Talking about those places that require the skill argument.

I would imagine the anti skill people would try to wrap an argument around it even though it doesn't make sense. They would probably say only software has skill since it knows everything. They don't really need facts for the arguments, it has worked for them so far.

A big problem I envision is from all the mainstream articles about this that have been published with incomplete/wrong information, because there have been tons of them. A lot of articles I've read about this on mainstream sites don't even specify that it is limit HU poker. I think a lot of casuals might now think all poker is completely solved/rigged and that there is no reason to play it.

****in ARTILLERY SHELLS BANG

http://www.theguardian.com/science/h...us-bot-program

this idea of using poker bots as ammunition is indeed intriguing on many levels. how much funding would it take for a government branch to sufficiently weaponize these bots and use them to target a rogue nation's cyber economy? and what percent of those hundreds of millions are due to its creator, David Sklansky? these are the types of questions we should be asking.

As a lawyer who has followed the skill game litigation closely for several years, I think the Cepheus program both helps and hurts future litigation. I blogged about this in more detail (HERE and HERE), but the quick takeaways are:

Cepheus helps the skill argument in two respects. First, Cepheus provides mathematical proof that poker strategy is not limited to a single hand or single decision but must be evaluated over a longer timeframe. More specifically, Cepheus is a rebuttal to judicial focus on the fact that a skilled player is still "subject to defeat at the turn of a card." Second, Cepheus--as a GTO strategy--essentially states that chance is irrelevant to its long-term expectation. So, in a weighing of the relative effects of chance and skill, Cepheus is arguably the epitome of a complete skill approach to poker.

On the other hand, Cepheus also hurts the skill game argument. If two players (or programs) play each other using a GTO strategy, the end result of their game will be determined solely by chance. This rather counter-intuitive result calls the skill game argument into question by itself. Also, the implication is that any game between players of roughly similar skill will likewise be determined predominately by chance. This theory is observed in real life where skilled poker players seek out weaker players in order to leverage their skill advantage (i.e., "bum hunting", setting up private games with "whales" or "fish", etc.). So, the ultimate poker skill is not bluffing, or bet-sizing, or range-balancing--it's game selection. But selling "bum hunting" as a positive poker skill to a court is a dubious proposition.

To play the devil's advocate, Alberta could be hurting online poker's chances. It's only a matter of 5-10 years that NLH software becomes available for HU/6max/FR that plays well (of course, not GTO). Even if there are strong security regulations in detecting bots, how would you stop someone from consulting poker software on a different computer? In practice, I don't see grinders consulting poker bots during gameplay, but the principle remains: you could be playing someone who's consulting a highly sophisticated poker software. It's like playing chess online for money, and your opponent is feeding your moves to a chess engine (you thought you were playing a like 1900 player, when in reality you're playing an artificial grandmaster with a 3000 rating).

I haven't followed this issue much at all but read you post and found it was an interesting line of thought.

IMO, the counter to this is two fold. First, two players (or bots) being at the same skill level doesn't lessen the impact skill has on the game in its entirety. Second, the bots act the same as other highly skilled, evenly matched competitors in any other contest of skill. When two competitors are "evenly matched" things other than skill such as luck, weather, or injury, have greater impacts on the outcome of the contest. See e.g., the effect of changing weather throughout the period of the day in PGA events; home field advantages; game changing calls by referees; untimely injuries.

Excellent point! Do you think there's any chance that the various poker site's software security measures could be circumvented, thus allowing bots to play undetected?

It would depend if someone could create a compact program that has all the knowledge of Cepheus at a fraction of the space and sheer computing power required to run/maintain it.

To play this perfect heads up match it needed 11 terabytes of disk space, and 200 processors. Now imagine how much power would be needed for six max/FR. And then change it to NLHE or other game variants that are far more complicated than limit hold 'em.

Honestly, if anyone who lobbies for online poker loses to an argument about poker bots being viable, they should be ashamed.

Like I said, "not GTO". Also, I haven't dug much into Cepheus, but the I'm guessing the reason it takes 11 terabytes is because it caches all the precomputed moves for every possible board variation from preflop to river. Otherwise, anyone who has enough time and drive can write a reasonably strong ai that runs on modern day computers.