Pokerbot is designed to Cheat!

[JayKon]

I quote from their "WinHoldEm License Agreement".

[ QUOTE ]

14. Teaming and Card Sharing - end-user is responsible.
This section applies to end-users of the WinHoldEm Team functionality.

a) The WinHoldEm Team edition allows 2 or more end-users to transfer chair and card information via a secure private communication channel at winholdem.net. It may be necessary from time to time to take the channel server offline for maintenance and security upgrades. The channel server can be taken offline at anytime with or without notice to the end-user. PokerBot.com is not obligated to notify the end-user about this event. The end-user has no recourse during channel server downtime other than to use an alternate means of communication. The end-user assumes all responsibility for any alternate means used.


[/ QUOTE ]
(it continues)

I call that partner play and that is cheating.

Boy, I really want to do business with them!

[dirty_dan]

Yes, we all know this already. Starting new threads just gives winholdem and all his other accounts another forum to spout their crap.

[Zetack]

Not only do they allow others to cheat, if you'll look at the other thread below, whinhholdemsupport specifically admits to colluding.

Interestingly enough in my state that's a crime: Accessing Computer to Defraud or Obtain Property.

The elements are:

A person:

I. Willfully
II. Accesses or causes to be accessed
III. A computer, computer system, computer network, or any part thereof
1V. For the purpose of
-----i. devising or executing a scheme or artifice to defraud or,
-----ii. obtaining property or services by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises


I wonder if a few years in jail would leave em singing--"other people do it so its morally correct!"

--Zetack

[WinHoldemSupport]

zetack,

this is actually an excellent post.
we are not ignorant of this legalese in the least.

the central legal point is 'knowledge property'
the card info when delivered to you becomes the property of the player.

you cannot be legally prosecuted for disposing of your property, including but not limited to sharing it with a friend.

however, even though you cannot be prosecuted for card sharing, if an opc catches you, you have zero recourse under the law - i.e. they can take all of your money and you cannot sue them for doing so.

choosing to card share is nothing more than a (game move) in a larger game - a move that carries risk in the exact same way that going allin is a game move and carries risk. in the exact same way that a car company chooses not to recall a million defective cars at a cost of a billion dollars because the actuarial for the defect indicates that less than 10 wrongful death lawsuits will occur at a total cost of 100 million ... it is cheaper to let 10 people die than to pay to save them. insurance companies do stuff like this on a daily basis; it just business.

selling pokerbots is just a business; there are risks involved like any other business.

winholdem support.

[DarkKnight]

[ QUOTE ]

the central legal point is 'knowledge property'
the card info when delivered to you becomes the property of the player.

you cannot be legally prosecuted for disposing of your property, including but not limited to sharing it with a friend

[/ QUOTE ]

Not true - eg insider trading

[JayKon]

A cheat, is a cheat - period.

You sir, are a cheat and I wish you would go away.

[Zetack]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

the central legal point is 'knowledge property'
the card info when delivered to you becomes the property of the player.

you cannot be legally prosecuted for disposing of your property, including but not limited to sharing it with a friend

[/ QUOTE ]

Not true - eg insider trading

[/ QUOTE ]

Good example Dark Knight.

For winholdem support to say they are not unaware of the "legalese" and then display such a stunning ignorance of legal principals mean he is either blantantly lying (would that surprise anybody?), the company has examined the legal issues themselves without consulting a lawyer and doesn't really understand them, or winholdem support, not being a lawyer, has garbled or misunderstood the legal advice his company has received.

I am very confident that he could be prosecuted in my state for colluding at online poker under the statue I referenced above. The interesting question, and one I haven't looked at is whether, and under what circumstances, my state could claim jurisdiction.

The crime is a felony or misdemeanor depending on the amounts of money involved. I suspect if the bot makes any money at all, it would not be hard to reach the felony level. There is a similar statute involving credit card fraud where its a felony if a certain amount of money is involved. If a credit card has been fraudulently used a dozen times, each time at a misdemeanor amount, but cumulatively the amount is over the felony amount, you can expect to get prosecuted on a dozen felony counts.

Another interesting question is how many counts you could get charged with...one per colluding session? one per colluding table? At up to 44 months in prison for each count it could at up pretty fast....

And as a caveat to all that, technically winholdem support is correct, the mere act of sharing cards wouldn't violate this particular statute, but using that knowlege to gain an advantage (and of course that's what we're talking about) is the violation.

