Bot complaint

[MrMoo]

[ QUOTE ]
2. If your posting replies along the lines that "Chess is easier for a computer to beat because it's a game of complete information" or "Poker is not a simple game (in comparison to Chess)"

Just Stop! Your making a fool of yourself.

[/ QUOTE ]


[/ QUOTE ]
Your ignorance is astounding. I suggest you do some further research into the area. My impression is that you have very little experience with computers or with game theory. I'd suggest you start by reading this link: http://www.cs.ualberta.ca/~jonathan/...app/node29.htm

If you'd like to continue your research and further realize you have no idea what your talking about, please start reading here: http://www.cs.ualberta.ca/~games/poker/

You can "feel" your right all you want. The sad truth is that people that are likely much brighter than you or I have spent years doing research into this and have PROVEN you wrong.

[Ulysses]

1) As Rob mentions, this play makes it much less likely that this player is a bot.

2) Programming a winning NL bot is way, way easier than programming a winning limit bot.

[bpb]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
2. If your posting replies along the lines that "Chess is easier for a computer to beat because it's a game of complete information" or "Poker is not a simple game (in comparison to Chess)"

Just Stop! Your making a fool of yourself.

[/ QUOTE ]


[/ QUOTE ]
Your ignorance is astounding. I suggest you do some further research into the area. My impression is that you have very little experience with computers or with game theory. I'd suggest you start by reading this link: http://www.cs.ualberta.ca/~jonathan/...app/node29.htm

If you'd like to continue your research and further realize you have no idea what your talking about, please start reading here: http://www.cs.ualberta.ca/~games/poker/

You can "feel" your right all you want. The sad truth is that people that are likely much brighter than you or I have spent years doing research into this and have PROVEN you wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

After reading crockett's original post and your response, I have concluded that.

A. I largely agree with what crockett has to say and (what I think is) his overall thesis that "Building a poker bot that can beat your average Party yutz ain't that hard"

B. You are an [censored].

[crockett]

Sweet! Thanks for the links. I didn't know such a thing even existed.

I think you meant to say "proven me right".

According to those articles a winning bot already exists, they just haven't perfected it yet to compete at world class level. Just as I had suspected.

[ QUOTE ]
Q: How good is Poki?

A: The older version of Poki that plays in full 10-player games is better than a typical low-limit casino player, and wins consistently against average opponents; but it is not as good as most expert players. The newer programs being developed for the 2-player game are quite a bit better, and we believe they will eventually surpass all human players, perhaps within a few years, or less.



[/ QUOTE ]

This quote is a couple years old, so you can imagine they are leaps and bounds further than mentioned above.

Pretty cool! It took them decades to beat children playing chess. They've done it with Hold'em in a few years. Maybe this is because there are obviously more "tools" avaible to programmers than there were in the sixties. I don't know.

Also, they use that "chess is a game of complete information" line as well. How do they know my next move? If just makes me laugh everyone time I read it. Maybe they should rephrase it. I see what their saying, I obviously don't have any chess pieces up my sleeve but you certainly don't know my next move. You can make a guess at what I'm most likely going to do.

I think the same can be said for Hold'em. You don't know my hole cards but you can make a very good guess at what they are.

All I said was that people are fools if they don't think a bot will/is beating Poker or in the near future will be and to make statements that Poker is some vastly more complex game than chess is foolish.

Those articles prove both my points. The programmers are handling both games just fine.

And just think, online Poker is in it's infancy. A decade ago there was very little if any motivation to beat Poker. Now that there is money to be made, how long do you think it will be?

[BusterStacks]

[ QUOTE ]
Welcome Bytestream. Sorry you're getting Bar-B-Qed, but it's your own fault you actually put out numbers(oh yeah, and that higher schooling stuff) to show that you might know what you are talking about. My wife is just like these guys. If one of her girlfriends asks how I'm in bed she says, "I really don't want to say yet, because I don't have a big enough sample size" [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img]

Last month's PT DB has 166K hands with 37% winners. DbBaker, from here, has claimed to be the player in question. I believe him.

