Moral question - bots

[WinHoldemSupport]

zetack,

its not a right/wrong issue ... it is a risk issue.
everything in this life can be viewed in terms of probability and risk.

if two people contemplate the act of engaging in card sharing then everything becomes about risk and reward ... the larger question is whether or not there is more reward than risk.

and you must know that two people willing to do this do not give a rats ass what you call it or what you think about it.

what you think about them is not their primary motive - the primary motive for a colluder is to relieve you of your chips.

so when i openly declare that i've participated in collusion research (not simulated) i am simply letting people here know that im reasonably qualified to discuss it in a rational scientific manner; thats all we want to do right now, just discuss this in a calm scientific manner.

and name calling and whining and moaning dont help.

winholdem support.

[Zetack]

[ QUOTE ]
zetack,

its not a right/wrong issue ... it is a risk issue.
everything in this life can be viewed in terms of probability and risk.

if two people contemplate the act of engaging in card sharing then everything becomes about risk and reward ... the larger question is whether or not there is more reward than risk.

[/ QUOTE ]

You could view everything in life as an issue of risk vrs reward I suppose, but I don't, and I don't believe that you do either. Suppose you know of an elderly, infirm, extremely wealthy gentleman who doesn't believe in banks and you have good reason to believe he keeps astronomical amounts of cash and valuables in his home, which is isolated and distant from any other residences. The man has no security and practically never leaves his house and lives alone. You determine that you can break into his home, torture him for the location of the money, kill him to prevent him from identifying you, take his money, leave little forensic evidence and have a very very low risk of getting caught. A very good risk/reward ratio. Apparently you believe this would be perfectly acceptable behavior as long as the risk/reward ratio were correct.

You go to a party that turns out to be wild and crazy. Early, early in the morning most folks have left or are in the process of passing out and, having imbied a bit yourself you stagger off looking for a place to crash. Opening a bedroom door you discover an attractive lady already passed out on the bed. After attempting to awaken her you determine that she is completely out...it occurs to you that the bedroom door locks, everybody else is already out of it, and she'll never be able to identify you...gee the risk to you of sexually violating her would be very low indeed...

Are you really telling me that you view the world in simple risk\reward terms?

[ QUOTE ]
and you must know that two people willing to do this do not give a rats ass what you call it or what you think about it.

what you think about them is not their primary motive - the primary motive for a colluder is to relieve you of your chips.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, Ok I believe you. You don't give a rats ass what I think about you and your primary motive is to relieve me of my chips even if you must cheat to do so.

There is right and wrong in the world. That you do not believe that there is right and wrong is evidence of your moral bankruptcy. I don't believe I was name calling when I said that.

--Zetack

[toots]

Um...

I haven't been following this bot discussion too much, but every time I look at one of these threads, I'm led to wonder whether this WinHoldemSupport guy is just pulling off some elaborate form of performance art here.

I mean, is it really possible that this guy completely missed out on any sort of "ethics gene," or are we just to believe that his job contractually obliges him to act in ways entirely in conflict with human values?

A much more parsimonious explanation would seem to be that he's just having one on.

[cjx]

[ QUOTE ]
Assume the site was able to program the various personas to play with the same range of skills you'd expect to find at table of that limit filled with the people who typically play that limit. Assume a good players win expectation over time was the same

[/ QUOTE ]

Wait, I can play against bots that I can assume are fairly terrible and I can expect about the same win as when I play against other players? Is that what we are saying? So, the house gets to pay 90% of the rake and I get to take thier bots' money?

[ QUOTE ]
Would you play there? Would anybody?

[/ QUOTE ]

Umm, yes. Why wouldn't I? The only poker games I avoid are the ones that are too high for my limit, too high a rake/charge, too high skill level, and occasionally against people/friends who I don't want to take their money.

cjx

[Zetack]

[ QUOTE ]
Um...

I haven't been following this bot discussion too much, but every time I look at one of these threads, I'm led to wonder whether this WinHoldemSupport guy is just pulling off some elaborate form of performance art here.

I mean, is it really possible that this guy completely missed out on any sort of "ethics gene," or are we just to believe that his job contractually obliges him to act in ways entirely in conflict with human values?

A much more parsimonious explanation would seem to be that he's just having one on.

[/ QUOTE ]

Could be. It would actually make more sense.

