Is it true I'm playing against bots?

[Benoit]

I've read some people use poker bots to play for them or just software to read me and recommend what action to take. Is this true? This might explain why it has been so profitable when I change my style heads up?

With blinds still small to our stacks and me covering him by about T1000 I bet my top pair (tens) and he called. Turn makes it trips and with him first to act we check it around to the river. The river is a blank and I over bet the pot and he re-raises all in with a pair of nines.

I do continuation/probe bets and normally slow down if called because I take it as an indication I'm behind, so I rarely slow play. Heads up I start to slow play a bit. Could this be the software remembering my past actions and telling him I'm weak?

[TheUsher]

<--- bot

[microbet]

Fold.

[nWirb]

[ QUOTE ]
Push.

[/ QUOTE ]

[proell]

I think a lot of players make this bet on the river when it is HU. the likelyhood of you having the set is pretty low, and with a pocket pair just under the high card which is paired I like the hand too.

bot or no bot, changing gears is a good thing.

[eastbay]

Yes you are (very occasionally) playing against bots.

Your theory about why you suspect them is, well, for lack of a better word, laughable.

eastbay

[KenProspero]

Here's a better question, eastbay -- are the bots we're occasionally playing against any good?

I've been toying around with software, such as Wilson's, which is kind of weak, unless the bots are markedly better than this -- bring 'em on!!

[RicP]

I don't know about playing against them...

I did hear someone wrote one to post on this forum.

[barry111]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't know about playing against them...

I did hear someone wrote one to post on this forum.

[/ QUOTE ]

push

[Benoit]

If you choose to belittle my question you could at least read it completely. I asked how likely it is that I'm playing against a bot OR a person with software helping him track my betting patterns, not if my example was a sign of one.

I remember reading somewhere that average internet players don't pay much attention to patterns, but if this is the case with software help, then we could conclude that the value of changing gears increases dramatically.


...Sorry as a side note I meant he got a pair of nines on the river (K9o), that explains why he didn't go all in on the turn.

[eastbay]

[ QUOTE ]
If you choose to belittle my question you could at least read it completely. I asked how likely it is that I'm playing against a bot OR a person with software helping him track my betting patterns, not if my example was a sign of one.


[/ QUOTE ]

I read it just fine. It's still ridiculous.

It's ridiculous because people are way, way better at this kind of thing than computers. Reads a person finds trivial are actually very difficult to write a program to do.

So the answer is still no.

eastbay

[lastchance]

Yupz.

The bot is best used as an all-in simulator. In the late levels of a SNG, it's about push/folding, and bots can do that very well.

Also, you can have it 8-tabling through the night picking on all the bad players.

The best thing about a bot is that it knows how to push certain cards in certain positions.

[microbet]

It may be difficult, but people are trying. I'm sure you are aware there are very serious efforts to make very good bots. Check here (http://www.cs.ualberta.ca/~games/poker/) if you are interested. I don't really know anything about what any of these people, or others, are doing, but I don't really see why they couldn't make a poker deep blue if they devoted enough resources to it.

Thing is, a successful bot on party will be optimized to play against typical opponants. It probably wouldn't be based on really evaluating any particular players patterns, as they are probably not very static anyway.

But, even if a bot isn't that great, it is probably better than most of the players and I hope the web sites do a decent job of detecting them.

[eastbay]

[ QUOTE ]
It may be difficult, but people are trying. I'm sure you are aware there are very serious efforts to make very good bots.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure. I've followed the ualberta team's work for quite awhile now.

My point is that this guy sees everyday normal play and human tendencies and thinks it's a sign of a bot or software assistance. That's just silly.

eastbay

[Benoit]

Okay fine, anyway I was just asking because I read it somewhere so wasn't sure on that, and not to mention remembering some people here posting about programs they use to analyze what to do.

[eastbay]

[ QUOTE ]
Okay fine, anyway I was just asking because I read it somewhere so wasn't sure on that, and not to mention remembering some people here posting about programs they use to analyze what to do.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't mean to offend you. I just strongly suspect you're seeing ghosts.

And you're probably talking about my program, which doesn't read bets. That's up to the stuff between the ears of the user.

eastbay

[viennagreen]

no.. you're not playing against bots.

you made a deceptive play, and your opponent fell for it, that's all.

heads-up is aggressive... think... why would you jump to the conclusion that this must be bot-play?

[citanul]

[ QUOTE ]
I think you might be an idiot.

[/ QUOTE ]

[Benoit]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think you might be an idiot.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]Speak for yourself

Okay forget it, my mistake for actually asking a question. Not once did I say the example was a bot, it was posted to get an outside opinion.

[citanul]

I was speaking for myself. I think you may be an idiot.

If your hand example had nothing to do with your question of playing against bots-

Perhaps, now this is just a suggestion, ok, don't take it too harshly... You shouldn't have included it in your post loosely "about" bots.

Maybe.

citanul

edit: reread that last post. basically, you put a play on your opponent. well done. it's in no way indicative of a bot though. why on earth you would think that would be a bot necessarilly instead of say, a human who came to the exact conclusion you were trying to make your opponent come to? lord.

[Benoit]

So I had to shorten the title a bit, so what. I'm not the idiot here. If you read the post entirely you would have seen it was also about people using analyzing software to recommend action, since I'm not familiar with that software. Wow what a concept huh, actually reading the post before hurling insults.

Yes the example was part of the post; do you think this very aggressive move could have been instigated by some sort of program. You want to say no, fine... But I didn't ask for your attitude. Wow what a concept, actually respecting a question you don't agree with.

[lorinda]

There are some very good players here who give a lot of very good free advice.

If those players choose to get sick of hearing the same stuff over and over again, I think they should be given a little slack when they grace your thread with an answer, no matter how offensive you find it.

My question would be: "What caused you to play your winning hand this way if you didn't want to win all of your opponents chips?"

If you thought you wouldn't get all his chips with the line you took, then why did you take that line?

Lori

[viennagreen]

this, lorinda, is a very good question.

to the OP--- we all fall for traps sometimes... it doesn't mean that we're robots (though, while 8-tabling, i sometimes feel like one)

congrats on your good hand. next...

[Benoit]

Thank you for the question. I would say I did this because I felt betting on the turn was going to get him to fold and waiting until the river would not cost me anything when he was probably drawing dead.

When I did the minimum raise to his bet on the river, I just thought I was maximizing my win because it still gave him proper odds to call incase I'm bluffing. So now he would be severely short stacked and close to busting, and so his re-raise all-in was surprising but welcomed.