Poker Bot piece
 

Saw this at www.techdirt.com and wanted to pass it along.

[ QUOTE ]
A few years ago, we wrote about how online poker players were often getting assistance from training tools that told them what to do in certain situations. Of course, since then, there's been something of an online poker bubble generating a ton of attention and money. So, with that, it really shouldn't be any surprise that poker bots are becoming much more popular, allowing people to just let the bot play hands for them while they do something more productive (like sleep). While there are lots of arguments about ethics and whether this is legal, that didn't seem to be the most interesting part of the article. In fact, the article seems to have brushed over the most interesting part of the article itself. Apparently, the most popular bot, WinHoldEm, lets users tweak strategies -- and it's the strategies and not the bot that makes someone a winner. In fact, the article suggests it's becoming popular for users to swap and trade different formula sets. In other words, unlike what most people think of when they think of bots invading a game, there is still strategy involved, it's just that the strategy is in tweaking your bot to the best of its ability, which could actually depend on who the bot is playing against (and, assuming other bots are playing, how they're tweaked). So, perhaps the more modern equivalent to sports and games won't be your own feats of strength or strategy -- but how you tweak a computer to play for you.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's going to happen, it's just a question of when. Denying this is to overlook nearly every lesson of history.

Re: Poker Bot piece
 

limit, computers would probably own it up. +ev decisions everytime.. but i still would like to see how they would proram a bot play to play no limit

Re: Poker Bot piece
 

[ QUOTE ]
how they would proram a bot play to play no limit

[/ QUOTE ]

I dont think thats possible too many possible combinations, but limit seems possible, I would like to see some of these in action. Also doesnt party ban bots? I heard this somewhere.

Re: Poker Bot piece
 

This article was disturbing, that bastard must be hunted down like an animal and executed along with anyone he sold the program to. I hate to say it, but if this got out to the mainstream media it could really hurt online poker, it would be a huge PR hit.
Bots

Re: Poker Bot piece
 

[ QUOTE ]
It's going to happen, it's just a question of when. Denying this is to overlook nearly every lesson of history.


[/ QUOTE ]

You mean like the Nazis, 911, slavery or the Boston Tea Party? WOW! This may be more serious than I thought.

Re: Poker Bot piece
 

[ QUOTE ]
You mean like the Nazis, 911, slavery or the Boston Tea Party? WOW! This may be more serious than I thought.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're way off. I mean like the guy that said, way back in the 1800's, that everything that could be invented, already had. Don't be that guy, Jimbo.

Or the brainiac that very vocally proclaimed that a computer would never beat the best human chess players? You're not THAT guy, are you?

Then don't act like it.

Re: Poker Bot piece
 

[ QUOTE ]
You're way off. I mean like the guy that said, way back in the 1800's, that everything that could be invented, already had. Don't be that guy, Jimbo.

Or the brainiac that very vocally proclaimed that a computer would never beat the best human chess players? You're not THAT guy, are you?

Then don't act like it.

[/ QUOTE ]

As they say, if theres a scheme to make easy money someone is going to try it. Its just the way of the world, people are going to try the bot thing cause they dont have to work for it. The problem is whether someone will make a big deal out of it, seems like party does, but still something I wonder is, can the people that get caught get punished? I mean whats the crime? I wonder if they could even be put in jail in the US.

Re: Poker Bot piece
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You mean like the Nazis, 911, slavery or the Boston Tea Party? WOW! This may be more serious than I thought.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're way off. I mean like the guy that said, way back in the 1800's, that everything that could be invented, already had. Don't be that guy, Jimbo.

Or the brainiac that very vocally proclaimed that a computer would never beat the best human chess players? You're not THAT guy, are you?

Then don't act like it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not quite that old Pirc. I am old enough to know that no bot will be able to beat above average players either in a ring game or tournaments till I am long gone so unless I am reincarnated I feel no need to holler "The Sky is Falling". Why do you?

Re: Poker Bot piece
 

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not quite that old Pirc. I am old enough to know that no bot will be able to beat above average players either in a ring game or tournaments till I am long gone so unless I am reincarnated I feel no need to holler "The Sky is Falling". Why do you?

