The fine line in defining online cheating (LONG)

[JAque]

After reading an article about poker bots, it made me think if the definition of cheating is a moving target as the sophistication of some of these commercially available tools increases.


Winholdem : Pretty much no disagreement here. A playing bot with card sharing features is clearly a cheating tool and forbidding by most sites. Most bots fall into this category.

Pokerinspector: Without having done in depth research, it seems similar to pokertracker with the added features of indicating the odds and recommending how to play the hand in real time based on player defined algorithms..

I don’t see much difference between the two programs except one requires human intervention to follow the recommended play by the software.
It will be probably very easy for someone to write a program that reads the pokerinspector screen where the call/raise instructions are given to the user and play automatically. In this case, we have a full fletch bot.

Pokertracker: Obviously, it is not a bot or a cheating tool. However, similar to my example above, an interface could possible be written to advise the player how to play each hand in real time using the database from PT and its own playing algorithms . If this interface played by itself, it would makes the “system” to behave as a bot.

Of course, the ability of these bots to beat the game is in question today but it is a matter of time before some bots are able to play at a human level (see article below).

As more sophisticated tools are written to assist the astute player in different ways , where would you draw the line. It is a similar situation as when counting cards in blackjack. The mathematical and statistical analysis of this game away from the table using computers should not be considered cheating by any means. The use of counting methods without a computer at the table is fine, the use of a hidden computer is cheating.

How should cheating be defined for online poker :

1) The fact that a software tool can play automatically without human intervention based on some player defined algorithms?
2) The fact than a tool can tell how to play based on sophisticated AI algorithms and statistical information of the players without human intervention.
3) Same as number #2 but it requires human intervention to act during the hand.

Neither of these 3 options presents a pretty picture for the future of poker. People will argue that chess engines have being around for years and have not affected the enjoyment of playing chess online, however when money is involved it is a totally different story.

Sorry, for the ranting..

JAque

*************************


- The University of Alberta’s Computer Poker Research Group has developed an artificially intelligent automaton known as “Vex Bot,” capable of playing poker at the master level, though as yet it can only apply its gambling genius to two-player games. Vex Bot has been used by researchers to test the frontiers of artificial intelligence – and as the basis for a commercial poker tutorial program, Poki’s Poker Academy -- but some fear it may become a blueprint for programmers with more sinister motives.
Darse Billings, lead designer of the Vex Bot said he believes the odds are better than 50-50 that other programmers have secretly unleashed bots on commercial poker sites, apart from the commercial bots. But he throws his chips in with the skeptics, saying it is unlikely they would be anywhere near as capable as the Vex Bot – so named for its ability to frustrate human opponents – which is the result of more than a decade’s research by the University of Alberta team.
“The strategy of the game is difficult and to sit down and write a program that can beat a table of experienced human players is no trivial task,” he said.

[Player12345]

[ QUOTE ]
though as yet it can only apply its gambling genius to two-player games.

[/ QUOTE ]


until it can overcome this restriction, it is little threat. i predict also that there will be a gap between the time it is finished development for multi-player and the time they admit it is finished.

[Kablooie]

It's also worth noting that "the frontiers of AI research" haven't really moved that much in the last 25 years of so...

[Piers]

[ QUOTE ]
How should cheating be defined for online poker :

[/ QUOTE ]

You break the T&C of the site you are playing at.

[morgant]

I couldnt agree with you anymore!! Its not poker when you have statistical software showing you how to play, or rather advising you.

I guess the mentality is, well others are doing it, so i have to as well to keep up. I have a very strong feeling towards pokertracker. As stupid/stubborn i may be, i only use it to keep track of my play for records financially and if i am beating games or not. Is there morality in poker? Is it even poker when i hear players saying I need extra skins so people dont have too much datamining information on me [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[edthayer]

[ QUOTE ]

Quote:
How should cheating be defined for online poker :



You break the T&C of the site you are playing at.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are correct sir. Everyone else, thanks for playing.

T&C is really all that matters. Case closed.

[StellarWind]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How should cheating be defined for online poker :

[/ QUOTE ]

You break the T&C of the site you are playing at.

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree entirely. Cheating occurs when you intentionally violate the rules to gain a competitive advantage. Bots are cheating because the site rules say so. If bots were allowed by the site rules they wouldn't be cheating. But most people wouldn't agree to play in that case.

A similar situation occurs in chess. Chess programs are allowed in some events but not others. Computer cheating is a huge problem in postal chess. On the other hand computers have legitimately played in some human tournaments with the consent of the organizers.

[StellarWind]

Technology plays an enormous role in the evolution of online poker. Those that accept this truth and adapt will do much better than those who don't.

That's reality, but what we do about it is up to us. Each of us has to live with the consequences of our choices.

[DavidC]

[ QUOTE ]
In this case, we have a full fletch bot.

[/ QUOTE ]

You misspelt this. It should have red full feltched bot.

[Huxley]

The AI relating to poker has become significantly better in recent years. As mentioned in the article quoted, for HU limit the AI is already almost unbeatable by a human player. I own Poker Academy Pro and both the HU Limit specialist bots (Vexbot and Sparbot) are the nutz to practice against - they have made me a much better player for tournament end-play.

My guess is that Limit ring game bots will reach this level of proficiency within a couple of years. It will take quite a bit longer for NL.

So, I don't think the problem of online bots is going to go away. For Limit, I think one of two things must happen:

1. Online sites will devote resources to developing technology and monitoring capability that makes it virtually impossible for bots to play online (maybe we all should have webcams looking over our shoulders as we play online!)

or 2. online sites will ignore the bot problem (after all, they still get their rake) and the most successful players will be state-of-the-art bots or humans that are using state-of-the-art software for analysis and advice as they play.

I much prefer alternative #1, but I am not sure it is possible in a practical sense, even if the online sites were willing to devote the effort and resources required.