[M.B.E.]

Brianmarc -- put me in the camp of believing that it's possible (given the present state of computer science) to design a bot that would beat most ring games, even at high limits. In other words I think a well-programmed computer would play poker as well as the best ring-game players in the world (although it would play differently). The only way to beat it would be through cheating (i.e. collusion).

You just have to consider the PsOpti program designed by Darse Billings et al., which beat The Count at headsup limit holdem. The Count is the winningest shorthanded limit holdem player online. And PsOpti did not use opponent modeling. Think of how good a program would be if it did.

As for no-limit and pot-limit, I tend to think that a computer could play these well too, although it might require more power.

The one part of your post I didn't understand was this:

[ QUOTE ]
Three: Since your win rate requirement can be much lower than when you are playing in person, the bot can play much more patiently than any human player ever could. Since all current poker theory is based on squeezing the maximum out of every situation (i.e., to be as efficient as possible), an approach not driven by this consideration, in effect, allows for the creation of a hitherto unknown style of expert player.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why would you not want to have the highest possible win rate? I can think of a few reasons, e.g. create deception, reduce variance, not-get-caught, but in general it seems to me they wouldn't be worth it.