I don't go around with my hands in the air yelling that Party is filled with bots and that's why I'm not winning. I had my reasons to think that it was possible that this player might be a bot. That is why I wrote to support. Who I didn't think did squat.

I have 6348 players in PT for last month. This player was #12 for most money and #9 for for most hands. Players like this I like to look at more carefully. When the hand in question happened that was enough for me to see if the site would take a look at him. I don't think I've ever made this request before. I can see where Party might just lump this with all the other emails claiming bots. The problem is I think Party doesn't do anything when someone claims bot, but try to appease the player that complained. I think they have some way to spot winholdem bots only and do a sweep of most accounts on a regular basis for the winholdem bot. I also think that there are much better bots out there that don't have a web page and spam the poker forums. As long as they don't Party doesn't have a problem, can't find the problem, or will happily deny that there is a problem.

I don't think that a NL bot is so hard to program to win at Party. It doesn't have to play perfect, but like me, just good enough to win. I think that for the low limits even a basic game selection program using PT data would have real value.

MS Sunshine

Winning player
Sample size: over one million hands online
NO JOB

[/ QUOTE ]

Hillarious that it takes someone to actually fess up to being the player before you retract your bot claim. Are we going to have to listen to you every time someone makes an obvious error? The assumption on most people's part was that you were wrong until proven right. Instead you are actually proven wrong, and still, rather than apologize, say something to the effect of "well ok, maybe THAT wasn't a bot, but I'm sure they're out there!" Unreal.

[dogsballs]

[ QUOTE ]
i thought you were above this?

come on, people misclick all the time. people also misread boards once in a while. it doesn't matter if you are the best player on party.

how many emails a day do you think party gets along the lines of "is XXXX a bot?"?

i would expect this kind of post from the likes of... well let's not make anyone feel bad.

[/ QUOTE ]


You remind me of Stew.

[schwza]

if there were one thing that would make me thing an account were not a bot, it would be checking behind the nuts on the river.

if this bot is so bad that it makes this mistake, there's no way i see it winning anything at all.

[MrMoo]

Glad you enjoyed the links.

And I should apologize for my earlier tone. I reread what I wrote and I was quite a bit more rude than I should have been. Sorry.

[MS Sunshine]

"Now anyone can misread a hand, but I thought I would have support look at him, because ......"

"Any chance ...... is a bot?"

Hillarious that it takes someone to actually fess up to being the player before you retract your bot claim.

As you can see from my first post quote and my request to Party, I was far from certain, but felt it should be looked into.

Are we going to have to listen to you every time someone makes an obvious error?

You do not have to listen at all, I can see from your replies you're well on your way to this goal, but my post here was more directed to the auto-responses from Party on this subject.

The assumption on most people's part was that you were wrong until proven right.

This is exactly why I want signatures brought back. So, I can forever save little jewels like this.


Instead you are actually proven wrong, and still, rather than apologize, say something to the effect of "well ok, maybe THAT wasn't a bot, but I'm sure they're out there!"

No, I still believe that Party is treating any bot question as a PR problem with their auto-response form letters. And yes I'm sure THEY are still out there. I'm also sure that Party wouldn't recognize a bot on their site unless they were being sold on the street corners of New Delhi by six foot clowns in flared yellow checked coats and tiny red hats.


Unreal.

Real. The only disturbing thing about this thread is how you could have gotten so many posts before I finally realized you were such a dick.

MS Sunshine

[BigBaitsim (milo)]

[ QUOTE ]
I have had a 10k hand stretch where I won over 7BB/100.
This is not uncommon. It is also likely not sustainable.

[/ QUOTE ]

My best 10K stretch was something like 7.8BB/100. Totally unsustainable, but very nice just the same.