Bots won't destroy online poker

[Iceman]

1. No bots that currently exist can beat even mediocre opponents in full table play. Any decent 10-20 player can destroy even the best computer programs. There are far too many variables to "solve" multiplayer poker. And even if it could be solved, an optimal player wouldn't do nearly as well against bad players as a human player who adjusts to those players' weaknesses. While a computer could play a mechanical strategy and win money in the softest low-limit holdem and Omaha-8 games (where all you have to do is play good starting hands in a straightforward manner), that shouldn't concern serious players. If the games were that easy, a human player could beat them for loads of money. If there were many such bots, they'd all be donators to someone who could adjust to their play.

2. Computers play chess well because they can map all possibilities several moves in the future, while a human expert is limited to considering a small number of possible lines of play. Computers play backgammon well because they calculate exact probabilities several moves in the future, while human experts are limited to knowing strategies that approximate what the computer can do exactly. Computers play bridge well because they have perfect card memory and can use far more complex bidding and signaling systems than a human could ever manage. None of those skills would be of much use in poker. A stud expert that counts how many spades are dead knows his approximate chance of making a flush, and that's enough - usually it's a clear call or fold, and when it's close it makes very little difference anyway. The computer knowing that it's exactly a 17.3964% chance has virtually no edge over a human expert here. And how do you interpret your opponents' plays. It would be almost impossible to create a bot that wouldn't be either too easy to bluff or too willing to call postflop (and human players who picked up on that weakness would destroy the bot).

3. The two areas where bots would potentially be strong players are (1) simplistic games like lowball, razz, and 5-stud, but those aren't really played anymore, and (2) heads-up play. Heads-up play would be much easier to model. While a computer's ability to make meaningful conclusions about how an opponent plays would be very limited in a full game (because people mix up their play and exact situations don't repeat often enough for brute force conclusions that Devastator bluffs 29.645% of the time in this spot), with only one opponent to track and with precise holdings and flops being less important than playing patterns heads-up, the computer would be much more able to adjust to that specific opponent's weaknesses.

[Piers]

Your optimism is commendable, but I think you are completely wrong about the potential of computerized poker. I think really good computer programs are just around the corner, assuming they are not already here.

[ QUOTE ]
There are far too many variables to "solve" multiplayer poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree.

[ QUOTE ]
While a computer could play a mechanical strategy

[/ QUOTE ]

A good computer program would not play a mechanical strategy.

[ QUOTE ]
If the games were that easy, a human player could beat them for loads of money.

[/ QUOTE ]

Human players do beat poker games for loads of money.

[ QUOTE ]
Computers play backgammon well because they calculate exact probabilities several moves in the future


[/ QUOTE ]

This just confirms that you do not really know what you are talking about. The best backgammon programs like Snowie do not calculate exact probabilities several moves in the future. They have been trained using neural networks to recognize patterns. In fact they play more like humans than humans do, one of their main weakness being calculating exact probabilities several moves in the future, which a human can do better.

The fact that you cannot see how a really good computer Poker program could be written does not mean others can’t.

[ZeeJustin]

Since the late 90's, many high-profile stock decisions have been made with evolutionary algorithms. This means that the programmers basically provide a list of thousands of variables, and the PC uses a trial and error process to write the best algorithm using those variables. Most experts agree that these evolutionary programs have had as much, if not more, success than their human counterparts. Actually, my information may even be outdated by a few years.

I believe that poker programs will eventually be coded in the same way, and honostly, I don't understand why they haven't already. The reason I think this will provide the most perfect play is because there are sooo many variables in poker, especially when you consider figuring out how your opponents play in any given situation.

[DrSavage]

You're wrong.
Sooner or later (i'd give it 2 years absolute max) online poker will be completely dominated by bots no average player could win against.

[bigpooch]

I certainly hope so! I hate to see average players win! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Tosh]

I don't really have any idea about bots but are there not ways that the sites can stop them being used?

[Webster]

Once AI , REAL AI takes a hold bots will be a huge problem but at that point AI will be starting to do many other things in the world.

So anybody that thnks BOTS are not a concern are wearing rose colored glasses.

