn't need a bot to do it!

cheers!

[/ QUOTE ]

It's the mediocre players getting a hold of this that worries me. The more people that cross the line from losing a small amount/breaking even to winning players means the faster the fish money dries up.

[mcozzy1]

[ QUOTE ]
As far as it being "ethical", I think it clearly is

[/ QUOTE ]

It clearly is not. Using a bot is against most sites' user agreements. It clearly is cheating. Whether you want to do it or not is up to you.

[Subby]

I actually think you are on to something here if you re-engineer it to NOT push buttons for you.

Just for arguments sake, let's say you have a program that is based on Hilger's starting hands charts for low limit hold 'em. The program monitors all of your games in one separate window. The program tells you your hand, position, action up to that point, makes a recomendation for action, and has a button for each of the three decisions you can make. This wouldn't be a bot according to Party's terms, but would instead be an automation of the recommended starting hands charts - an improvement because you don't have to look away from your screen and find that information on the handmade chart you crafted.

Anyway, if you take the "bot" out of the equation, I think you are headed in the right direction. As long as you are pushing the buttons, you are still a human making a decision based on the best information possible.

[AncientPC]

It is unethical because it violates the Party TOS.

If you want to use it, fine but don't spread it for reasons already stated above.

[gusly]

[ QUOTE ]
It is unethical because it violates the Party TOS.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you're going a bit too far with your definition of unethical. Without getting into too much of a philosophical discussion, I'll just say that ethics and legality are separate and distinct. The illegal act can most certainly be the ethical act. Put plainly, doing the right thing can involve breaking the law...

So... is the preflop bot unethical? Maybe, depending on your point of view, but not because of Party's TOS. Not to mention that the TOS are written so vaguely that Pokertracker can be interpreted to be against their TOS. People were worried about it and emailed them to make sure PT was okay, and Party said yes it is, but they could easily change their minds tomorrow.

[YoureToast]

BradleyT and everyone else here, I really appreciate your responses. It seems that most of the fear here is the widespread distribution of it -- and that is a concern I have. A few things I am thinking about are these:

What if I only distributed it to 2+2ers....or those that could verify that they've read about my product on 2+2. This would likely prevent it from getting in the hands of idiots, or, frankly, average players (who I think it would help the most).

I could distribute it with very loose rules or no rules at all.

I could distribute it only to people I could verify (using PT or something) are tight players (this would be problematic b/c then the buyer would have to give me their userID and I'm not sure they'd want to do that.

Finally and this is my favorite but least practical, I could limit it to 3/6 games or lower. Since I tend to play 15/30 mostly (and since this product would be least valuable in those games) and some 10/20 and 5/T, this would alleviate some of "my" concern, but not the concerns of those that play 3/6 and below.

Somebody mentioned that they didn't believe I'd limit its distribution; while I agree that it would be tempting to sell out if the profits were great, I think a subscription based licensing arrangement could help me increase yearly profits, while at the same time not doing damage to the industry. 200 or even more players having this product, people who learned abou it on this forum, for example, would hardly put a dent in the "fishyness" of Party.

Again, I am not at all saying I'm going to do this (my wife is having our second baby tomorrow so I will be quite busy for a while anyway); I will tell you, however, that if I do, you will be the first to know and the first to have an opportunity to try it. I am so grateful for all the responses.

YoureToast

[emonrad87]

I haven't read all the replies.

I would say that this is unethical because, as you say, it enforces your discipline. Thus, it is an automated software that improves your game. Basically, if you could fold preflop all of these hands without the bot 100% of the time, it would be no big deal. But i think that because no human can actually do that, this is unethical.

[Subby]

[ QUOTE ]
But i think that because no human can actually do that, this is unethical.

[/ QUOTE ]
No human could datamine tens of thousands of observed hand histories from Party either, but it seems accepted as completely ethical here.

Not bashing your point, just wondering where one draws the line between ethical and unethical. Is automation unethical? At what level?