[/ QUOTE ]


Thats true, but they can scare away the fish, if people dont feel safe playing online poker its a problem. I consider it a big problem not because of skill level of the bots, but because of the fact that bots play can scare people away from playing online. I mean theres already a bunch of people who keep saying online poker is rigged, do you really want to give them more ammo?

Re: Poker Bot piece
 

[ QUOTE ]
Thats true, but they can scare away the fish, if people dont feel safe playing online poker its a problem.

[/ QUOTE ]

Jorge I agree with you on this important point. I just do not agree with Pirc's theory.

Re: Poker Bot piece
 

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not quite that old Pirc. I am old enough to know that no bot will be able to beat above average players either in a ring game or tournaments till I am long gone so unless I am reincarnated I feel no need to holler "The Sky is Falling". Why do you?

[/ QUOTE ]

No idea where you're getting this "Sky is Falling" crap. I merely said that it's a definite fact that at some point, and almost certainly before you're long gone, computers will be able to beat humans in poker, and nearly any other game, as well. You supplied the "Sky is Falling" bit all by yourself.

What is so mystical about ring games? It's math, man. Especially online. Although we'd like to think otherwise, all of our intuitions and heuristical heroics boil down to probabilities and math, things a computer does substantially better at that us. It's hole cards, the cards on the table, the action so far, any db of previous actions by the players involved, and the money in the pot...extremely straightforward calculations. What can a human do better? Have a "feeling" that the opponent(s) are bluffing? It's just a probablitity. Make a strange play to confuse the opponent? Computers can do it, too.

To me it seems clear as day that, sooner than later, bots will be beating humans in poker, even in the mystical ring game. If programmed correctly, they'll never make a -EV play, and I know no humans of which this is true. Do you?

Re: Poker Bot piece
 

[ QUOTE ]
To me it seems clear as day that, sooner than later, bots will be beating humans in poker,

[/ QUOTE ]

I am sure it seems that way to many sub par poker players. It is always easier to externalize your losses than to blame oneself.

I will make one stipulation to your premise. If a perfectly programmed poker bot had several hundred thousand hands played with the exact same oponnents sitting in the same position at the same time of day in the same financial position in life as well as in the game with the same amount of rest and the same amount of stress and the same amount of interest in the game the poker bot would win.

Please let me know when this spectacle occurs, I'd like to watch.

Re: Poker Bot piece
 

[ QUOTE ]
I am sure it seems that way to many sub par poker players. It is always easier to externalize your losses than to blame oneself.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not sure what you're implying here, but I'll put the issue to rest by saying that I'm pretty sure I've never played against a bot. If I have, I've not noticed it. Sorry to burst your bubble.

[ QUOTE ]
I will make one stipulation to your premise. If a perfectly programmed poker bot had several hundred thousand hands played with the exact same oponnents sitting in the same position at the same time of day in the same financial position in life as well as in the game with the same amount of rest and the same amount of stress and the same amount of interest in the game the poker bot would win.

[/ QUOTE ]

Strawman. These conditions simply are not necessary for a bot to win. Let's say that all of your conditions hold, but that the opponent is one seat away from where he was the other "several hundred thousand" hands. If a bot can't make that adjustment, then it's not a "perfectly programmed" bot. Besides, what kind of rocket science does it take to adjust play based on an opponent's position?

You also make reference to things like rest and stress and interest. I think these types of things are what the "bots will never beat a human in a ring game" proponents hang their hat on. What, only another human can make an adjustment for a stressed-out opponent? How could you tell online, anyway? All the computer would see is actions, which it would be turning into mathematical probablities, and it would make +EV plays based on math, not some "gut feeling" that so-and-so opponent just lost his girlfriend.

The more we talk, the more I'm convinced bots will beat us up even sooner.

Re: Poker Bot piece
 

Well, AFAIK the University of Alberta currently has the most sophisticated bot. It's good enough that good players have to adjust their game to beat it.