[Jeremy'sSpoken]

Isn't it feasible to believe that the most successful cardrooms could employ AI of their own as a counter measure agianst bots. If so I will bet on the guys who a have millions of dollars at stake. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Or perhaps they could simply have each player do one of those "type in the word" things every orbit or so.

[Webster]

I would suspect real AI (the kind that learns and changes as it goes) would be tough to spot. The good thing is at this moment real AI is being developed for other and more important things then poker.

I think there are attempts at BOTS but probebly not very good and 1 or 2 BOTS at a table would not make me leave.

It's not how many good players, it's how many BAD players are at a table.

Most winning players can spot a good player withen a few orbits and be on guard. A bot here and there is of no concern and people get to worked up about it.

[Sloats]

Whereas bots will not defeat the average to very good players, they will scare away the casual to very poor player. (forgive the following stereotype) A Midwestern woman in her 50s with $50 to spend and a mild fear of computers is not about to play poker online if she believes that there are programs out there playing at tables.

Bots will not kill any sharks, but it will scare away fish.

[DrSavage]

[ QUOTE ]
Bots will not kill any sharks, but it will scare away fish.

[/ QUOTE ]
I beleive this to be not true, you give too much credit to humans. We got the edge now, but it will not last forever.

[Sloats]

I'm saying that the bots will kill internet poker far before it gets to the level of upper quality poker players. It doesn't need to kill the sharks by taking them head on; it can just scare away the fish and starve the sharks away,

[DrSavage]

I agree, although it's funny that you don't even need functional bots to do that. Just a rumour that online poker is rigged with bots could be enough to keep the fish away. These rumours have always been around but not on massive enough scale to reach the fishy ears. As soon as they do - boom.

[bigpooch]

Some of the truly fishy players will still play regardless
if they are scaled by bots or expert humans, don't you
think? The best sharks will still have their lunch, but
instead of filet mignon everyday, they'll have to settle for
fish-and-chips! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Ilovephysics]

Heck, couldn't a (much simplier) well-designed fuzzy logic bot beat most average/poor players?

[bwana devil]

You’re completely right. BOTS will NEVER be able to play a competent game of poker. And to all those people who think this is possible, you can join the other crazies and lunatics who think it’s possible to someday land a man on the moon. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

william

[stupidsucker]

I wish to place a hex on you for making me think of "Dumb and Dumber", but it sure made me heartily LoL.

[sumdumguy]

I don't know.... have you given much thought as to the consequences of a 'world class' poker bot playing on Party?
I might be the first time in history a bot goes on tilt ! /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

[WinHoldemSupport]

if any of you are honestly interested in testing your ability against several winholdem bots ... the crew at poker professional would be more than happy to oblige.

we propose the following:
5 bot players against 5 human players ... in a limit tourney ... say 10 tourney's total played; since neither side has no way to prove that the other side is not teaming, teaming would be allowed. in other words ... you professional players can share/chat/team/potjack 'till the cows come home. we don't care. but of course you can expect the bots to do the same.

we can also set you up to play heads up 1 on 1 or ..
if one of you thinks you can take on more than one at a time we'll do that too.

this is a friendly gesture on our part and is in no way intended to offend anyone.

also, we are willing to engage in a non team game if somebody can provide a way that guarantees that absolutely nobody (not even the bots) are teaming.

winholdem support.

[WinHoldemSupport]

but why would a fish run?
if they are really pissed at a shark,
won't they buy a bot?

winholdem support

[toddw8]

[ QUOTE ]
but why would a fish run?
if they are really pissed at a shark,
won't they buy a bot?

winholdem support

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, when someone actually makes a legitimate bot they aren't going to sell it to fish. They are going use it themselves, anonymously, and make a killing.

[Sloats]

[ QUOTE ]
but why would a fish run?
if they are really pissed at a shark,
won't they buy a bot?

winholdem support

[/ QUOTE ]

Because, then the fish would no longer be a casual player.... To invest in a bot equal to the cost of their bankroll would mean an investment. A casual player who does not know how to play poker is not going to invest in a program to play poker for them.

[WinHoldemSupport]

[ QUOTE ]

A casual player who does not know how to play poker is not going to invest in a program to play poker for them.