[emonrad87]

That's a good point subby. However, I feel that the PT datamining is a lot different from this. PT datamining is like looking at a starting hand chart. The info is there, but the human mind must do the thinking and put the info to action. For example, we get many posts on this board and on the PT forum saying, "i've got all this data, how do i use it?". This bot is taking the human element out of the transferring the info to the action. Thus, it completely removes the human element, as the bot would play the same based on the same info whether the human was drunk, sleepy, normal, dead, etc. whereas the human would not.

Basically, i think the line should be drawn at the point that it removes the human element of USING the information given.

[Subby]

Good response and I think I tend to agree with you. There is a lot of potential in this guy's idea, as long as it isn't making the decisions for you.

[adanthar]

Why would a tight player want this thing? I wouldn't; I can fold KJo to a raise with or without this bot thingie, TYVM. Does it take how LAGgy the raiser is into account, too? If not, well, I hope it gets widespread so the TAGs can autofold to my EP A9s raises all day. Does it do blind defense based on the characteristics of the button/SB? If not, it just sucks.

On top of that, you add the chance that Party freezes your account; considering that poker's a second job for me at this point, I don't think that the risk divided by the potential gain is very +EV for me.

OK, so we've narrowed the thing's utility down to people who like gambling. Would any of them buy this? I doubt it, unless they want to get better already and then they're not the audience I care about.

Basically, I don't think your bot's all that interesting and the risk far outweighs the gain. Good luck, though.

On the other hand, as a former EQ player I'd definitely buy Bradley's EQ2 crafter /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[Richard Berg]

If you read the most experienced response, you'll see it wasn't about widespread distribution, it was about a few high-priced partners. Even then, it turned out to be -EV.

Your software certainly isn't worth $5k, so I don't see why you're even considering "limited distribution" (whatever that comes to mean). You won't make any significant money, and you won't improve our play -- 2+2ers prone to tilt will have more leaks than just preflop. If someone wants to automate their play, let them write their own.

[gusly]

Well, right off the bat, this "bot" wouldn't cross the line according to your terms. Why? Because it doesn't completely remove the human element. It would only act preflop. And postflop decision-making is much more complex and valuable than preflop decision making.

And going one step further (or back, if you like), making the user define which hands to fold makes it completely ethical. How would inputting which hands you want to play preflop into this piece of software be any more unethical than referring to a chart next to your monitor?

[Subby]

[ QUOTE ]
And going one step further (or back, if you like), making the user define which hands to fold makes it completely ethical. How would inputting which hands you want to play preflop into this piece of software be any more unethical than referring to a chart next to your monitor?

[/ QUOTE ]
Humans tilt, get tired, etc.. Starting hand bots don't. I *know* I am not supposed to limp with Axs UTG, but I just had my Aces cracked and am pissed. Oh great, the pot gets capped...well might as well call...c'mon 6%!!! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[B00T]

[ QUOTE ]
Why would a tight player want this thing? I wouldn't; I can fold KJo to a raise with or without this bot thingie, TYVM. Does it take how LAGgy the raiser is into account, too? If not, well, I hope it gets widespread so the TAGs can autofold to my EP A9s raises all day. Does it do blind defense based on the characteristics of the button/SB? If not, it just sucks.


[/ QUOTE ]

I was waiting for someone to make this point. I was just too lazy to type it out.

[The4Aces]

Anyone can look at 2+2 and the good 2+2 players wouldnt want it. If i were you i would just keep it tomyself. If you realease one of these and some other programer gets wind of it doing good and selling alot of copies they will make their own and probably sell it freely to anyone.

[gusly]

[ QUOTE ]
Humans tilt, get tired, etc.. Starting hand bots don't. I *know* I am not supposed to limp with Axs UTG, but I just had my Aces cracked and am pissed. Oh great, the pot gets capped...well might as well call...c'mon 6%!!! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that the the actions should not just take place without the option of human interaction.

That's why I said in my first reply that the author should build in a mechanism where fish could see upcoming actions and stop/modify them if they want to play a trash hand.

[AngryCola]

If you distribute it, AT ALL, you are opening a large can of worms.

Don't do it.

