Can someone please explain the concern....

[elonkra]

...over bots, other than the concern that potential fish will think the game is rigged and leave/stop playing?

Is that the only real concern?

[spentrent]

[ QUOTE ]
Is that the only real concern?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think this is a trivial matter. I don't want my pond drying up any time soon.

[Richard Tanner]

That's a big concern. Also the honor of the game (as cheesey as that sounds) is being hurt by this kind of thing. Lastly, alot of hate is motivated by jealousy. People see this proverbial ATM and wish they could have bots. I would say the third is the least of all concerns, but it's just human nature.

Cody

[eastbay]

[ QUOTE ]
...over bots, other than the concern that potential fish will think the game is rigged and leave/stop playing?

Is that the only real concern?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not complicated folks.

There is a finite amount of money being wagered on these tables. The superior players are competing with each other to take it. They can do that by playing for higher stakes, by playing more tables, or by playing more hours.

A bot has unlimited potential for factors 2 and 3, whereas human players do not.

eastbay

[Cheeseweasel]

I don't think you do speak for all of us. I'm sure that there are hundreds, or even thousands of 2+2er's (24,336 registered users and counting) 4/8/12/16 multi-tabling like a many-headed Hydra. (Ironically, not a day goes by without several of you wondering why the games are getting tighter).

When a single bot is spotted playing at one table, the light goes up in the belfry. The bots are coming! The bots are coming!

I, for one, salute the ingenuity and resourcefulness of players who use bots. Winholdem, Pokerbot-pro, and Pokibot are just the beginning. However, I don't believe in the use of bots for information-sharing.

To me, playing poker is sheer drudgery, a way of making a living. A few months ago I wrote a bot program. I tested it over 100,000 continuous hands by 4-tabling 24 hours a day. Even without rakeback, I showed a small profit. With rakeback I am going to have a money machine on autopilot once I get my rakebot farm set up. Green Acres is the place to be.

I have programmed time-randomized and position-randomized mouse clicks. The program has a very unusual interface that is absolutely undetectable by the poker rooms. If a poker room got a screen shot they would be totally baffled.

It kind of reminds me of the last scene from Animal Farm when the animals are peering through the window of the farmhouse watching the argument over the poker game. The animals looked at the men and the pigs and couldn't distinguish between the two. I look at the multi-tabling 2+2 automatons and the pokerbots and can't distinguish between the two. Tom Automaton or Pokerbot--it's all the same to me.

[1C5]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think you do speak for all of us. I'm sure that there are hundreds, or even thousands of 2+2er's (24,336 registered users and counting) 4/8/12/16 multi-tabling like a many-headed Hydra. (Ironically, not a day goes by without several of you wondering why the games are getting tighter).

When a single bot is spotted playing at one table, the light goes up in the belfry. The bots are coming! The bots are coming!

I, for one, salute the ingenuity and resourcefulness of players who use bots. Winholdem, Pokerbot-pro, and Pokibot are just the beginning. However, I don't believe in the use of bots for information-sharing.

To me, playing poker is sheer drudgery, a way of making a living. A few months ago I wrote a bot program. I tested it over 100,000 continuous hands by 4-tabling 24 hours a day. Even without rakeback, I showed a small profit. With rakeback I am going to have a money machine on autopilot once I get my rakebot farm set up. Green Acres is the place to be.

I have programmed time-randomized and position-randomized mouse clicks. The program has a very unusual interface that is absolutely undetectable by the poker rooms. If a poker room got a screen shot they would be totally baffled.

It kind of reminds me of the last scene from Animal Farm when the animals are peering through the window of the farmhouse watching the argument over the poker game. The animals looked at the men and the pigs and couldn't distinguish between the two. I look at the multi-tabling 2+2 automatons and the pokerbots and can't distinguish between the two. Tom Automaton or Pokerbot--it's all the same to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

You know this is 100% against the terms of Party right?

And so you are smart enough to make a bot yet dumb enough to talk about the fact you have been using a bot on a public message board?

[emonrad87]

Cheese, you are a real dumbass. That's it.

[Jake (The Snake)]

read the posts in the internet forum

[eastbay]

My personal opinion is that this is unethical because Tom Automaton and a Bot are not the same because Tom Automaton has human characteristics of fatigue and limited parallel processing, whereas the Bot does not. This is why your supposed equivalence is false and a Bot is unethical.