The way that poker bots currently work is probably still that they don't really adjust to the opponent, but rather that they play in a way that is extremely difficult to exploit, and that will take advantage of certain categories of player errors. There's no real incentive to profile players in the environment of, say, party poker, where you're not likely to play a whole lot of hands against the same person anyway.

The mathematics for no limit and pot limit play is feasible, consequently, there's no real reason to believe that effective no limit computer players should be particularly difficult to write.

P.S. For those who are so inclined the University of Alberta does have a low-limit bot that you can play against on line for play stakes.

Re: Poker Bot piece
 

What I find very interesting about this type of article is how they never talk money. So this guy turns up at your room and plugs in a "poker bot" a few seconds later you're playing online and ...... the article finishes.

The missing paragraph would probably read:

"and after 13 hours of watching our little metallic friend play we had earned $5.60 - another great day at the tables!"

If these people have so much faith why is it always the small stakes tables, why do they have to sell them to make a living if the bot could clean up?????

Complete rubbish...

[On a side note don't forget that the best bots recently came together to fight it out and Phil Laak took on the winner and kicked its arse]

Re: Poker Bot piece
 

[ QUOTE ]
On a side note don't forget that the best bots recently came together to fight it out and Phil Laak took on the winner and kicked its arse

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for your reply.

I think though, that a lot of people are making an error by aruging that, since we haven't yet built a bot that can beat the best players, we never will. Given the history of computational development, this seems prima facie short-sighted. To my knowledge, the mighty University of Alberta is the major player in developing bots. Could be others. But what if IBM threw it's weight at the puzzle? The millions of dollars and all the brainpower spent on Deep Blue couldn't come up with a bot that'd beat ya'? Now, I have no idea why it hasn't yet been attempted, or whether it has.

Keep in mind that when chess programs were first being developed, programs played like programs; that is, you could exploit a chess program because, for instance, they tended to value pieces more than position and tactics more than strategy. They were exploitable. Deep Blue does not have these exploitable tendecies.

We're at that stage now with poker bots. They are exploitable, opponents of the theory of poker bots say. Probably. But will they stay that way for long? No way. We'll look back at this argument and marvel at how silly it was. Of course computers will be able to beat humans in poker. It's inevitable.

Re: Poker Bot piece
 

[ QUOTE ]
Keep in mind that when chess programs were first being developed, programs played like programs; that is, you could exploit a chess program because, for instance, they tended to value pieces more than position and tactics more than strategy. They were exploitable. Deep Blue does not have these exploitable tendecies.

[/ QUOTE ]
Chess is a game of perfect information. There is a finite set of moves that a chess player can make and a computer can calculate/anticipate/analyze this. Poker is a game of incomplete information (randomness). Nobody knows what cards are coming next. This makes it difficult to program (especially for NL holdem).

If someone can write a poker bot AI that can beat NL holdem every time, despite the unknowns, that technology should be used for more important applications (e.g. military operations).

Re: Poker Bot piece
 

I read this article. More reason to play NL over Limit. This is the part that was really disturbing to me:

[ QUOTE ]
"Flick on Team mode and you can collude with other humans running WinHoldEm at the table."


[/ QUOTE ]

Hopefully the poker sites can detect when two people/bots are colluding (e.g. two people/bots raising/re-raising with trash to force people out and steal pots).

Re: Poker Bot piece
 

[ QUOTE ]
If someone can write a poker bot AI that can beat NL holdem every time, despite the unknowns, that technology should be used for more important applications (e.g. military operations).

[/ QUOTE ]

Good point. Keep in mind, though, that the test to determine whether a bot is at a world-class level is not that it can beat NL holdem every time. Impossible, as we all know. The goal is a bot that can hold it's own against world-class players, one that can earn it's $x/hr, like any professional player hopes to. At that point I'd say you have a pretty successful bot.

[ QUOTE ]
Nobody knows what cards are coming next. This makes it difficult to program (especially for NL holdem).