[JoeC]

What is the Blue Devil jumping on in your avatar?

[mcozzy1]

If Party catches you with it, you can lose ALL your money and get your account frozen. If you can beat the 15/30 games, why would you even want to do something like this?

[emonrad87]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, right off the bat, this "bot" wouldn't cross the line according to your terms. Why? Because it doesn't completely remove the human element. It would only act preflop. And postflop decision-making is much more complex and valuable than preflop decision making.

And going one step further (or back, if you like), making the user define which hands to fold makes it completely ethical. How would inputting which hands you want to play preflop into this piece of software be any more unethical than referring to a chart next to your monitor?

[/ QUOTE ]


Actually, this bot very much does cross my line. It removes SOME of the human element. Also, just because it forces a user to input the requirements ONCE (when they're on a normal state of mind) is MUCH different from making them act each time after getting sucked out on for 3 hours straight and having aces cracked on two different tables by A3o. After this happens, someone could be reading the chart but saying, oh screw it i gotta get my money back from that no talent ass-clown.

Because it reduces the number of brain decisions a human is forced to make, it is unethical.

[Bytestream]

Based on this argument, Poker Tracker crosses the line, because it removes SOME of the human element as well. If you ever multitabled and made a decision to fold because you notice a player with a PFR of 2% raises or call because a player with a VPIP of 90% calls, you have cheated the human element.

[emonrad87]

[ QUOTE ]
Based on this argument, Poker Tracker crosses the line, because it removes SOME of the human element as well. If you ever multitabled and made a decision to fold because you notice a player with a PFR of 2% raises or call because a player with a VPIP of 90% calls, you have cheated the human element.

[/ QUOTE ]


But it has. You look at the stats, and you still have to put those stats into action.

[BradleyT]

What does it do with J8s in the SB after 2,3,4,5,6,7 limpers? What about an UTG raise but 6 cold calling limpers? What about J8s in the cutoff after 4 limpers?

These are instantaneous decisions for humans, but complex for a bot. You have 169 (hands) * 10 (positions) * 10 (players in) * 5 (bets - unraised, raised, re-raised, re-reraised, capped) to consider. That doesn't even take into account such things as looseness/tightness of whose in the pot or the passiveness/aggressiveness of the game/players in/players behind you.

Oh and hows it do for stealing blinds?

[TylerD]

Suppose you wrote down a flow chart of courses of action for preflop moves. You made a decision at each node, the questions related to various variables, amongst them your cards, your position and your opponents pokertracker stats. You followed the flow chart religiously. Would this still be wrong?

[Reef]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, and this is a big fear of mine....I would not let it become widespread and strictly limit the number of copies out there. Perhaps have some sort of subscription based license so when the limit it reached, those not renewing could be replaced by other interested parties. Trust me, I have a lot more interest in keeping the tables loose generally than in making money from this thing (although a little of both would be nice, no doubt.)

[/ QUOTE ]

I guarantee it would be an easy download to find in a couple months if it was really good. Someone's friend asks them for a copy, then a friend of a friend, etc. Suddenly it's on kazaa or morpheus

[Reef]

[ QUOTE ]
As far as it being "ethical", I think it clearly is. Anyone claiming that it isn't is just saying that our of self-interest and fear. If a bot such as this isn't "ethical" than neither is using PokerTracker nor reading a poker book or using any other external tool to improve your game.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here, I disagree. PT and books do not take any actions for the player whatsoever. They only provide info on the other opponents. It is up to the player to use his human intellect/intuition to decide the best course of action.

Now say we're playing chess for $, whether it be the equivalent of ring game or a tourny. It is widely accepted that each participant can (and probably should) have studied books and the opponents past games. However, it is NOT ethical to use a computer program to play one's opening moves.

[joeblowoo0]

[ QUOTE ]
Bots are bad, period, end of discussion.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you can't over come them the only thing that is bad is your play.

[Cardzy]

Ok, another post I am not going to bother reading all 500 replies on, but I will reply.

What you have is still considered a "bot" by the TOS of most poker sites and therefore you could have the same bad things happen to your account(s) as if you were using winholdem. I highly suggest not using it at all.