--Zetack

[WinHoldemSupport]

zetak,

[ QUOTE ]

<clip scenario about elderly gentleman>


[/ QUOTE ]

you left out a very important variable. in your scenario. here is where i will get about as honest i can possibly be. i can see the logic in you scenario; i can understand that the robber in your story could benefit with very little risk; however, in my case, personally, i would lose more than i gain because my conscience would kill me. i would sacrifice any hope of peacefull sleep for the rest of my days because i will feel that i have wronged another. now before you flame me, and since i have honestly stated this about myself, i can also honestly tell you that, my conscience has not bothered me, does not bother me, would not bother me for winning money in an online holdem game, with or without a bot, with or without teaming. this is just the way that im wired. i do not view other players at an online poker table as innocent. i view them as the enemy trying to take all my money (trying to commit poker murder - i am a no-limit player so going allin is a form of poker death). furthermore, they bare all responsibility as adults for the risks involved. the opponents at a poker table have but one single purpose in my life - to hand over their chips as quick as possible. now if you are put off by this sentiment then you probably should not be playing poker online, because whether or not anyone else openly admits their emotional state of mind they are still attempting to commit poker murder by taking all of your chips.

now back to your little elderly man, you could make your scenario more attractive by ascribing some great evil to him ... maybe he raped/tortured and killed somebody i loved (sorry for the harsh visual) but you get my point. at that point he becomes a more attractive target because my conscience would not suffer as much. i am being about as straightforward as i can possibly be here.

your second moral trap concerning the drunken vixen is very easy for me to personally answer, i would certainly probably admire the helpless damsel but would not be the least bit interested in copulating with her unless and until she was fully awake and sober so that i could give her the best sexual experience she is ever likely to have.
sex with a wide awake chic who is very excited is
infinitely better than sex with the comotose.

[ QUOTE ]

Ok, Ok I believe you. You don't give a rats ass what I think about you and your primary motive is to relieve me of my chips even if you must cheat to do so.


[/ QUOTE ]

incorrect. i dont need to 'cheat' to do that. probably a maximum of 1 to 2 percent of the time i've spent playing online poker with or without a bot was spent doing collusion research. nearly 100% of the online research for winholdem was done with a solo bot - because we believed at the time that greater majority would not be interested in cardsharing and so we invested nearly all of our time toward that.

some how everyone has gotten the idea that without card sharing, winholdem has no value. this is very very incorrect. it's primary value is that it can sit at table by itself (not sharing,teaming,colluding,cheating,whatever) and win money.

again, almost all of our customers have licensed the pro edition as we correctly predicted they would.
you can read the differences here:
http://www.winholdem.net/wh_pricing.php

one of the main reasons that the team edition is publically available is so that nobody can accuse us of running some special super secret 'cheaters club' ... its all out in the open. and another thing the team edition does not give anybody the ability to do anything they can already do themselves. and we are not bothered in the least for selling convenience to colluders at $200 a pop.

our real business is the professional edition anyway. the team edition just makes a lot of waves and gets publicity and gets people talking because the subject is highly emotive and marketing gurus will tell you that anything emotive is generally a good thing (the old adage, bad publicity is better than no publicity), once players understand what is what they license the pro edition.

winholdem support.
http://www.pokerbot.com

[WinHoldemSupport]

toots,

[ QUOTE ]

I haven't been following this bot discussion too much, but every time I look at one of these threads, I'm led to wonder whether this WinHoldemSupport guy is just pulling off some elaborate form of performance art here.

I mean, is it really possible that this guy completely missed out on any sort of "ethics gene," or are we just to believe that his job contractually obliges him to act in ways entirely in conflict with human values?


[/ QUOTE ]

it simply amazes me how many people here seem to view poker as some noble effort. they act as if they are as holy as the pope. we're talking about poker players here people!
people who think like this:
http://www.winhholdem.net/quotes.html
read the verse by barracuda

poker is gambling war, and depending on who you talk to, it is viewed as pretty much the same as prostitution, bootlegging and gun-running. many of course (including myself) view it as legalized combat not much different than street fighting without the blood.

there are no ethics in a street fight. it is kill or be killed; it is survival; i like no-limit tourney's so maybe you can understand my mentality here.

i have a very strong conscience that prevents me from hurting the innocent because i would lose peace of mind.

poker players are not what i would call 'innocent' people (while they play poker). think about what they are trying to do to me. they are trying to take all of my chips. thats not very nice now is it? nobody forced me to play. i am an adult. i understand the risks. and i follow the golden rule when playing poker (treat others the way you expect to be treated). i fully expect everyone at the table to do everything in their power take all my chips (poker murder). i treat them the same. to do otherwise is pure insanity.