--Zetack

Oh, and I am highly skeptical, although I haven't looked at the issue closely, that an online card room could seize all your money leaving you with no recourse for colluding. Suppose you deposit a thousand dollars and have won five hundred dollars when they detect you colluding. Perhaps they could seize your five hundred dollar winnings (although if they don't distribute it to the people actually harmed by the collusion, they would be on very shaky ground here--and would probably be on shaky ground anyway). Its hard to see what possible claim they might have to your thousand dollar deposit.

Certainly even as a contractual basis, if the terms of service would be considered a contract (help me out here, somebody with more knowlege--are they?) at the site I play at they explicitly claim the right to "freeze" funds of a suspected cheater. I don't think there's even an implication that they can simply take your money.

[Zetack]

[ QUOTE ]


choosing to card share is nothing more than a (game move) in a larger game - a move that carries risk in the exact same way that going allin is a game move and carries risk.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is simply stunning to me. Going all-in is a legal move --it's part of the game play. Sharing cards isn't. In fact its specifically prohibited. Sharing your cards with another player gets your hand declared immediately dead.

Sharing card information is no more a part of the game than reaching over and stealing chips from the player next to you during a hand while he's turned his head to talk to the waitress is a part of the game. It's no more a part of the game than sneaking your chips out of the pot when no one is looking is a part of the game. Its no more a part of the game than hacking the software to allow you to specify who gets dealt what cards is part of the game.

I understood what you were saying when you advocated cheating--I found it reprehensible, but I understood it--are you really now claiming that its a legal part of the game? Bet, raise, fold, check, muck, show---collude?

[ QUOTE ]
in the exact same way that a car company chooses not to recall a million defective cars at a cost of a billion dollars because the actuarial for the defect indicates that less than 10 wrongful death lawsuits will occur at a total cost of 100 million ... it is cheaper to let 10 people die than to pay to save them. insurance companies do stuff like this on a daily basis; it just business.

selling pokerbots is just a business; there are risks involved like any other business.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well this is just an odd detour into the irrelevant. Ok, there are potential liability risks in selling pokerbots and you've determined that the gains are worth the risks...

I wasn't talking about whether selling your bot could open you up to liability. I was commenting on the fact that you personally have admited to cheating at online poker and that you've admited the company, during testing, has cheated at onling poker, both of which appear to be prohibited and punished by criminal statute in my home state.

--Zetack

[WinHoldemSupport]

ze,

[ QUOTE ]

I wasn't talking about whether selling your bot could open you up to liability. I was commenting on the fact that you personally have admited to cheating at online poker and that you've admited the company, during testing, has cheated at onling poker, both of which appear to be prohibited and punished by criminal statute in my home state.


[/ QUOTE ]

let me assure you, that you will be prosecuted for engaging in gambling online (which will never happen) before we will be prosecuted for letting two parties engage in a private communication transmission.

here's why, let's say that you had complete and total access to all the info that went through the winholdem.net secure channel server, all you would see would be information messages that look like this:

<channel,2882378929>
<setmax,2>
<channel,2882378929>
<chair3,AhKd>
<chair2,7c9s>
....
<chair3,Td3c>
<chair2,4s8h>
...
etc. etc.

now you sit there for an hour or more watching the <chair,hand> messages passing by,

and after having done that you are now asked by a judge how you intend to prove that two players were doing something illegal?

how do you know that they were not in winholdem manual mode doing analysis testing?

how do you know that were not practicing their voting skills? or actually playing a teamvote game?
(the team edition has a mode called voting mode where X number of players can team play 1 hand, all the teammates can be anywhere on the net connected to the channel in voting mode and each player votes the way they think the 1 hand should be played, the idea is that 3 or 4 strong players playing the same hand might do better than 1 strong player, this is not collusion its called teaming)

how do you know that they were not testing their bot AI at proker professional or another participating team site?

how do you intend to prove that they have comitted a crime without violating their more fundamental right to privacy?

we can tell you this, we wrote the software and we built the channel server in such a way that it is impossible for us to know what the players are doing let alone prove anything other than some guy somewhere in the world just sent his <chair,hand> info to a private channel for reasons known only to him and nobody else.

and lastly, you must be able to produce the actual record of said violation, you would have to go to the casinos and get the game record for the people involved, but theres only 1 problem, you don't know who they are, nobody does, all you see are <chair,hand> you never see a name,email,casino,table or anything that would tell you who the player was, so where is your evidence of wrongdoing. there is no evidence. so any legal case you think you might have is dead.

winholdem support.

[JayKon]

Oh my, deluded and a cheat.