If all else fails, instead of asking us, write party poker directly and see what they tell you about it.

My personal opinion, is it is still a bot and should not be allowed.

[Bytestream]

using pt stats in the middle of a game to help decision makeing would be by that reasoning.

I don't follow professional chess, but I don't believe pros can keep an open notebook cataloging thier oppenents entire chess history at their side to refer to during the match.

[Bytestream]

[ QUOTE ]
These are instantaneous decisions for humans, but complex for a bot. You have 169 (hands) * 10 (positions) * 10 (players in) * 5 (bets - unraised, raised, re-raised, re-reraised, capped) to consider. That doesn't even take into account such things as looseness/tightness of whose in the pot or the passiveness/aggressiveness of the game/players in/players behind you.


[/ QUOTE ]

You just made the case for why a preflop bot would play excellently. You have less then 100k possiblities, and CPU speeds are bases on millions of operations per second. The computer can make the correct decision faster, more accurately and more consistently then any person.

[emonrad87]

[ QUOTE ]
Suppose you wrote down a flow chart of courses of action for preflop moves. You made a decision at each node, the questions related to various variables, amongst them your cards, your position and your opponents pokertracker stats. You followed the flow chart religiously. Would this still be wrong?

[/ QUOTE ]


No. This would not be wrong because the flow chart is not acting for you. My point is, something that acts for you mechanically is unethical.

[Rudbaeck]

[ QUOTE ]
If you can't over come them the only thing that is bad is your play.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't have any doubts that I could beat anyone on my buddy list even if they cut their VPIP from 60% to 20%, but I am 100% certain that I'd beat them for less than I currently do.

And I'm willing to bet you can't beak Poki heads up.

[Bytestream]

Let's play devils advocate for one moment. Lets assume there exists a poker bot that beats Party 2/4 for 2bb/100. Running this bot would be clearly unethical since it viloates the T&amp;C, no argument there.

But would it still be unethical if it did not "push the buttons" for you. It ran alongside Party, telling you what to do, but you had to "click" the button yourself?

[Reef]

[ QUOTE ]
using pt stats in the middle of a game to help decision makeing would be by that reasoning.

I don't follow professional chess, but I don't believe pros can keep an open notebook cataloging thier oppenents entire chess history at their side to refer to during the match.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, they can't keep the catalog during the match.. but as a pro, they practically memorize it beforehand. They know 10 move variations of each move in their opponents repetoire.

One other discrepancy in my example was the fact that I was referring to live chess vs. online poker. Must I'm sure you see the correlation.

[Forbin]

In the discussion so far some people have distinguished between the pre-programmed decision making and the actual "button pushing," but others have not. If you take out the button-pushing aspect, this becomes the same as PokerInspector. AFAIK this program is not considered a bot by the online sites (at least not the ones I play), but rather just an aid in the same category as PT.

Personally I used it as a reinforcement of what I (should) already know. Spend a while programming in what you'd ideally like to do pre-flop (and even post-flop), and it forces you to think about things (this is good). Then while playing most of the time what it recommends is what I'd already decided to do, but when it's not the same that makes me pause and think again about why I'm doing what I'm doing. Sometimes it's just that I'm setting something up for later, but other times I really did miss something or the program isn't 100% (none are).

And as others have pointed out, it can be good to help prevent you from going too far on tilt. When it's yelling "Fold! Fold!" at you, it's extra incentive to listen to your innervoice that's saying the same thing.

Since this type of thing is already available (minus the auto-folding), and seemingly blessed (http://www.pokerinspector.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=177) by the larger sites, how can anyone be too upset about selling a slightly different version, providing the author took out button-pushing aspect? If hordes of people really wanted to use the informational features of this, they can already purchase and use it.

[stinkypete]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Bots are bad, period, end of discussion.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you can't over come them the only thing that is bad is your play.

[/ QUOTE ]

if you were playing against a table of well written bots, i guarantee you wouldn't beat the rake.