this is one of the reasons i rarely chat with people while i play. if i start to feel friendly with them then i put my conscience at risk. and then i become a weak player. same advice in some black jack books about how not to get too chummy with the casino staff. exact same reason a prostitute withholds all genuine emotion from a customer. she cant survive if she becomes emotionally involved.

so i tend to view the social aspect of poker as a threat. i am a weaker player in a live face to face game with friends because i don't care about winning as much against people i love.

this is why a bot is so cool. i dont have to get to know the people i am taking money from and since i do not know them i am not emotionally tied to them and i reduce the risk to my conscience ... same technique employed by (doctors, lawyers, soldiers, psychiatrists, prostitutes, etc.).

now if you really want to discuss ethics, consider a player who is highly skilled at chatting - one who wants to get to know others at the table because they feel that their table talk is very much a part of the game and they use it as a weapon. these people value the experience of chatting to others in a friendly way in order to experience pleasure from the opponents pain after the opponent loses. now those people are sadistic. hannibal lecter would be one of these people .... <smile> "hello clarice". this kind of person does not have psychological capacity to love another human being therefore they are immune from any damage to their conscience resulting from pain to another.

so no, i am not devoid of ethics as you say. however, i am devoid of the ability to feel guilty over winning money in an online poker game (with or without a bot, with or without teaming).

people tend to view the rest of the world the way they view themselves. if we had a way to bet on whether or not the majority of online players experience guilt when they win. i am putting all my money on 'no-guilt'.

winholdem support.

[WinHoldemSupport]

sorry for the broken link (type too fast my bad)
http://www.winholdem.net/quotes.html
winholdem support.

[jedi]

[ QUOTE ]
zetak,

i do not view other players at an online poker table as innocent. i view them as the enemy trying to take all my money (trying to commit poker murder - i am a no-limit player so going allin is a form of poker death). furthermore, they bare all responsibility as adults for the risks involved. the opponents at a poker table have but one single purpose in my life - to hand over their chips as quick as possible.

[/ QUOTE ]

So because people are trying to take away your money, you feel it's right to go outside the boundaries of the rules to take away theirs. Again, no ethics. I try to take away everyone else's money too, but I don't cheat to do so.

[ QUOTE ]

some how everyone has gotten the idea that without card sharing, winholdem has no value. this is very very incorrect. it's primary value is that it can sit at table by itself (not sharing,teaming,colluding,cheating,whatever) and win money.

again, almost all of our customers have licensed the pro edition as we correctly predicted they would.
you can read the differences here:
http://www.winholdem.net/wh_pricing.php

our real business is the professional edition anyway. the team edition just makes a lot of waves and gets publicity and gets people talking because the subject is highly emotive and marketing gurus will tell you that anything emotive is generally a good thing (the old adage, bad publicity is better than no publicity), once players understand what is what they license the pro edition.

winholdem support.
http://www.pokerbot.com

[/ QUOTE ]

I hope the "pro" edition doesn't fold AA pre-flop UTG.

[WinHoldemSupport]

jedi,

[ QUOTE ]

So because people are trying to take away your money, you feel it's right to go outside the boundaries of the rules to take away theirs. Again, no ethics. I try to take away everyone else's money too, but I don't cheat to do so.


[/ QUOTE ]

here is the fundamental difference between us.

i do not experience a loss in the quality of my life if i win money in an online poker game (with or without a bot, with or without teaming). i do not lose sleep, i do not feel compassion for the opponents that lost. if i did i probably would not play poker or have engaged in any competitive sports all through school.

however you apparently, would experience a loss in the quality of your life due to a damaged conscience if you used a bot and/or colluded in an online poker game.

and i do not think less of you for that. i dont call you names like - "little girl, or goody two shoes, or twinkle toes or tattletale" (or any other word used to refer to those whose moral preferences are viewed as too strict) the same way you call me names because my behavior is not to your liking.

[ QUOTE ]

I hope the "pro" edition doesn't fold AA pre-flop UTG.


[/ QUOTE ]

oh it definitely could, if the end-user does not setup their call/raise lists properly. we don't do that for you. you have to take the 60 seconds or so to do that on your own.

winholdem will prompt you now to do that if your call rais lists are empty.

you cant simultanously give people a choice and choose for them.

winholdem support.