[/ QUOTE ]
then why are these people licensing winholdem on a daily basis? the response we are seeing does not agree with your statement. poker players want one thing - to win. and they would like to defend themselves in that process.

winholdem support.

[WinHoldemSupport]

todd,

[ QUOTE ]

Well, when someone actually makes a legitimate bot they aren't going to sell it to fish. They are going use it themselves, anonymously, and make a killing.


[/ QUOTE ]

questions.
why do you believe winholdem is not a legitimate bot?
why do you believe that the business model of keeping the bot private is better than letting it go public?

we did the business analysis both ways.
the public model is at least twice as good.

winholdem support.

[WinHoldemSupport]

[ QUOTE ]

if any of you are honestly interested in testing your ability against several winholdem bots ... the crew at poker professional would be more than happy to oblige.

we propose the following:
5 bot players against 5 human players ... in a limit tourney ... say 10 tourney's total played; since neither side has no way to prove that the other side is not teaming, teaming would be allowed. in other words ... you professional players can share/chat/team/potjack 'till the cows come home. we don't care. but of course you can expect the bots to do the same.

we can also set you up to play heads up 1 on 1 or ..
if one of you thinks you can take on more than one at a time we'll do that too.

this is a friendly gesture on our part and is in no way intended to offend anyone.

also, we are willing to engage in a non team game if somebody can provide a way that guarantees that absolutely nobody (not even the bots) are teaming.


[/ QUOTE ]

why is nobody responding to this offer?
with all the public flaming about winholdem, why are there not dozens of players lining up for a chance to embarrass the bot?

bruce willis said it well:
"Cowboy the !@#$ up!"

winholdem support

[sthief09]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

if any of you are honestly interested in testing your ability against several winholdem bots ... the crew at poker professional would be more than happy to oblige.

we propose the following:
5 bot players against 5 human players ... in a limit tourney ... say 10 tourney's total played; since neither side has no way to prove that the other side is not teaming, teaming would be allowed. in other words ... you professional players can share/chat/team/potjack 'till the cows come home. we don't care. but of course you can expect the bots to do the same.

we can also set you up to play heads up 1 on 1 or ..
if one of you thinks you can take on more than one at a time we'll do that too.

this is a friendly gesture on our part and is in no way intended to offend anyone.

also, we are willing to engage in a non team game if somebody can provide a way that guarantees that absolutely nobody (not even the bots) are teaming.


[/ QUOTE ]

why is nobody responding to this offer?
with all the public flaming about winholdem, why are there not dozens of players lining up for a chance to embarrass the bot?

bruce willis said it well:
"Cowboy the !@#$ up!"

winholdem support

[/ QUOTE ]

1. Poker is not a team sport. By accepting your challenge, these 5 people would be playing a game they have never played before, sharing 5 hands.
2. Obviously a computer can calculate the odds much better for 5 groups of 2 cards than humans. The game you suggest, where 2 teams of 5 share hands is just stupid. It isn't Hold 'em
3. Your advertising pitch is the ability to share cards. We've proven that the piece of [censored] can't play poker. All it's good as is being a computer and calculating odds much faster than a human, given extreme circumstances, such as 5 people at a table sharing hands. Why try to play it off like it's a product meant to help you win at poker? It's clear to me that it's main purpose is to efficiently share cards with other people at the table. Regardless of whether I have a moral problem with it, that is what your product does, so stop selling it as a good card player, because at the current time, it's been proven that it's not a good player when it can't see other bots' cards.

Ya know, some people play the game because they actually enjoy it. Life isn't about making a cheap buck, and if it is for you, then I'm sorry.

I'll take my books over your bot. In the end, your bot may be a better poker player than I am. And the amount of people who purchase your bot (likely not YOUR bot, since you will be facing a lot of competition, and I doubt you will get business with such a lack of morals) will eventually drive me from online poker forever. But in the meantime, I'm going to have fun playing the game. I'm going to try to learn for myself. To me and many others, money in poker is nothing more than results. I'd rather struggle to become a good player than sit on my ass watching TV while your bot brings me 2 BB/hr.

I understand you want to advertise for your product, but why do you need to do so at this forum? This is a forum for learning and trying to get better. If you want to help people scam or cardshare, or whatever it is you do, go to RGP, or somewhere where you are appreciated. You have your right to advertise, but I like to think that this forum is for people who actually want to learn to play the game, not watch the game be played itself.