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe this is another example of the argument that there is something magical and mystical about the human mind that, in this application, a bot could never overcome. Hogwash. If anything, the computer has the advantage with unknown variables. Example: you and the computer both have a draw, say, a gut shot. There's a lot of money in the pot. The next card to come is unknown for both you and the bot, but the bot is able to calculate more accurately it's chances of hitting it's draw, so it's going to make the right decision every time.

"Well," you might say, "a good human might raise and ruin the bots' odds to draw." The human programming the bot is too thick to not realize this and program accordingly, and maybe even have the bot do such a dastardly thing every now and then to ruin the humans' odds?

I definitely don't see the major leap it takes from playing against a single opponent to moving up to a ring game, and I'm starting to not see why no-limit is such a difficult hurdle, vis-a-vis limit.

Can someone explain to me why no-limit is so unsurmountable?

Re: Poker Bot piece
 

I think if the bot was really capable of making a ton of money, there would be no way he would be offering it for sale to the public.
However, the more people that hear about this the less attractive online poker will become. I hope all the online poker rooms are taking major action to sniff out and get rid of the bots.

Re: Poker Bot piece
 

The fact that poker sites are offshore (and therefore not governed by US gaming agencies) is a a turnoff for me. Bots? Cheating? Etc? Have fun trying to protect your rights (if any) against cheaters. No government agency to turn to. Can't sue (if you can, you won't win against some offshore entity). But some say that poker sites have an incentive to thwart cheaters. I doubt that incentive means much given that they can make more money by marketing to future fish than by cracking down on some cheaters. And what is punishment for cheaters? Prison? Fines? Nope - US law won't assist you. And if a site goes bankrupt for whatever reason (debt, Enron-ish mistakes, etc)? You won't get your money - US law doesn't govern. Think about US banks - they are insured (FDIC) and so on. But your money sitting at a poker site? Zero protection.

Ok, went off on a tangent.

Re: Poker Bot piece
 

Yes, that's probably the most convincing argument. If you have an AMM (Automatic Moneymaking Machine), you surely would keep it to yourself. I know I would.
It looks a bit like all the trading systems that are for sale to trade the markets: black box systems with "proven" records etc. Why sell the damn thing if you can make millions with it in the markets? Because they don't work!
Same with these bots. What does work though is selling the idea because lots of people will buy it. Welcome to the bots!

Imagine: computers ruling the financial markets. They participate, yes, but they don't RULE it.
A human can still be profitable in a field of hundreds of trading computers.

Anyways, cheers!

research
 

"No-limit poker may be the ultimate challenge within the domain, since it seems to emphasize the more nebulous poker skills, such as in-depth knowledge of the opponent and the ability to make fine judgements." article

"The game of poker is logistically simple yet strategically complex, and offers many properties not exhibited by chess, checkers, and most other well-studied games. Most importantly, poker is a non-deterministic game with imperfect (hidden) information. Handling unreliable or incomplete information is a fundamental problem in computer science, and poker provides an excellent domain for investigating problems of decision making under conditions of uncertainty." article

More articles on the Poker AI research being done at the University of Alberta here

Re: Poker Bot piece
 

[ QUOTE ]

Yes, that's probably the most convincing argument. If you have an AMM (Automatic Moneymaking Machine), you surely would keep it to yourself. I know I would.
It looks a bit like all the trading systems that are for sale to trade the markets: black box systems with "proven" records etc. Why sell the damn thing if you can make millions with it in the markets? Because they don't work!
Same with these bots. What does work though is selling the idea because lots of people will buy it. Welcome to the bots!
Imagine: computers ruling the financial markets. They participate, yes, but they don't RULE it.
A human can still be profitable in a field of hundreds of trading computers.
Anyways, cheers!

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I agree with you the majority of such schemes and bots that are marketed are likely bogus but there are reasons why some people might be willing to sell their system other than it doesn't work.

1. They are under capitalized and would make more from 1% of the profits of 100000x their bankroll running their system. (Think like some of the money managers for huge investments - like the money managers of the Harvard endowment. They regularly beat the market but probably make more money from their salary and returns on the $20 billion invested than if they were to invest their own net worth in the market).

