Not only would it not be immoral, it would be a positively nice thing to do.

That is pretty far from the slam-dunk case you think it is.

Creating something and using that something to take money from other people are two very different things.

Isn't it immoral to publish something that has not much use to anyone but people who plan to use it for unethical things?

When you take an action with such immediately foreseeable consequences (in this case widespread deployment of the poker bot), customarily you would bear some of the moral responsibility for those consequences. I had assumed what you meant was that one possible consequences of releasing the bot to be widely deployed - killing the games - was a good thing.

As people have noted, poker AI is a fascinating research subject and very fun hobby for many people. I presume someone who released a poker AI would be operating for that purpose within that community.

I actually do think that killing the games would be a good thing but that's not required. It's enough that internet poker is utterly replacable and does not increase net happiness. Minimal consideration is to be expected to the perishment of such a thing when creating something for a purpose other than the perishment.

If we equated the cost of the perishment of poker with say the perishment of online chess, then I would say that releasing an open source AI is a nice thing to do while releasing an open source fully functional bot which is compatible with all major sites would be a douchy thing to do.

Damn though, I'm starting to feel sympathetic towards the idea of bots killing the games now lol. Winning poker players obviously expectedly go about creating rationalisations as to why it's good that online poker exists, that it is "fun" for the fish and whatnot, but the truth is that the existence of internet poker most probably has a negative effect on net happiness and development of the society. While that might not be enough to make a ban valuable, acceleration of the inevitable process from within people's motivation seems like it might be a good thing. I'll have to think about this.

This is what I assumed your argument was from the getgo, and is the thing that I think is not obvious. There are certainly some people for whom poker is a terrible destructive force, but then there are also people for whom it is a great way to make a living, and a huge group of people in between for whom it is a fun diversion of not much consequence. If you think that your "easily replaceable" argument is worthwhile, it is much easier for gambling degenerates to find other avenues to wreck themselves then it is for people who are specifically skilled at poker to find comparable ways of leveraging the specific skills.

Anyway, this is kind of a hijack, so I think I'll stop talking about it now.

Wether or not the money goes to a bunch of specifically trained poker players or casino owners does not make a difference IMO. Wether or not a fish hurts himself does. I know there are many alternative ways for a fish to hurt themselves, but one less way, especially one as lucrative as internet poker, has GOT to mean less fish are going to hurt themselves. Not to mention the general moral abrasiveness of the fact that idiots are losing money to people who know how to exploit them, no matter how voluntary it is.

This is not a hijack at all. Wether or not killing the games is a good thing is very relevant to the topic.

One very interesting possibility for me to consider is government monopoly on gambling. To me it seems it might be optimal. I guess people can't stand the idea that the state itself is "abusing" the degens, while it's OK for private businesses to do so?

Poker does have positives for some players. Excluding professional/profit aspects, the hobby aspect can help teach people somewhat valuable skills, discipline, and rationalism regarding an emotional contest. That said, if someone does this for the money, there are a near-infinite number of things they could also do with their time that provided them money, and those things would likely be infinitely more useful to society (since playing poker isn't useful to society at all). There'd be some top notch players that would lose their super lucrative game, but they're an insane minority, and if they're that good they could be out there doing something more constructive with their talents.

They could always, you know, play live too. I assume top notch players wouldn't have too many issues making decent money live. Hell, 50NL grinders could probably make the switch in a couple of months to 200NL live.

Like Vantek said, this isn't a hijack: it plays a part in the ethical equation here.

That's the biggest factor! I wake up at the ass crack of dawn so I can go run, I sit at my desk for hours studying to make sure I am playing my A game if not better, and then I sit at my computer for all of the hours I am playing.

If you want to grind poker do it, but don't be an ass and have your computer do it for you.

For some of us the drive and pleasure derived from playing poker is greater then that of working somewhere [insert rant about abusive, uncaring, or manipulative boss or otherwise unfulfilling line of work].

I do have to say as an overall though it is likely that you pov would likely require a new thread entirely as you do have valid points; poker may have an overall negative effect on society, but we will always have something to blame...

I won't.

I know this already died, but he said "comparable." There are very reliable options for income. They mostly consist of tremendous work, unpleasant environments, or low wages. And very few of them allow independence (aside from starting a business which is enough risk to make any degenerate blanch, insane initial work and responsibility with almost guaranteed initial financial struggle).

Cool post Gump.

As with most "is this ethical?" questions the real debate to be had is "what are ethics?" and around these parts they are ad hoc rules adopted by a majority in the poker community that will maintain an individual's ability to profit from playing the game. Some people argued it was unethical because it cut into everyone else's winnings, but the same could be said for iso-raising fish or just in general being good at poker.

I oppose botting but I can't find a solid rational objection that isn't grounded solely in my own interest. I guess it violates the general spirit of the game, as well as most sites' T&C. But I don't view bot-creators in the same light as scammers & thieves.

BTW what is standard honorable procedure for what Henry did? Should he have stopped play, or told the ref afterward, or?

I feel that it's unethical to run a poker bot on sites where players don't know they're playing against one. Most sites disallow bots, so it'd be unethical to run a bot there. On the other hand I feel like most sites should allow the use of bots because they aren't unethical themselves. If players were informed that botting would be allowed on the sites, I think it'd be fine.
Daytrading, which I find incredibly similar to playing poker online, is filled with mostly bots buying and selling all day long.
Something OP might find of interest: http://cgi.ebay.com/Poker-Artificial...ht_1082wt_1165

That's a good question. I can't remember if there was a clear consensus on that and I'm not enough of a soccer follower to have a personal opinion worth a damn.

TBH this seems like the only conversation you'll eventually have with yourself (is it worth $x for y amount of time).

I wouldn't bother arguing back and forth the morality of this, plain and simple you are cheating. I don't think you can be dishonest enough with yourself to claim otherwise. So if you ultimately feel ok with being a cheat, then do the calculation.

Aside from the fact that most poker players are neither degens nor pros and simply derive some enjoyment from playing the game (which presumably increases their happiness), consider this: most fish play at stakes which don't mean much to them. Professional players, on the other hand, almost by definition play at stakes which mean something to them. So when a fish ships a buy-in to a pro, there is usually a net increase in utility since the marginal value of a buy-in to a fish at a given level is usually less than the marginal value of a buy-in to a pro at that level. In other words, a side-effect of poker is the voluntary (or at least not strictly involuntary) redistribution of wealth.

Professional players are generally capable of working a job which they enjoy no less, but actually produces something.

And wherefrom do you take this revolutionary information?

Not really sure about that either.

this.

took a while to sink in, huh?