Further, I think goading people into accepting your challenge is counter-productive from your standpoint. You are coming off as desperate and immature, starved for attention because your bot's ability isn't able to attract enough. Similarly is when the bot's designer comes on here and starts huge threads by saying how great WinHoldEm is. I admit the idea of a pokerbot is intriguing, and if your product is any good, it will attract plenty of interest from greedy, money hungry people by itself. I don't think posting on this forum benefits your product. 99% of posts bash your product. Do you think the people that come here and read the threads are then going to go out and buy your product.

Thank you.

[sthief09]

I'd also like to note that I think any legitimate company would at least make an attempt to hire a support person that can use proper grammar and punctuation. The fact that you are the person most responsible for the advertisement of the product, and have problems forming a complete sentence speaks volumes about the legitimacy of your company, and its founder.

This is nothing personal to you WinHoldemSupport. I understand you are doing your job to the best of your ability. However, I would expect the owner of a legitimate company would try to represent his company with someone who is intelligent and mature.

[Il_Mostro]

[ QUOTE ]
we did the business analysis both ways.
the public model is at least twice as good.


[/ QUOTE ]
Based on what assumptions? How long have you calculated that the games will last? How long did you calculate you would be able to use the bot anonymously? And lastly, why do you think your bot can beat any games at all without cheating?

[Zetack]

[ QUOTE ]

This is nothing personal to you WinHoldemSupport. I understand you are doing your job to the best of your ability. However, I would expect the owner of a legitimate company would try to represent his company with someone who is intelligent and mature.

[/ QUOTE ]

Rotfl. Yeah, I'm sure he's going to take being called unintelligent and immature as "nothing personal to [him]..."

--Zetack

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
Isn't it feasible to believe that the most successful cardrooms could employ AI of their own as a counter measure agianst bots. If so I will bet on the guys who a have millions of dollars at stake. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Or perhaps they could simply have each player do one of those "type in the word" things every orbit or so.

[/ QUOTE ]


That, would be a good counter-measure. Also webcams, and voice over net would destroy any bot that could be made today and well into the future. Bot's simply can't replicate human interaction.

[Sloats]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

A casual player who does not know how to play poker is not going to invest in a program to play poker for them.


[/ QUOTE ]
then why are these people licensing winholdem on a daily basis? the response we are seeing does not agree with your statement. poker players want one thing - to win. and they would like to defend themselves in that process.

winholdem support.


[/ QUOTE ]

That would not be a casual player, now would it?

[WinHoldemSupport]

mostro,

you seem to assume that winholdem has no value without card sharing.

this is completely false.
more than 90% of all real money testing was done solo.

whatever perception you have of winholdem is obviously wrong.

winholdem support.

[WinHoldemSupport]

thief,

great,

now that at least one other person admits that a team of humans will have a difficult time against an opposing team of bots ... we can leave that point alone.

we are not trying to push this in anybody's face. none of us here can meet the challenge either. but we didn't consider the issue settled merely because we can't beat a team of bots; we were willing to admit that there may be a group of players that could. the offer still stands.

so, lets just talk about heads up poker. this eliminates the possibility of collusion but not necessarily bots.

anybody on this forum that would like to go heads up against winholdem ... we will be glad to arrange a match.

basically, anybody that continues to say that winholdem plays poorly can expect us to challenge that statement any way we see fit.

you say that for some poker is an enjoyable experience ... we agree ... but only if you win regularly ... if you already win regularly then good for you man ... if you do not win regularly then nothing you say can convince me that you enjoy that experience.

most of our customers are people who were losing regularly and now they are not. some are players who were already winning and are genuinely intriqued with the idea of having a bot play real money for them while they sleep.

if you are reading this and you do not yet know the experience of getting up in the morning to see that your bot has doubled it's table stake during the night ... you have not yet lived.

winholdem support

[WinHoldemSupport]

thief,

holding up the spelling/grammar measuring stick is so old school ... and it demonstrates that you dont understand the what is truly valuable on the internet ...