Of curiousity, though, does your bot play NL postflop?

eastbay

[Cheeseweasel]

I have one program for LHE ring.

I'm working on another program for NLHE STT, ala The "System" but with the exact key numbers and more accurate allowance for number ahead/limpers. No need for postflop.

[VanVeen]

Well, I will ask the obvious question: is it unethical for me to use my superior brain ("parallel processing ability") to outwit feeble-minded opponents?

It's unethical because the other players are unaware that you're using the computational powers of a computer to assist you. They are aware that they may potentially be squaring off against individuals who are smarter than them; they do not know they may competing against a sophisticated calculator.

[ilya]

I am one of these Tom Automatons, more or less, but I agree with you, Cheeseweasel. If you have the skill and the initiative to build a winning bot and use it without getting caught, more power to you.
eastbay says, "well, it's unethical because Tom Automaton gets tired and needs sleep, whereas the bot doesn't have those limitations." Well, sure, that's a difference. But Tom also gets forgetful, so he uses hand histories to help him remember hands and analyze his play. And Tom isn't so good at on-the-fly arithmetic, so he uses Poker Stove to help him calculate odds. Etc...
My point is, Tom uses all sorts of crutches to help him overcome his natural limitations. To my eyes, the human need for sleep is conceptually indistinguishable from these other limitations, like imperfect memory or slow calculation speed. Most people here (including myself) feel entitled to use tools which help them overcome the latter limitations; I don't see why anyone resourceful enough shouldn't use a tool to help him overcome the former one.

I really think most of the anti-bot sentiment is a territorial/fear reaction from people who feel bots threaten their earning potential -- NOT authentic moral outrage.

[bones]

For these reasons, I have a very serious ethical problem with PT, prophecy, etc. I don't mind pokerstove, twodimes, etc because they are just answering math problems.

[ilya]

[ QUOTE ]
For these reasons, I have a very serious ethical problem with PT, prophecy, etc. I don't mind pokerstove, twodimes, etc because they are just answering math problems.

[/ QUOTE ]

How are the two categories of programs so different? In the first case, you're compensating for an imperfect memory and a limited attention umbrella. In the second, you're compensating for slow processor speed. In both cases you're using an artificial extension to prop up our naturally limited brains...where's the fundamental difference?

[eastbay]

[ QUOTE ]
I am one of these Tom Automatons, more or less, but I agree with you, Cheeseweasel. If you have the skill and the initiative to build a winning bot and use it without getting caught, more power to you.
eastbay says, "well, it's unethical because Tom Automaton gets tired and needs sleep, whereas the bot doesn't have those limitations." Well, sure, that's a difference. But Tom also gets forgetful, so he uses hand histories to help him remember hands and analyze his play. And Tom isn't so good at on-the-fly arithmetic, so he uses Poker Stove to help him calculate odds. Etc...

I really think most of the anti-bot sentiment is a territorial/fear reaction from people who feel bots threaten their earning potential -- NOT authentic moral outrage.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it's just a matter of having a consensus on the rules of the game. If I expect I may be playing bots, that's fine, I can choose to do that or not to. I don't have any fundamental objections to poker bots. It would be great fun to start a bot vs. bot site. May the best bot win. I'd be all over that.

The average player is well aware that there are poker books, calculators, etc. available to the other players. I don't think the average player is well aware that they may be playing a fully automated computer program.

Therein lies the difference, and the basis of my judgment on the ethics of it.

eastbay

[bones]

Perhaps I should have been more specific. Discount PT for now, even though i still think something is wrong with the idea. Pokeredge and pokerprophecy each give you information obtained from other tables that you couldn't possibly have known about without the software.

I hope the gap between those and p'stove/twodimes is more clear.

[ilya]

[ QUOTE ]

The average player is well aware that there are poker books, calculators, etc. available to the other players. I don't think the average player is well aware that they may be playing a fully automated computer program.

Therein lies the difference.

eastbay

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, that may be true, but so what? Caveat emptor, I say. Finding this forum is all it takes to become aware of bots, and I presume we don't feel an obligation to make sure that the average player knows about 2+2's existence.

