another bot technology (automated Poker Inspector) - Page 2

magic_man · #11 03-23-2005, 12:32 PM

Searching the archives for bot threads is much more tedious than it sounds. I did find the following thread:

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...mp;sb=5&o=

But it still doesn't clear up my questions. The general consensus is that "bots destroy the integrity of the game." Again, though, I don't see how. Do you [who are opposed to bots] mean that it seems to destroy the integrity, and that therefore the fish will think other things are rigged? If this is not what you mean, then the argument is cyclical:
1) We must protect the integrity of the game by disallowing bots.
2) Bots are bad because they destroy the integrity of the game.
3) Goto 1).

This doesn't make any sense. WHY do bots destroy the integrity? If you think it's just because of irrational fish fear, then just write: "Because people are stupid enough to be afraid of bots" and I'll stop replying.

~MagicMan

Soleo · #12 03-23-2005, 12:41 PM

MM, now you win money from fish and that's enough to cover rake and give you some profit. As soon as you will face 10 reasonably tight bots per each human-fish (which will also be hard to find) you will become unable to beat the rake.

magic_man · #13 03-23-2005, 12:43 PM

[ QUOTE ]
As soon as you will face 10 reasonably tight bots per each human-fish (which will also be hard to find) you will become unable to beat the rake.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll assume you mean in general, and that this is not a specific dig at me. If so, this is the same as saying "games with reasonably tight players cannot be beaten," which is simply not true. My whole point here is that playing a bot is no different than playing a human who plays by the rules followed by the bot.

~MagicMan

Soleo · #14 03-23-2005, 12:52 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I'll assume you mean in general, and that this is not a specific dig at me. If so, this is the same as saying "games with reasonably tight players cannot be beaten," which is simply not true.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, I didn't mean specifically you.
Let's say it another way - do you like to have low-limit online game where reasonable win rate is 5-10 times less than it's possible now and it's not easy to achieve?
However PokerInspector bot is also PokerTracker-based so it will adapt to you. I've read that 3 posts and I saw that it's still much worse than average player but everything may change, developer is working hard, and also it is not single public bot available. There is era of PokerAcademy pluggable bots playing online coming - and they are much more powerful in adapting.
So I think you will change your mind in 1-2 years or less if you play low-limits but it will be too late. So better try to stop it now and give your poker room an alert to detect it and seize the money of users to create the fear for new buyers.

contentless · #15 03-23-2005, 12:58 PM

The population of fish is a limited one. If you can suck the entire population of fish dry, then it's a testament to your stamina and your dedication. If an army of bots does it, and then leaves poker (as it can no longer beat the experts), then it will have essentially destroyed internet poker. Think about how many people would play poker at a casino if matched against a poker playing machine.

magic_man · #16 03-23-2005, 01:13 PM

[ QUOTE ]
The population of fish is a limited one. If you can suck the entire population of fish dry, then it's a testament to your stamina and your dedication. If an army of bots does it, and then leaves poker (as it can no longer beat the experts), then it will have essentially destroyed internet poker. Think about how many people would play poker at a casino if matched against a poker playing machine.

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess my burning question here is: What can a bot do that a human can't? With software like pokertracker, we can keep track of player tendencies probably as well as a bot, so that's not it. Your reply is the answer - bots can play many more tables for indefinite amounts of time. That being said, what do you think is a maximum amount of time playable by a human? Would you be ok with bots if poker rooms limited them to 8 hours on one table at a time? Then they would truly be no different than their human programmers.

~MagicMan

Soleo · #17 03-23-2005, 01:17 PM

I'd say population of fish is growing with online poker. But what if bots will become more prevalent and fish realize that they are playing against computer programs? Press is already there - they like sensations and many publications about bots are out in this year. Players who play for fun will leave if bots will prevail people. They don't even need to lose to leave. And then their population will be dead forever. See - no one still like the rooms where house bots were playing in the beginning of online poker. Same will be with online poker as a whole.
This problem I think is even worse that playing against the table where 1 fish is still present together with bots.

ZeeJustin · #18 03-23-2005, 01:19 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I don't understand what the big deal is about bots.

[/ QUOTE ]

The bottom line is that your ev is higher playing against a random recreational player than it is playing against a random bot.

bigalt · #19 03-23-2005, 01:23 PM

until you write a counter-bot that figures out the bots algorithms and exploits them!

LondonBroil · #20 03-23-2005, 01:43 PM

I counterspell your counterspell!

Yeah, I used to play it, sue me.