forming an opinion about someone because they chose not to spend the extra time needed to spell/grammar check each of several hundred daily posts/emails is understandable ...

we are as interested in challenging and repelling the type of customers we do not want as we are in attracting the ones we do.

we intentionally do not use captilization and extraneous punctuation in order to provoke an emotional response in readers like yourself. it is an excellent psychological filter in that if you are prone to complain about a relaxed attitude toward typing\grammar and punctuation then there is a very high probability that you would make a poor customer.

but dont blame me for this man. im just a forum jock doing what im told. this is the first job ive ever had where my job description includes the intentional ommission of capitalization and extraneous punctuation as well as the requirement of having a takenoshitfromanyone attitude.

the point im am trying to make is that the style and tone of each our the posts from winholdem support is not an accident or mistake ... it is completely intentional.

each of the support people here at pokerbot.com were psychologically screened for a specific personality feature ... that being what they referred to as the "bill murray" mindset ... which was described to us as the trait of feeling fulfilled by controversy and/or pissing people off. several very nice people were turned down for this job.

so if you are putoff by the way i am posting then i have done my job according to my job description.

finally, if you have issues with simple social rules like spelling/punctuation then you certainly will have issues with the classic poker rules:

1) thou shalt not use bots.
2) thou shalt not share.

hope this helps explain things a bit,

winholdem support

[Henke]

this is completely false.
more than 90% of all real money testing was done solo.

So basically, about 10% of the time you where cardsharing/cheating/colluding at a real money table during the testing phase?

Ok, Ray, what sites did you use? They might be interested...

[ QUOTE ]

Checking server [whois.crsnic.net]
Checking server [whois.opensrs.net]
Results:
Registrant:
HixoxiH Software
4143 Red Laurel Way
Snellville, GA 30039
US

Domain name: WINHOLDEM.NET

Administrative Contact:
Bornert II, Ray E. ray.bornert@hixoxih.com
4143 Red Laurel Way
Snellville, GA 30039
US
+1 770 736 7870 Fax: +1 770 736 8790

Technical Contact:
Hostmaster, Dragon Networks hostmaster@dragon.com
3168 Mercer University Drive
Suite 102
Atlanta, GA 30341
US
770-458-1350 Fax: 770-458-1340


[/ QUOTE ]

[sthief09]

Do you think a person has the right to know which of his opponents are bots?

[OldLearner]

[ QUOTE ]
we are as interested in challenging and repelling the type of customers we do not want

[/ QUOTE ]

How do we repel you and your product?

[WinHoldemSupport]

[ QUOTE ]

Do you think a person has the right to know which of his opponents are bots?


[/ QUOTE ]

thief,

the answer to this questions depends on how the guarantee is enforced. if said guarantee requires that the government install a camera on my system or surgically implant an anal probe ... then my answer is no ... you cannot secure your right to know if you are playing against a bot if the act of doing so violates a deeper more fundamental right of the individuals at that table.

the internet changes things man. you simply cannot expect things to operate the same way online as they do in face to face.

if you can find a way for me to play poker online such that it is a certainty that you are not using a bot then i would view that as valuable.

until then, you do not have the right to know because there is no way to guarantee that right. any current guarantee is based on the honor system which is a relatively poor guarantee when humans are involved.

the future holds one of two basic scenarios

1) computer assistance kills online poker.
(in which case we have nothing to discuss and we will all return to the b&m's)
2) an online poker cold war happens:
opcs constantly attempt detection measures,
bot makers/users constantly attempt counter measures

such a cold war either continues indefinitely until we get blade-runner like conditions on the earth (human litmus tests) or ....

internet holdem changes and adapts and evolves into a slightly different form than classic holdem ... similar to the way blackjack had to evolve after edward o. thorp taught everyone to card count.

let me ask you this, is card counting in a b&m blackjack game wrong? ... it's against casino policy? it can get you banned from the game?

winholdem support.

[sthief09]

All I asked was a simple question. I didn't say people have the right to know who they are playing against. I just wanted to know if you felt that way. I was going to say that if I was playing online site that allowed bots to play, but put "(bot)" under a player's name at a table, I'd have no problem with it.

This is not to say that I or anyone has the right to know who I'm playing against. Being that you're trying to fight a crusade here, you clearly aren't willing to make such concessions. You have your beliefs, and I respect that.