[eastbay]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

The average player is well aware that there are poker books, calculators, etc. available to the other players. I don't think the average player is well aware that they may be playing a fully automated computer program.

Therein lies the difference.

eastbay

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, that may be true, but so what? Caveat emptor, I say.

[/ QUOTE ]

The fundamental basis of fairness in competition is having a consistent set of rules by which all competitors are playing. That's what.

eastbay

[ilya]

[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps I should have been more specific. Discount PT for now, even though i still think something is wrong with the idea. Pokeredge and pokerprophecy each give you information obtained from other tables that you couldn't possibly have known about without the software.

I hope the gap between those and p'stove/twodimes is more clear.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, I can't say I agree. It seems to me that all Pokerprophecy is doing is compensating for the user's limited field of focus. It's not telling you anything that you couldn't have realized by watching those other tables yourself; it's just saving you time. Similarly, twodimes isn't telling you anything you couldn't have figured out by doing long division on a piece of paper. It's just saving you time.

I'll tell you, though, my soul and my head are utterly at odds on this issue.

[ilya]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

The average player is well aware that there are poker books, calculators, etc. available to the other players. I don't think the average player is well aware that they may be playing a fully automated computer program.

Therein lies the difference.

eastbay

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, that may be true, but so what? Caveat emptor, I say.

[/ QUOTE ]

The fundamental basis of fairness in competition is having a consistent set of rules by which all competitors are playing. That's what.

eastbay

[/ QUOTE ]

No fair...you took those first two sentences out of context.

[eastbay]

[ QUOTE ]

No fair...you took those first two sentences out of context.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fair? So what? Just kiddin'.

Honestly, the debate is fruitless. Ethical or not is irrelevant; bots are inevitable. saabpo is just the beginning.

eastbay

[ilya]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

No fair...you took those first two sentences out of context.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fair? So what? Just kiddin'.

Honestly, the debate is fruitless. Ethical or not is irrelevant; bots are inevitable. saabpo is just the beginning.

eastbay

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, at least we can agree on that.

[The Yugoslavian]

[ QUOTE ]

No fair...you took those first two sentences out of context.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well you're a bot-lover.......boooo!

Yugoslav
(chasing Ilya out of the forum with a big 2 by 4)

[david050173]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps I should have been more specific. Discount PT for now, even though i still think something is wrong with the idea. Pokeredge and pokerprophecy each give you information obtained from other tables that you couldn't possibly have known about without the software.

I hope the gap between those and p'stove/twodimes is more clear.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, I can't say I agree. It seems to me that all Pokerprophecy is doing is compensating for the user's limited field of focus. It's not telling you anything that you couldn't have realized by watching those other tables yourself; it's just saving you time. Similarly, twodimes isn't telling you anything you couldn't have figured out by doing long division on a piece of paper. It's just saving you time.

I'll tell you, though, my soul and my head are utterly at odds on this issue.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is a bullshit answer because no human can track that many tables. Similiar objections to data mining. Going done your path all a bot is doing is compensating for my inability to implement a strategy I devised, the failure of me to have perfect memory, and my need to sleep.

Poker tracker is really just the start. Imagine when it starts telling you Bob never semibluffs when he has a flush draw and never check raises with less than trips in the past 10K hands he has played. It might be hard to make pots play 215 sngs but 22 are easy. The problem is most people want to start low. This has the potential to kill the base of users which feed the sng food chain.
That being said bot detection software could make it hard for them to really cull the fish population.

[Khern]

Is it unethical to use a superior brain? ... This is why I don't see a problem with using a bot. The world isn't fair any way you cut it. When people complain about bots, I just say, "build a better bot." Of course some people can't, but it makes as much sense as people telling me to play 12 tables... I just don't have that sort of mental throughput.


But, of course, it's also understandable that people who's ability is to play superior poker will try to protect the game to the extent possible, including social pressures.

-John

[eastbay]

[ QUOTE ]
Is it unethical to use a superior brain? ... This is why I don't see a problem with using a bot.

[/ QUOTE ]

Look, this is a ridiculous argument.