[gusly]

[ QUOTE ]
In the discussion so far some people have distinguished between the pre-programmed decision making and the actual "button pushing," but others have not. If you take out the button-pushing aspect, this becomes the same as PokerInspector.

[/ QUOTE ]

You make a very good point. In defense of button-pushing, I'd say this: I think the intent of the rule against bots is to prevent unscrupulous characters from settting up their bots to play the tables while they go off for a night on the town or whatever else they want to do.

By limiting a bot's "button pushing" to preflop actions only, the author would essentially eliminate the ability for the bot to make money while the human is away. The human would have to be present and making decisions constantly postflop.

[PugX]

I think a bot like this is very unetical, and i hope that everyone that uses a program like this get caught, get their acoounts blocked and that their money gets confiscated. TwoPlusTwoer or not.

All this with bots is really bad news, this can destroy the tables. I hope the poker sites do everything to stop this. I also hopes that the poker sites warns each other for unetical people like this.

If i see that you or anyone else are selling this kind of software I will report you to the Poker rooms. I hope someone allready have reported your litle text about selling with "limited distribution".

I cant understand that there have been so soft answers about your boot. Here at Two plus Two at all sites. is it because they would be the customers??

//PugX

[lefty rosen]

Sure it's no different than using a hand chart. Sometimes I wonder how many players use hand charts to beat easly low limit online games ie the calling station 1/2 Party games.....

[sillyarms]

[ QUOTE ]
the tables would simply become too tight for most of us to overcome the rake.

[/ QUOTE ]

This simply isn't true. It would be easy to steal blinds from such a program. A big part of poker is about adjusting to your opponets play and it is very hard to write a computer program to do that.

[ QUOTE ]
I think it violates the anti-bot agreements with the poker rooms.

[/ QUOTE ]

Very true. It does do this and sites can catch you and take your bankroll. Please do not give this program or source code to anyone. It is just another step foward in the journy of those who would write full scale poker bots.

silly

[Bytestream]

[ QUOTE ]
This simply isn't true. It would be easy to steal blinds from such a program. A big part of poker is about adjusting to your opponets play and it is very hard to write a computer program to do that.


[/ QUOTE ]

This simply isn't true. You make your decision to steal blinds, etc based on facts. Poker Tracker collects and stores these facts better then any person can (even TJ Cloutier who claims he can recall how you played a single hand 15 years ago if he played with you one time). The computer can analyze these situations both over a short time and over a long period of time. It all depends on how well the bot is programmed. Of course, as stated multiple times in bot threads, the goal isn't to create a world champion bot, just one that kills the game.

[ QUOTE ]
It does do this and sites can catch you and take your bankroll

[/ QUOTE ]

Im not picking on you in particular, as this same comment is made in almost every post in this thread. To put in plain and simple, yes, they can confiscate your money. Not your bankroll. Do you think the bot operators are going to leave large sums of money on the site? No, just the bare minimum of what is needed to operate. The winnings from these bots would far outweight the worst case scenario where $300 was confiscated. Taking deposit money is not going to deter bot operators. Party needs to fight this harder. Some ideas: No more hand histories, if you want to see the last hand, they can send you a jpg of the showdown, another example, constantly and randomly changing the way the client and server communicate, so the bot developers would have to constantly (like every few hours) keep up with modding... just saying "bad bot" now we keep your money, is not going to work.

[Soleo]

Secret known to 2 other people is not a secret anymore - application distributed to 2 other people will start its own way and you can't restrict who will use it.
Sorry, man I will gladly report any public bot to alerts@partypoker.com and help them suggesting best way to detect it. No public bots can be good for online poker. Period.

[Luv2DriveTT]

Does anyone find it odd that the person who started this thread says he is an Attorney?

TT /images/graemlins/club.gif

[Richard Berg]

My avatar shows Adam (mascot '03) "surfing" on the trombone section (me) as we roll on our sides. One of many screencaps proving I'm on ESPN more often than my new ACC rival, Mason.

[BusterStacks]

I think you are full of [censored]. You didn't make a bot.