As far as the war going on, I think the whole poker fad will die down once people start losing their money and realize that they suck at the game. Around that time, the bots will likely be much better, able to show an automatic profit in the longrun. Once that comes, I highly doubt any measures the companies take will be able to keep the bots out.

Few other random comments that I'd be interested in hearing your feelings about:
- Card counting in blackjack is "wrong" in that you are cheating the game. But there are many different kinds of wrong. Casinos have one purpose. That is to get their customers' money by making them feel comfortable and welcome. I don't really consider this a "moral" business, but add in the fact that casinos themselves cheat, and you have a sketchy business. Cheating a sketchy business is still cheating, but I condone these types of wrongdoigns. The reason I don't see bots and card counting on the same level is because of who loses the money. In a casino, if you count cards, you've outsmarted the casino, and you get their dirty money. If you go out and buy a bot, and play online, you've outsmarted the online casino, but whose money are you getting? You aren't getting the poker room's money, you are getting other peoples' money. I'm not making judgments about right or wrong here, I'm just telling you why I think they are different.
- Wouldn't you make more money selling these to the poker rooms? If a new poker site had 3 bots working for theme at every table, they would make an enormous amount of money, and at the same time they'd do a good job of getting new customers because they'd always have players on their tables. They'd probably be willing to pay you very well for your services. Plus you'd be avoiding the cold war you predict. Obviously I don't want this to happen, but I'm curious why you've decided to market to the players and not the companies.
- Are your card-sharing capabilities really worth some people being turned off by the fact that most people considering this a cheating aid? I understand that this is a great feature for your product, but I think you lose a lot of potential buyers, because it's tough to trust a company with $200 if I feel that you endorse cheating, and denying that it's actually cheating.
- Are you ever going to put out a product to compete with Turbo Texas Hold 'em? While that is a great program, it has some flaws, and if your product is as good as you think, you'd be able to sell this to the players such as myself that aren't interested in your services unless they can make these people better players.

[SirRaleigh]

winholdemsupport,

Your winholdem product is definitially interesting to me only because I am a computer programmer and was wondering if bots existed. I play online and always wondered if someone was cheating using a bot, which appears people are. Techically I understand the basic concepts involved, Infact for fun I wrote a program that can detect the flop cards, took about a week say 2 hours a night.

My point here is I do not think WinHoldem or any other bots are a major problem from the viewpoint of the online casino because a majority of the people online do not understand they exist and it is in the interest of the online casino to keep it that way.

Whenever these bots hurt of the bottom line of a casino (i.e. when players stop playing online poker because they know bots are out there) the online casino will take the necessary steps with their client software so no computer program could reliable detect game events.

The only reason the online casino does not take these steps is because it would make it transparent to the end user which would only hurt their business more.

hotmail had problems of bots signing up for free email accounts, they solved this problem by making the user detect a string of text from a picture which made it very hard for a computer program to detect. Such real contermeasures that changed frequently would be the only way I could see to stop bots from detecting game events, which I beleive is at the heart of stopping widespread use of bots.

Summerizing, I beleive bots only exist because online casinos let them exist because it is better for their bottom line.

SirRaleigh

[stupidsucker]

[ QUOTE ]
we did the business analysis both ways.
the public model is at least twice as good.


[/ QUOTE ]

This makes me laugh a hearty Guffaw!

Simply put.. IF your bot worked as good as you say it did,.. lets say it can make 2 BB/hour

Run it on 3 5-10 tables and you are now making 60 bucks an hour. If that works why not make 200 bucks an hour running it 24/7 using several different accounts(alternating them)

Ok 20 hours a day * 200/hour = 4k a day just playing 5-10
Thats 1.5million a year
You could do this with NO overhead
No updates to software due to pokerrooms fixing you
No customer complaints
No employees

We are talking about millions of dollars over the next few years(playing 5-10)

You are full of [censored] if you think you could possibly sell enough bots and cover expenses.

Lets say 100,000 people buy your bot (party only has 45k people online at most given peak moments)
Lets say you up the price to 1000 whopping dollars for the program.. These numbers are absurd in your favor.. How much does it cost again?