2. They can only do one part of the system and need you to do the rest. In the case of bots this could be because they can do the work to create the bot, to deal with the sites UI and system, but can't do the strategy or can't adjust the strategy to every site and every level at every site, especially as play changes over time. So they provide the frame work and let you fill in the strategy. Or it could be that betting online or using a bot is illegal where they are but selling a computer program that enables one to bet online (intended for play money .net sites only, just works on the .com version too as a coincidence) is legal and they are willing to transfer some of the profits on their system to other people who either legally can play online with bots or are willing to illegally play.

That said, I agree that most of these systems that are offered are undoubtedly losers.

I also agree with subzero that the bad part about winholdem that is highlighted in the article is the collusion and I think collusion (using bots or not using bots) is a bigger problem for poker than bots.

Re: Poker Bot piece
 

[ QUOTE ]
"Flick on Team mode and you can collude with other humans running WinHoldEm at the table."


[/ QUOTE ]

Yes thats what annoyed me about it, it said that the people using the bot werent just using the bot, they were actually sharing information among themselves and colluting. So if you were in a table with 3 bots, you are essentially playing against 3 people that show each other their cards and they can calculate odds better than humans so their plays will be perfect. This annoyed me a lot because it is technically cheating now, it goes from just using a bot to play which while stupid and annoying is not that bad most good players can beat them to using several bots in one table to cheat people out of their money and its a problem.

Re: Poker Bot piece
 

[ QUOTE ]
Keep in mind that when chess programs were first being developed, programs played like programs; that is, you could exploit a chess program because, for instance, they tended to value pieces more than position and tactics more than strategy. They were exploitable. Deep Blue does not have these exploitable tendecies.


[/ QUOTE ]

Deep Blue had all kinds of exploitable tendencies, and probably played a good bit worse than modern computer chess programs.

Similarly, there will be a poker bot made some time that plays well, even very well, but not perfectly. It will have some exploitable tendencies, like any human player. As development on the bot continues, it will be harder and harder to exploit.

I don't see any reason why the development of poker programs will be much different from that of chess engines. The objections raised "the bot wouldn't be able to bluff!" or "the human could ruin its odds for getting its draw!" are ridiculous. Similar short-sighted objections in the world of chess programming were along the lines of "the program can't sacrifice material" or "it can't make a strategic plan" (this one still debatable).

Re: Poker Bot piece
 

I've tried to get a message through to those at PokerRoom who might be able to do something about player bots. Maybe you all could try to contact your favorite sites to express your concern. Maybe give them a little more incentive to find some way to defeat bots like WinHoldem.

Re: Poker Bot piece
 

I never said it wouldn't happen but I do feel we are far from creating such a bot.

The other thing you have to remember is that for every dollar these geeks invest, and every hour of sweat the multi million dollar poker companies can invest double or even triple on detection methods...

If this ever becomes a problem it won't be for long!!

Re: Poker Bot piece
 

I want to email pokerstars support and ask them what they think about bots, what they do against them, and whether they have plans to thwart their development.

I think one good way to thwart a bot would be to randomize the placement of the Fold Call Bet etc buttons on every turn. It wouldn't take a human long to see where the desirable option is, but should be virtually impossible for a program to do it alone, if this feature were programmed properly (randomized image map?). That would make running bot independently impossible, and would be very inconvenient to do it manually (you'd have to have the bot provide you with the best move and then select it... more work than normal playing). Basically I think if effort is put into it, there can be plenty of ways to prevent stand-alone bots

Re: Poker Bot piece
 

Hello,

I have been reading posts in the forum for quite some time now and finally decided to create an account...

This is a fun topic for me and bots, hand calculators (software etc.) are indeed a reality, however, "bots" as a general term I avoid using... For example:

I am not going to mention the site, tables, etc but this has turned into a nice little bankroll generator.

Within the past month i found a table that had about 4 open seats and the action looked interesting enough to join in...

After about 10 hands i quickly realized who knew each other and who did not. all of the other players, six of them to be exact all knew each other and they were fixing the game in their favor.