[IsaacW]

[ QUOTE ]
What if I only distributed it to 2+2ers....or those that could verify that they've read about my product on 2+2[?]

[/ QUOTE ]

HAHA! You could do it like this:

----------
PR3FL0P B0T 1.0 ORDAR FORM


__ YES! Please send me teh Pr3fl0p B0t software so that I can use it to violate the TOS of my favorite onl1ne POKAR site. I have included my check for $49.95. By checking here I certify that I have completed the qualifying quiz without any outside help and that I am incapable of putting in the effort to become a better poker player and just want a machine to do all the work for me.

Name:____________________
Address:____________________
City:____________________
State:____________________
ZIP::____________________

Qualifying Quiz:
Where does the brown trout sleep?
____________________

Can I ask about getting a rakeback deal?
____________________

Does anyone in fact have a Party reload code?
____________________
----------

[gusly]

[ QUOTE ]
I think you are full of [censored]. You didn't make a bot.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, considering Luv2DriveTT's post, maybe the guy's speaking for his client.

[Forbin]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In the discussion so far some people have distinguished between the pre-programmed decision making and the actual "button pushing," but others have not. If you take out the button-pushing aspect, this becomes the same as PokerInspector.

[/ QUOTE ]

You make a very good point. In defense of button-pushing, I'd say this: I think the intent of the rule against bots is to prevent unscrupulous characters from settting up their bots to play the tables while they go off for a night on the town or whatever else they want to do.

By limiting a bot's "button pushing" to preflop actions only, the author would essentially eliminate the ability for the bot to make money while the human is away. The human would have to be present and making decisions constantly postflop.

[/ QUOTE ]

If the player has to be there anyways (to play post-flop), there is little or no reason to eliminate that first button push. Existing (and legal) programs can be used just as well to help you with preflop hand selection, as well as postflop actions.

I think the main objection to bots is that people don't want others setting one (or more) up to 8-table 24x7, while they are nowhere near the computer. Personally I think the best way to stop this type of abuse is for the sites to take a clue from other online sites that don't want programs accessing their content. You want to check for available tickets on ticketmaster.com, you look at a jpg of some letters that are all warped and have to type in what letters they are. This is a difficult task for a program to do, but relatively easy for a human. If pokersites occasionally popped up a dialog box with one of these types of problems, and the player could not act on any table until it was answered correctly, it would keep unattended bots from playing. It could even be targetted somewhat, perhaps picking more on people with longer continuous sessions and more than one table open, but should not be restricted to those.

If the person is going to sit there at the computer the whole time, then I see little difference between playing with the assistance of something like PokerInspector and letting a bot play for you the exact same way. All it does is make it slightly more difficult for the player to override and do something different.

You've already got something (PokerInspector) that you configure with your handselections and desired actions, and that looks at the table+action and tells you what you should do, putting the recommended action in a little box in the window. It is then extremely easy to write your own separate program that looks at the PI window, reads the box that says "Fold" or "Raise", and then switches over to the table window and actually pushes the corresponding button. In this scenario, which is the pokerbot? PokerInspector is just recommending something, but not actually performing any action. The other program knows nothing of poker and just looks at one window to send a message to another window. Sure, together they are a bot, but which do you ban? The first has plenty of legitimate uses, and the second is so easy to write it wouldn't need to be bought, but rather could be custom written by anyone who wanted it. This is where checking that there is an actual human at the computer is good. If there is (perhaps using the jpg method above), then you can't really complain, because whether it's a program doing the read/push or a human doing the read/push, the end result would be the same play. You could hire some HS kid and pay him $10/hr to do the same function for you.

[emonrad87]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What if I only distributed it to 2+2ers....or those that could verify that they've read about my product on 2+2[?]

[/ QUOTE ]

HAHA! You could do it like this:

----------
PR3FL0P B0T 1.0 ORDAR FORM


__ YES! Please send me teh Pr3fl0p B0t software so that I can use it to violate the TOS of my favorite onl1ne POKAR site. I have included my check for $49.95. By checking here I certify that I have completed the qualifying quiz without any outside help and that I am incapable of putting in the effort to become a better poker player and just want a machine to do all the work for me.