Ok now you have brought in10million dollars. Yes 10million. You WILL have a multimilliondollar lawsuit on your hands from customers and giants such as party poker itself. (And you would lose)
You have 100k whiny customers to deal with , and they are all playing against each others bots.(if all players are the same skill level they CANT beat the rake no matter how perfect they play)

Bottom line is .. Your bot doesnt work properly, or I think even YOU would be smart enough to keep it under your hat. THAT is saying a lot..

I enjoy your posts, and I want to be here when we all say I told you so.

I understand your customers want of your product 100%, I still think its wrong of them, but greed is powerful. I also can see each of them getting burned by something that just cant preform.

I urge each of you to buy winholdem as well. I support it ! I need something to make me laugh. I have my Guffaw waiting in a big corked bottle, for you and every one of your customers.

Please prove me wrong... Show me that business model I need a good laugh. If I cant prove its a failure , Ill buy a bot myself.

[WinHoldemSupport]

sirraleigh,

[ QUOTE ]

(i.e. when players stop playing online poker because they know bots are out there)


[/ QUOTE ]

we are betting that this is not as big a problem as many are saying. the advent of chess software did not destroy the human love of chess and the continued desire to play. bots will not kill the human desire to play poker; bots will help everyone play better.

[ QUOTE ]

so no computer program could reliable detect game events


[/ QUOTE ]

we are betting that we will be able to get winholdem to recognize anything a human can. our business depends on it. we are very comitted in this regard.

[ QUOTE ]

Summerizing, I beleive bots only exist because online casinos let them exist because it is better for their bottom line.


[/ QUOTE ]

i think you attribute way more power and omniscience to the opc's than what is realistic.

winholdem support.

[WinHoldemSupport]

ss,

first off we disagree with your estimate ... not because you did the math wrong but because we dont think a raked hi limit game has an ev of 2bb/hr (certainly not for an entire year 24/7) ... maybe on a given night when and if you happen upon a table where a some wealthy rich newbs decide to have a pissing contest, but certainly not on regular basis. the more realistic value is probably one small blind per hour. you would also have a difficult time playing for extremely long sessions without being detected. the typical auto-bot player will run one daily session and expect to get x / hour on average where x is probably 1 small blind. we say typical because it depends entirely on the conditions at the table and the quality of the formula set they are using.

we are in the business of selling programmable pokerbots. selling formulas for such a pokerbot is an entirely different business - one in which many of our end-users intend to engage in ... they are working like busy little beavers at the moment on their latest and greatest formula sets.

lastly, we do not believe that the world champion winholdem formula AI will be developed by a single person, rather it is more likely to as the result of a large brain meld of programmers and pokerplayers worldwide in an open source way.

in the near future you will see websites devoted to open source winholdem formula AI. so the business model for the AI is similar to linux. get a bunch of people fine tuning a publically available formula set; such a formua set will be vastly superior to anything a single individual can do regardless of how good they.

our first business goal was simply to deliver a programmable pokerbot to the general public. we have achieved that goal (and we constantly add new AI symbols as needed by the formula developers).

the business second goal is to release a publically available open source formula set that anybody can use. the power of this goal is that it taps the mind power of every willing formula developer and not just a single person.

it will take more than a room of programmers to write a world champion poker AI.

winholdem support.

[pudley4]

[ QUOTE ]
not because you did the math wrong but because we dont think a raked hi limit game has an ev of 2bb/hr (certainly not for an entire year 24/7)

[/ QUOTE ]

Not for your bot it doesn't.

[ QUOTE ]
the more realistic value is probably one small blind per hour.

[/ QUOTE ]

You can only make $.50/hr at a 1-2 table??? My son could make that, and he's only 4.

Oh, wait, you were talking about the "hi limits", like 5-10 /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

[SirRaleigh]

All I am saying is online casinos aren't doing much in preventing bots from detecting game events or changing them often because to do so would lower the end users experience and at the same time make users aware that the reason they do bizarre things with the flop cards is to avoid bot detecting game events.

One of thousands of ways one could distorte the flop cards, for example, apply some moving algorthim to make the surfaces ripple, like they are on top of water, and changing these methods and algorithms daily would make it near impossible for a bot writter to keep writting programs fast enough to detect the manipulations.

