Quote:
Originally Posted by TimTamBiscuit
The problem is you pass the poker equivalent of the Turing Test. It is impossible to tell from your play if you are a Bot or a Human because your pre-flop decisions are completely described by your charts. That is why it is tantamount to a Bot. The actual mouseclick does not change your poker decisions, it adds no value beyond your charts (pre-flop).
You have put the cat amongst the pigeons because what you have done could about as easily be done with a physical ring binder of paper charts which of course cannot be enforceably banned. As such I can't see how your software can be banned under current rules but at the same time you and others have to agree that if you simply click the buttons and have no decisions to make apart from read your chart then it is tantamount to a Bot, too. If you were replaced with a Bot there would be no observable difference in the pre-flop play.
The real problem is that the pre-flop game for HUSNGs has been close to solved. When seen through this lens Pre-flop Bots are a red herring. That's my point about an auto-folder of 72o that has no capability to figure out and click complex 3 Bet frequencies. It is not the autoclicking that is the issue it is the complexity of the decisions being automated whether a human does the clicking or a Bot.
As an aside there is IMO a legitimate reason for being allowed to auto-click simple decisions such as fold 72o (but not auto-click complex decisions like 3Bs): allowing the disabled (crippling case of RSI for example) to play poker. What is wrong with someone with RSI from autofolding the ~80% of the time at a 6-max cash table for example they would have folded anyway if otherwise they cannot play at all due to their disability. Disallowing their autofolder is discrimination against the disabled.
I don't think the Turing test is an appropriate yardstick for poker. How can you really tell if it's a computer or a human behind a a series o poker actions? What is the human 'fingerprint' of playing poker? It's also not a proper Turing test if the human and the computer are working off of the same script. How can you measure if a computer is indistinguishable from a human when the human chooses to actively follow the same logic as the computer is programmed to use? You've turned the test on its side and are testing whether a human can mimic a computer, rather than testing whether a computer can appear like a human.
A bot is a very specific definition which a bunch of charts don't fit. Every definition I can find of a bot includes 'automated' which charts are simply not. A description, no matter how detailed, of a strategy for a given game is not a bot. I can say that I will use {Raise AA, call anything that is not 92o,82o,72o, and fold the rest at every decision point} as my preflop strategy which completely describes my preflop decisions and could lead to a computer replicating my play, but could never be considered a bot.
I think that the autoclicking is problematic because it's a slippery slope. Are you going to be making judgement calls on what is and is not allowed to be automated? There are so many decisions (and so much clicking) in poker that I think that removing the subset of what you call 'obvious' decisions isn't going to help someone with RSI very much anyways. They should really look into alternative input devices. Voice control, switching hands, gamepads, ipads, etc. I even read about one designer who used her nose to do work with! Where are you going to draw the line? Can I automate all of my push/fold decisions now since i would have push/folded anyways?
Quote:
Originally Posted by TimTamBiscuit
Skier
Where would you suggest Pokerstars draw the line with HUDs?
Should it be acceptable to have complex stats such as Fold vs River Bet (after calling a flop X/R and calling a Turn bet)? Where should Pokerstars logically draw the line on complexity?
Should it be acceptable to have VPIP/PFR by stack size in HUSNGs?
Honestly I think that limiting HUDs is also problematic. You land in second computer/printed on paper/automatically inserted into the client notes land pretty quickly. I haven't thought about where I would draw the line, but I would say banning it completely is likely too far as people will write tools to place stats into their notes, etc and that may leave the honest players at too much of a disadvantage. That being said, I don't think making the rule about HUDs is the way to go. I think the better solution is to limit the amount of information one can gather on someone by stopping data mining and allowing screen name changes. If you make the name changes frequent enough you can even prevent issues with database sharing (apart from population tendencies, unfortunately. Though you may be able to make them less effective if players are more difficult to categorise and place in the 'right' population) and a lot of these complex stats will never have the sample size required to make them useful. If you can only get an average of 500 or 1000 hands on someone then something like VPIP/PFR by stack size will not be too useful.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TimTamBiscuit
Skier
Your charts sound as if they are more elaborate and complete versions of the ROFL (Raise, OpenShove, Fold or Limp) popup charts that most regs have on their HUSNG HUDs.
View Free HEM HUD from HUSNG.COM that includes ROFL chart
It is difficult to find the appropriate legal/illegal line for Pokerstars. All this can be done manually but is also indistinguishable from pre-flop Bot play.
I don't know where stars should draw the line here. I do agree that allowing static content as things are now is problematic and full of loopholes, but as you said, banning a binder full of charts is problematic as well. I've maintained that since it's so unenforceable, it's important to make a balanced decision on what is and is not acceptable so that the honest people are not getting free rolled. There are also much bigger issues to fry (bots, collusion, etc) than policing the entire playing population to make sure they are not using 2 sheets of paper as reference material. Something like a binder full of charts or charts which you could realistically plaster on your wall/desk (and still use) seems like decently balanced place to draw the line. I don't think the test of "All this can be done manually but is also indistinguishable from pre-flop Bot play." is a good one. The fact that {Raise AA, call anything that is not 92o,82o,72o, and fold the rest at every decision point} fails it is very problematic.