Name:____________________
Address:____________________
City:____________________
State:____________________
ZIP::____________________

Qualifying Quiz:
Where does the brown trout sleep?
____________________

Can I ask about getting a rakeback deal?
____________________

Does anyone in fact have a Party reload code?
____________________
----------

[/ QUOTE ]



ROFL /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[YoureToast]

I appreciate all of the responses and they generally don't surprise me. For now, at least for the near term, my preflop bot will not be available to the public. Instead, I am going to use my work to create something for public distribution that will be very useful and should be noncontroversial. I'll keep you posted on the status (if you don't mind).

[LinusKS]

Toast, if you offered this product, I'd buy.

Not because I think I call too often, or because it would help me fold when I should, but because it's annoying having a screen pop up, only to have to locate and punch the fold button. Something like 80% of the time the only action I take is to punch that damn button, and having someone to do it for me would take a lot of the drudgery out of my game.

Having said that, I've almost gotten to the point now where I almost do it automatically - like when you're driving home after work and you realize you don't remember the drive. Sometimes I don't remember having folded a hand, and I have to check to make sure I haven't timed out.

Another benefit is those times you have to get up to piss or something.

You wouldn't be nearly as likely to time out if you had this program working for you.

I'd have no moral qualms about using it. As far as I'm concerned, it'd be doing what I'm doing anyway, only making it less tedious.

I agree that Party would consider this a "bot."

They have nothing to gain from this program, and making fine distinctions between this one and others would only make their job harder.

However, this isn't the program they're worried about - like others said, it's the (winning) program that lets users walk away from their computer that will kill the game.

People who are worried about their financial interests should concentrate their efforts on Sklansky, Malmuth, and others, who've done way more to turn bad players into good ones than this program ever could.

[Soleo]

Linus, do you think it's good to let bad or average player to have such tool? I think more than 50% of your profit comes from players who are
- don't know how to play preflop
- on tilt
This program will give them nice possibility to follow some rules. People at winholdem forum exchange with their 'formulas' and collectively produce winning bot.
Do you like some average guy who previously called you raises with junk to obtain this 'preflop bot' and choose some collectively written 'tight-aggressive full game' preset to have this thing think for him?
Of course you may say that adapting to specific game/knowledge that opponent's is using bot with preset 'tight-aggressive full game' still gives you an advantage. But I don't think this will be bigger edge than just having opponent calling your raises with dominated hands.
I don't like this bot idea because it's another 'leveling' tool which make game less profitable.
Low limit games at Party are now 5% (flop seen) tighter than 1 year ago. Is there more multitablers these days? I think no, abous the same share. I think it is because of broader usage of half-bots like PokerInspector. Bots, especially 'preflop bots' are bad for online poker.

[ChessMan]

I feel the same way. I detest tedious, repetitive work. If I don't quit playing poker, I will eventually go insane from constantly wasting time hitting that F'ing fold button over and over and over and over and wait, a hand! It's a huge waste of time and energy and takes away from the real game.

I'm currently writing my own personal fold bot. I (as in me, a human) will tell it exactly which hands to fold.

If there's any hand that's sensitive to context (T9s for example) it will do nothing. I'll make the decision. If there's AA, it will do nothing. I will make the decision. If there's a 72o it will fold automatically and not bother me.

I get very pissed when computers repeatedly ask me something they ought to know the answer to because the answer is always the same! FOLD 72o and stop bothering me!!!

[ChessMan]

I have a working fold-only preflop bot for Pacific Poker. It's awesome! I don't have to set my sandwich down to hit the fold button anymore! I don't have to rush back from the bathroom just to hit the fold button anymore! Now, whenever I hear the warning bell, I know there's a high chance of a playable hand. All it does is look for a folding opportunity during preflop. If there's a hand that possibly shouldn't be folded, it doesn't do anything. It only folds obvious stuff that I told it to fold.

Now I'm going to make one for Party Poker so I can do four tables at once without my forefinger getting sore!
/images/graemlins/smile.gif