Don't get me wrong, I am sure you are good at what you do. But bits are bits, bot writters need some prediciable way to detect game events to operate alone. Plus, the online casinos would have your software and its updates, so they could easily tell what breaks and what doesn't break your detecting algorithms.

If bots become a big problem, the person with the money, i.e. PartyPoker, will have 20 programmers to your 1 programmer to consistently outsmart and avoid your detecting algoritms, whatever they may be, screen scrapping, sounds, etc.

Do you not agree with my last statement?

SirRaleigh

[WinHoldemSupport]

thief,

[ QUOTE ]

but put "(bot)" under a player's name at a table, I'd have no problem with it


[/ QUOTE ]

we have zero problem with that. our management sent a letter to the opc's offering to signal their software if and when winholdem was used by a player ... then the opc's would have some kind of 'bot' icon ... they all refused.

the only reason we offered to do that is because we are in the business of selling programmable pokerbots. getting the opc's to embrace bots would be great for business. but they started the cold war not us.

[ QUOTE ]

As far as the war going on, I think the whole poker fad will die down once people start losing their money and realize that they suck at the game.


[/ QUOTE ]

we are betting that they will not lose their love of the game and will wake up and smell the bandwidth and suddenly become in the market for a pokerbot. and pokerbot.com is in the business of selling programmable pokerbots so that's good for business.

[ QUOTE ]

I highly doubt any measures the companies take will be able to keep the bots out.


[/ QUOTE ]

we completely agree with this statement, which is why we offered to play nice with them by making it very very easy for them to detect winholdem. they refused; and so we have a cold war and we are implementing anti-detection measures in order to protect our business.

[ QUOTE ]

there are many different kinds of wrong


[/ QUOTE ]

the better statement is "there are many different kinds of risks" ...

compare
1) standing up in church and farting loudly and announcing that you love porn.
versus
2) turning in a term paper in all caps, no punctuation, no spacing.

neither act is 'wrong' it's just a case of more risk than reward.

[ QUOTE ]

If you go out and buy a bot, and play online, you've outsmarted the online casino, but whose money are you getting? You aren't getting the poker room's money, you are getting other peoples' money


[/ QUOTE ]

on the contrary. the money in the pot belongs to nobody until the showdown has been resolved. when you play online poker ... you wear two hats at the same time - a casino hat and a player hat. if you are my opponent at a table i see only your casino hat ... i view it as no different than a complicated game of blackjack ... you are there at that table to provide action on the part of the casino so that 'i' the player will offer a continuous supply of rakable wagers. from my point of view, winning the pot is absolutely identical to winning a blackjack hand from the when counting cards. you willingly provided game action, nobody took your money from you; they simply won the casino pot and not you. when you play poker in a casino you become part of the game mechanism itself like it or not and you accept the risk involved. if you disagree with this then why can't i just show up a table sit down and start playing poker even if there are zero others there; because there is no casino game until others show up to act on behalf of that casino in order to provide action.

[ QUOTE ]

Are your card-sharing capabilities really worth some people being turned off by the fact that most people considering this a cheating aid? I understand that this is a great feature for your product, but I think you lose a lot of potential buyers, because it's tough to trust a company with $200 if I feel that you endorse cheating, and denying that it's actually cheating


[/ QUOTE ]

the large majority of customers license the professional edition and not the team edition. we have made no secret about this. you can read the differences here:
http:/www.winholdem.net/wh_pricing.php

we get many emails asking us which wiholdem editions can be safely purchased without the end user suffering the risk of being accused of colluding - and the answer is and always has been any edition except the team edition. only the team edition has the ability to auto-share. the basic, speed and pro editions do not have this ability. most users just want a programmable poker bot and do not want to auto-team and they are very happy with the pro edition.

and so no it's not bad business at all. the market always decides what is valuable and what is not. the winholdem pro edition is the very clear market choice based on actual sales.

we are considering scraping TTH but that is not decided yet.

for those that currently want to play against winholdem in a safe hassle free environment, you can play at poker professional. you can find the download linnk at pokerbot.com ... the poker professional site is used by winholdem formula developers to test their bots.

winholdem support.