If I sign up for a tennis match competition for money, and I show up with the usual racket and my opponent shows up with a tennis ball serving gun that can shoot a perfect ace every time, that would be considered cheating, aka unethical on his part. Why? Because tennis is played with rackets, not tennis ball shooting guns, and everybody knows and expects that.

Your argument is "well you might have a superior arm than me, so using this tennis ball gun is no different." That's just silly.

This is no different. Poker is played by people, not automated computer programs. That's what the rules of the site are. Period. If you break those rules you are competing unethically. Period.

eastbay

[valenzuela]

I think all this saabpo s*it is nonsense...its ridicoulous that the same guys that use pokertracker to get some reads now complain. Using pokertracker you have an unfair advantage to those who dont have it.

[eastbay]

[ QUOTE ]
I think all this saabpo s*it is nonsense...its ridicoulous that the same guys that use pokertracker to get some reads now complain. Using pokertracker you have an unfair advantage to those who dont have it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why are so many people having trouble distilling this?

It is not about who has the advantage. It is about who is abiding by the agreed rules of play that we all signed when we registered for the site.

PT is not against the rules of play according to Party Poker's TOS. saabpo is. Period.

eastbay

[FlFishOn]

"I really think most of the anti-bot sentiment is a territorial/fear reaction from people who feel bots threaten their earning potential "

Well said and ditto in spades.

[FlFishOn]

"It is not about who has the advantage. It is about who is abiding by the agreed rules of play that we all signed when we registered for the site."

Recall (if old enough) Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid (or rent it). Butch is challenged to a knife fight for control of his gang. Butch - "Now before we start I just wanna go over the rules..." Opponent - "RULES!?!...in a knife fight?!" And then Butch low blows him and all ends well.

Poker is EXACTLY the same. I want every single cent you have and I will do whatever I can to get them while I maintain control of my bankroll. That means keeping the site from taking my funds. Whatever it takes, and I'll be the judge of that.

[eastbay]

[ QUOTE ]
"It is not about who has the advantage. It is about who is abiding by the agreed rules of play that we all signed when we registered for the site."

Recall (if old enough) Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid (or rent it). Butch is challenged to a knife fight for control of his gang. Butch - "Now before we start I just wanna go over the rules..." Opponent - "RULES!?!...in a knife fight?!" And then Butch low blows him and all ends well.

Poker is EXACTLY the same. I want every single cent you have and I will do whatever I can to get them while I maintain control of my bankroll. That means keeping the site from taking my funds. Whatever it takes, and I'll be the judge of that.

[/ QUOTE ]

We're not disagreeing, I don't think. You're just saying you don't care about ethics. That's up to you.

I assume you must think collusion is fair game as well?

eastbay

[FlFishOn]

Collusion is a reality. How do you combat it?

One might choose to spend a small fraction of one's playing time colluding in order to level the playing field.

[eastbay]

[ QUOTE ]
Collusion is a reality. How do you combat it?

One might choose to spend a small fraction of one's playing time colluding in order to level the playing field.

[/ QUOTE ]

This line of thought leads weak men to all manner of crimes.

eastbaycrates

[FlFishOn]

You didn't answer the question.

Idealism is cheap.

[eastbay]

[ QUOTE ]
You didn't answer the question.

Idealism is cheap.

[/ QUOTE ]

It seemed rhetorical as you answered it yourself.

I'm not sure collusion is a significant problem as it is fairly easy to detect by the sites.

Bottom line is I don't need to counter it, especially by stooping to a cheater's level, because I make plenty of money anyway.

My statement is not particularly idealistic. It is pragmatic. By stooping to the cheater's level, you've contributed to the problem, which then contributes to the perception that one must cheat because everybody else does, which leads to... you get the idea. That's a purely selfish argument for not colluding. That's an idea you can relate to.

eastbay

[Cheeseweasel]

Below is an excerpt from Party Poker's Terms and Conditions of Use:

6. Artificial Intelligence.
We are committed to detecting and preventing software programs which are designed to enable artificial intelligence (non-human) to play on our site. Such programs are often designed to send information about cards, dice or players to an external program. Information sent to an outside program is not permitted. The company will take measures to prevent and detect the use of such programs using methods including but not limited to screen scraping or reading the list of currently running programs on a player’s computer. [Emphasis added]

This would appear to include programs and services such as Online Poker Inspector, Paragon Poker Pal, Pokertracker, Poker Prophecy, and any other program or service that uses any type of datamining.

