[david050173]

[ QUOTE ]
Bots are a non-issue right now:

1. In the ~40 years since computer programming has become a widespread career, no one has been able to code a consistently winning pro-level poker AI. Think about all the crazy shiznit computers can do, and they still can't play poker at a high level.

2. The bots that are out there (basically >90% WinHoldEm) are rudimentary at best - WinHoldEm owners seem to have a lot of buyer's remorse, judging from what I've seen - and complex to set up and not get caught.

3. If a GOOD bot was out there, don't you think 2+2 would be the place everyone would be talking about it?

4. "Playing in teams" is the most certain way of getting caught, which is in turn a good way of losing all your money.

5. Not to completely discount, but there are all kinds of crazy-ass rumors out there (the Web is funny like that).

How do you defend if something like that IS happening? Do what you'd do if you sat at a table with too many players who are clearly above your level - move.

Personally, I'd enjoy knowing there were 4-5 WinHoldEm bots at my table. I'm funny like that. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

1) 5 years ago I could have a bot that beats Phil I. and I couldn't make money with it. Now I just need one that can win a 3/6 can I can make millions. That is a big incentive

2) WinHoldem is not a very good bot. If you has a winning bot you wouldn't sell it.

3)Only if you know about it. If you had a winning bot you, you would try to keep it secret (ie while the bot plays you sit there chatting some % of the time and so on). Keeping the fact that you a bot in the low limits is not super hard.

4) Pretty much agree unless you have a very professional operation (1000 of accounts and so on). Not super likely

5)Yep.

Short term bots don't scare me. In 3 years when every 3rd caltech/mit AI thesis is a poker program I will be worried.