Using the time bank to signify if they had a pocket pair and the first digit of the bet to signify the suit and the second digit to signify their first hole card. Add that with the time bank and everyone knew what each other had.

Two other players came in and joined and they had no idea what hit them, and each of them had about 3 re-buys before they finally gave up. Winners would shift and occassionally the prey would get lucky on the turn or river and drag a sizeable pot.

I figured it out prior to their joining by classifying the players like i usually do, LAP, TAP, TPP, LPP and the table mood...

Those players taught me a lot about online collusion and one of them had to have been using poker academy pro, and the others, not to sure but they were all more than likely using software as an aid.

I did have a single rebuy early on, but that was when everything came together. after it was all said and done i frequently search them out and login with various accounts to make money from them.

"Bots" could be used in the same manner, rooms probably don't say much due to the fact that there is not a clear winner/small group consistently winning. Pots were traded fairly frequently. The style was typically a LAP or LPP. Bots would typically be the same, in my opinion. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] Which makes an environment like that easy pickins if you walk in aware of what is going on.

i hope i added something useful to the thread...

Re: Poker Bot piece
 

[ QUOTE ]
I think one good way to thwart a bot would be to randomize the placement of the Fold Call Bet etc buttons on every turn.

[/ QUOTE ]
The problem with this is that somebody's going to complain that they "mis-clicked" because of the random placement, costing them a huge pot. I think you're on the right track, though. How about a text box that prompted you to type in a displayed word (skewed, like with e-mail sign-up protection) every 100 hands or so? Programs seem to have problems reading words that are distorted.

Re: Poker Bot piece
 

The University of Alberta's bot has played scott Fishman and lost to him. It is the most advaced bot out there right now

Re: Poker Bot piece
 

I don't think anyone can deny that bots can be very effective at the low limit holdem and NL may be a long way off. What I'm really concerned about (and it was touched on in a number of previous posts) is the media getting ahold of this info and start coming out with stories portraying the "average" online pro (or serious amatuer) employing these bots to make their living or how the online scene is rife with cheating and colusion and all sorts of devious plots to extract money from unsuspecting players who play for fun or to get better or whatever. However BS or true this kind of media coverage may be it would be horribly damaging to the online poker industry and if it really got out of hand perhaps permentaly. The media and ESPN esp elavated poker to heights of popularity that would have seen ridiculous 10 years ago which resulted in the online poker boom and all the fish flocked to play like those guys on tv. The media has to potential thru irresponsible reporting and hype to bring poker back down to where it was decades ago at least in the popular image, harkening the days of the streotypical smokey backrooms and shady games.

All this sounds paranoid? Well think of it this way - how would someone who tried to collude, angle shoot, mark cards, and use his laptop to calculate odds at a live table? The house would kick their a$$ out if they were lucky not to be arrested and banned for life. Bottom line zero tolerance. It's the exact same style of approach that should be taken to marginalize those who market and use these bots.

Re: Poker Bot piece
 

[ QUOTE ]
Using the time bank to signify if they had a pocket pair and the first digit of the bet to signify the suit and the second digit to signify their first hole card. Add that with the time bank and everyone knew what each other had.

[/ QUOTE ]
You're kidding, right? Wouldn't it be easier to communicate with AOL IM (chat mode)? I'm hoping the top poker sites monitor their games and can identify collusion (cheating) when it occurs.

Re: Poker Bot piece
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Using the time bank to signify if they had a pocket pair and the first digit of the bet to signify the suit and the second digit to signify their first hole card. Add that with the time bank and everyone knew what each other had.

[/ QUOTE ]
You're kidding, right? Wouldn't it be easier to communicate with AOL IM (chat mode)? I'm hoping the top poker sites monitor their games and can identify collusion (cheating) when it occurs.

[/ QUOTE ]

No joke, they are an interesting group... IM etc takes longer than simply posting a bet and letting the time bank show.