If you want to be as pure as the driven snow, you'd better get out your pencil and paper and start taking your own notes.

[FlFishOn]

"Bottom line is I don't need to counter it,"

Allow me to translate into English: You're willing to allow the cheats to steal from you without penalty.

If you're OK with that then fine n dandy. Bend over. Your idealism is intact, BR is slightly damaged.

[eastbay]

[ QUOTE ]

If you want to be as pure as the driven snow, you'd better get out your pencil and paper and start taking your own notes.

[/ QUOTE ]

This has been clarified in writing. Information sent post-facto to programs for analysis or record keeping is not against the TOS. Party not only says this, but condones it in deed by cooperating with the authors of PT.

Nice try though.

Note that I acknowledge a gray area is opened by the use of live game hand slurping and add-ons like PlayerView and GameTime+.

eastbay

[eastbay]

[ QUOTE ]
"Bottom line is I don't need to counter it,"

Allow me to translate into English: You're willing to allow the cheats to steal from you without penalty.

If you're OK with that then fine n dandy. Bend over. Your idealism is intact, BR is slightly damaged.

[/ QUOTE ]

Weighed against the potential downside of engaging in cheating myself, such as contributing to the cheating "arms race", possible banning and bankroll confiscation, I am choosing the clearly superior of two non-perfect scenarios. Such is life.

And my bankroll is just fine, thank you.

eastbay

[FlFishOn]

Eastbay, thanks for the interchange.

For the record, I don't collude but do not rule it out either as a reasonable counter-measure if I suspect my loss to others becomes significant in the future. I see no other alternative. This ain't Bean Bag.

Also, I have three computers on my desks and accounts everywhere. In other words, there are live missiles in the silos.

[gasgod]

[ QUOTE ]
This is no different. Poker is played by people, not automated computer programs. That's what the rules of the site are. Period. If you break those rules you are competing unethically. Period.

eastbay

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course. The argument that bots are ok seems vaguely reasonable when you watch saabpo, because it is so primitive. But someday, the Deep Blue poker bot will be written that can outplay every table on Party simultaneously.

If effective countermeasures are not taken, internet poker will disappear.


GG

[gasgod]

Party could put an end to all the data mining simply by not identifying the player to his competitors. The player would choose a nom du jour for chat purposes, and could change it at will.

Come to think of it, such a site might be popular. It would attract fish who want to hide from sharks, and sharks who want to prey on the schooling (but anonymous) fish. Win-Win?


GG

[eastbay]

[ QUOTE ]
Party could put an end to all the data mining simply by not identifying the player to his competitors. The player would choose a nom du jour for chat purposes, and could change it at will.

Come to think of it, such a site might be popular. It would attract fish who want to hide from sharks, and sharks who want to prey on the schooling (but anonymous) fish. Win-Win?


GG

[/ QUOTE ]

I had the exact same thought. Unlimited aliases, the only restriction being you can't use one already in use at that moment. This way people can do what they like: build their rep, or be anonymous.

eastbay

[valenzuela]

Im a chess fan and 1) Deeper blue DOESNT BEAT kasparov( Im too lazy to explain why) 2) Kramnik is better than Kasparov against bots 3) If a bot cant beat the best chess players in the world then a bot defently cant beat the best no-limit player in the world.

I cant complain against bots becuase Im 16 so I just have to put up with them.( fortunaly UB stucture is cooler) Also I think the saabpo guy didnt create him to make money but he did it as a challenge so congrats to him.

[Bataglin]

NL-bots are fish. Limit-bots can be made good. A bot is never better than the fish who programmed it.

[david050173]

[ QUOTE ]
NL-bots are fish. Limit-bots can be made good. A bot is never better than the fish who programmed it.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is wrong. Computer programs have no problem playing better than thier creator. NL isn't some magical game. It might be hard to make a bot that can consistantly beat Phil Ivey (although if you let me have 9 bots colluding against him in a sng, I think it will be very close). You just need one that can beat the 50s (or less) for a 20% roi. Set it loose on 20 tables and wait for the cash to roll in. Even if it only did break even poker, the rake rebate would be nuts.