Honestly how bad should we worry about bots?

I believe all the posts so far are incorrect. I looked at winholdem and it looks like it could be programmed to play a very good game of limit holdem. Yes the computer couldn't beat Phil Laak but neither can I or my guess most of you. I addition it appears that the winholdem bots can let the other bot/bots at the table know it's hole cards therefor increasing the accuracy of it's pot odds caculations which are done on every pot. My guess is that there are many bots playing mid limit holdem not .25/.50. Most experianced limit players understand the importance of the math involved in the game and that in limit holdem bluffing doesn't work nearly as much as no limit.

Based on the fact that I have not been able to find anyone to admit they use a bot and no user has posted on this forum I believe they are being used succesfully. That is why nobody talks about them. The poker site by the way never mention them as they have been unable to stop them.

[vabogee]

hey, i wanted to make a joke correcting his grammar...dammit!

[Jimbo]

[ QUOTE ]
Based on the fact that I have not been able to find anyone to admit they use a bot and no user has posted on this forum I believe they are being used succesfully.

[/ QUOTE ]

Based on the fact that I have not been able to find anyone to admit they have met God, and he has never posted in this forum, I believe he exists and is playing 5/10 limit holdem online. I also believe he is using his own name in vain every time his aces get cracked by one of your winning bots.

[Lestat]

<font color="red">That is why nobody talks about them. </font>

Just like Poker Edge, Poker Tracker, Rake back, etc., right?

Bots may very well be in existence, but my guess is they will have very little effect on limits of 30-60 and up (luckily I don't play anything lower). I doubt people are going to entrust that kind of money on a bot. And even if they did, a good player is going to profile right back using game theory if he has to. I'm not saying the current bots might not be very good and capable of beating even a good player, but I don't think they will work too well in the upper mid-limits games yet. And I sure hope poker sites find a way of detecting them before they do.

[Kablooie]

A minor but important note on Logic here - it isn't possible or alternatively it is impossibly hard, to prove a negative existential statement.

Personally, for example, i believe strongly that there is absolutely no evidence that a large invisible white rabbit called Harvey is following me around, but there have been claims that i am wrong. How exactly do you prove whether or not invisible white 6 foot rabbits exist? You can't, but films have been made about them nonetheless.

On a similar vein, from what i've read about Winholdem, it relies on the user to configure it with a large set of if then else constructions - an endeavour that considerable work on expert systems in the eighties and nineties showed to be something of a waste of time - and, as has also been remarked, these are the same people who can't even program their VCR's.

Programming a world class poker bot would require a substantial, non-incremental advance on today's programming technologies. The sort of bots that can be programmed today, are readily beatable. Think of it like this, all a bot can be right now is a set of instructions, such as if(AA) raise 4xbb, etc. Now there's no reason why if such a set of universally sucessful instructions existed, you couldn't publish them in book form for humans to use. In fact Sklansky has a very simple one for tournaments, and most books essentially present the commonly agreed base set of such rules.

I think most people who post here, will agree that reading and understanding those books is the beginning, not the end of your poker career.

[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 &gt;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.

[Lestat]

<font color="red"> Personally, for example, i believe strongly that there is absolutely no evidence that a large invisible white rabbit called Harvey is following me around, </font>

Sure there is. It's that pint of drained Captain's on the floor beside your nightstand.

[SavageMiser]

[ QUOTE ]
I believe all the posts so far are incorrect.

[/ QUOTE ]
Thanks for not breaking the streak.

[ QUOTE ]
I looked at winholdem and it looks like it could be programmed to play a very good game of limit holdem.

[/ QUOTE ]
What led you to this conclusion?

[ QUOTE ]
Yes the computer couldn't beat Phil Laak but neither can I or my guess most of you.

[/ QUOTE ]
The structure of the post makes this seem like it refers to Winholdem. If that is the intention, it's wrong. Laak beat PokerProbot, something programmed by a car salesman. Laak then beat Poki-X, a version of the software by the UofAlberta. But the funny thing is that they were playing limit hold'em, a game that Laak doesn't normally play, if ever.

[ QUOTE ]
I addition it appears that the winholdem bots can let the other bot/bots at the table know it's hole cards therefor increasing the accuracy of it's pot odds caculations which are done on every pot.

[/ QUOTE ]
That's disturbing, no doubt.

[ QUOTE ]
My guess is that there are many bots playing mid limit holdem not .25/.50. Most experianced limit players understand the importance of the math involved in the game and that in limit holdem bluffing doesn't work nearly as much as no limit.

[/ QUOTE ]
I have no idea what this is trying to get across.

[ QUOTE ]
Based on the fact that I have not been able to find anyone to admit they use a bot and no user has posted on this forum I believe they are being used succesfully.

[/ QUOTE ]
Please say hi to Bigfoot for me.

[ QUOTE ]
That is why nobody talks about them. The poker site by the way never mention them as they have been unable to stop them.

[/ QUOTE ]
I've heard several representatives of sites talk about them. Hell, Golden Palace sponsored a competition of them.

Anyway, for the foreseeable future, you're wasting your time worrying about poker bots. You should really be worried about the good human players picking your pockets while you're busy seeing bots under the bed.