It was an interesting find honestly, they are really not that good at pot odds, implied odds, EV, etc. So I usually lighten then rolls for them a little. They hit about 4-10 new people each hour so... Usually that will round-out the noobs but, I have seen some TAP's come in there and take them ALL! Then the TAP will leave almost like a hit and run but, who knows they may be doing the same thing I am. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

For me bots, and software based calculators are in the same category, after all, they are making recommendations right? Therefore fall prey to the same fundamental issues of a bot. Software/Bots are following established patterns right? That is what software does after all, follow various code pieces step by step. If someone discovers this then you know why they bet exactly 75% + $1, 50%, or 300% of a pot.

As far as IBM's "Deep Blue" post made previously by someone, Deep Blue only won because the player was not basing decisions on human based experience but "theory" based experience. The games won by the human player were simply based on experiences of "machine based" decisions.

This is a fun topic, really, I personally believe if more people delved into the "Psychology of Poker" type books instead of pure mathematically based odds calculations, these bots/programs/applications, would not have nearly the market share that they currently have.

After all how many people would rather play chess against a human opponent than a computer because "they know how to win against the computer?" Except poker is more fun because I have never played chess for money! [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] Personally I LOVE ALL the little software goodies that people buy, download, and try. It only deepens my understanding of the game and people, and hopefully generates a little extra cash on the side. I have personally picked apart a TON of those applications simply to learn their weaknesses, just like how people buy MS Chess blah blah to learn how to beat and feel good about themselves. Even that is psychological.... [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

Re: Poker Bot piece
 

I love your post because I am actually picturing myself tramping on into my typical Saturday haunt with my helmet in one hand and my little laptop in the other reserving a space at table XYZ and saying "By the way, do you have an internet connection for me to use my hand calculator?" WOW! Sounds like a commercial. "Buyin $1000, looks from casino floor manager when asking where the power supply is for a laptop computer based hand odds calculator.... Priceless... And for everything else there's Visa."

Sorry I rambled a little.

Re: Poker Bot piece
 

[ QUOTE ]
Deep Blue had all kinds of exploitable tendencies, and probably played a good bit worse than modern computer chess programs.

Similarly, there will be a poker bot made some time that plays well, even very well, but not perfectly. It will have some exploitable tendencies, like any human player. As development on the bot continues, it will be harder and harder to exploit.

I don't see any reason why the development of poker programs will be much different from that of chess engines. The objections raised "the bot wouldn't be able to bluff!" or "the human could ruin its odds for getting its draw!" are ridiculous. Similar short-sighted objections in the world of chess programming were along the lines of "the program can't sacrifice material" or "it can't make a strategic plan" (this one still debatable).



[/ QUOTE ]

Good post.

Re: Poker Bot piece
 

Most sites if not all will freeze your account if a bot is detected, look at this month's issue of "BLUFF" mag. Good article on this. They had a bot tournament at the WSOP where a bunch of bot programmers went against each other for a chance to go up against the "Unibomber" HU for a seat and it was a close call. The bots can, will, and do beat all but the world class poker players. BEWARE! It is already being picked up by the poker media and does have the potential for putting a big dent in the on-line arenas and is putting dents in some of the profits of the best on-line players. Hopefully the sites can keep up with detection technology or they will pay a price as legitemet player numbers decline. PLAY LIVE, IT IS MUCH MORE FUN

Re: Poker Bot piece
 

Does anyone here feel guilty for using Poker Tracker? I mean it's only using available info (publicly available hand histories) however you are using computers to aide your game, something you couldn't do in real life. It would be up to you to store vague ideas of hand histories in your mind for certain types of players.

One could argue that using a computer to help you play blackjack in a casino isn't cheating, due to the fact the only inof you enter into it is of course the publicly available info of what cards have been dealt. The computer is simply "remembering" much better than you ever could, very similar to poker tracker.

I dunno, something to think about.

Re: Poker Bot piece
 

Once the algorithms the bot follows are figured out, all we have to do is induce them to fold. All you have to do is realize who the bots are.

I'm not sure exactly how they work, but if they are programmed to play only +EV, you just have to give them -EV, and you take the pot!

Now we just need to put together a bot database. It seems as though the best way is to use the bot itself, since it identifies who is using it at the table (to my understanding).