Action vs poker bots: Networks should work together to combat them. Please email the sites! - Page 6 - Poker News

Two Plus Two Forums Poker News & Discussion News, Views, and Gossip

Action vs poker bots: Networks should work together to combat them. Please email the sites!

Post Reply Subscribe

...

Page 6 of 15

First

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Last

Page 6 of 15

First

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Last

10-25-2011 , 08:49 AM

#126

Alex Wice

aka Double Ice

Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 5,952

Quote:

Originally Posted by Loki7

i am curious if anybody knows what is the AI situation in PLO compared to NLH? Some people posting in this thread seem to know a fair bit about botting. Does the fact that the decision tree in PLO is so much bigger than in holdem make it much more difficult to create an AI that can compete with an expert player? Or will it be easy enough to come up with semantics/abstractions for the AI so that it doesn't need to analyze the full decision tree? Are there any forms of poker which would be safe from AI/bots in the next 10-20 years?

NE strategies for NLH as well as PLO are a long ways away.. very difficult to truly compute. What you have seen in NLH are so-called strong strategies .. strategy approximations created by a computer that are very balanced and somewhat close to NE.

As for PLO, based on my understanding, someone will have PLO "solved" (in the sense of a strong strategy capable of beating 10/20 online) within 3 years. Technically, the strategy spaces are enormous, but some clever tricks can make the computation feasible. As soon as any professionals with the funding are serious about solving PLO, strong strategies can come out within or before 1.5 years time for sure. The reason no one has gotten serious about PLO is simple: if you have a working NL bot crushing 10/20, your goal is to play it on as many tables as possible / research how to play more without being caught. PLO development gets on the backburner.

Realistically, no poker variant is safe from botting. The reason is, it is only needed to be better than humans, not to play the game perfectly. And as long as poker involves bets and a trajectory for showdown, computers are just going to be better than humans at analyzing these processes.

Quote

10-25-2011 , 08:52 AM

#127

Matacow

journeyman

Join Date: Aug 2011 Posts: 312

Quote:

Originally Posted by Morris King

I think we need to be worrying more about when the bots become self-aware and are able to construct themselves as cybernetic organisms, learning computers that look and act and seem just like real live humans. Then the bot-androids will also infiltrate our B&M games, take all the money & there will be no place for humans to play honest poker. I mean the implications here are for live poker as well as online.

I suggest that the sites security teams perform the Turing test on suspected bot accounts.

Quote

10-25-2011 , 09:04 AM

#128

chinz

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jan 2009 Posts: 9,061

Quote:

Originally Posted by Loki7

The number of starting hands in plo is more than 1000x that of nlhe. The number of decisions for any given hand is smaller but the full decision tree contains every starting hand. Evaluating each option also becomes more complex, because you need to consider a larger number of potential holdings for your opponent.

Number of different betsizes in NLHE is infinite times more than in PLO.

(I realize we don't really need to solve the game for 8000bb stacks just to have bots that beat all human players, but still...)

Quote

10-25-2011 , 09:06 AM

#129

chinz

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jan 2009 Posts: 9,061

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stake Monster

For people who do not play HU I don't understand why you would not just go play on Stars.

Tax reasons in many countries. In euro networks I get 65% rakeback and winnings are taxfree, on PokerStars I'd only get about 40% rakeback (or w/e SN is worth) and on top of that I'd have to pay over 30% of my winnings in taxes. It would roughly cut my $/hand in half.

Quote

10-25-2011 , 09:52 AM

#130

kokolo

journeyman

Join Date: May 2010 Posts: 232

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gregg777

I am sorry, but any player who continues to support a site by playing on it when there is proof or at least a high suspicion of bots are the ones who are missing the target.

You have two types of sites, those with bots and those without bots or at least those who are doing everything they can to prevent bots.

The obvious solution is to support the sites making the effort to eliminate bots, instead players continue to support sites like Entraction by playing there.

Actions speak louder than words, send all the emails you want, but play on sites that are doing their best to eliminate bots.

Sure thats a valid point from one stand...and i will definetly move my business elswhere unless things start to change in near future....but before that i will give the last chance to entraction to SEE the problem DETECT it and do their best to solve it unless the bots like chipturtle, firesteel and similair are really their own in witch case moving out of such network seems like a best way to proceed...

Quote

10-25-2011 , 10:03 AM

#131

kokolo

journeyman

Join Date: May 2010 Posts: 232

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stake Monster

For people who do not play HU I don't understand why you would not just go play on Stars. It's pretty clear that they take the issue seriously unlike all the other networks. And it's obviously clear that if the bots have no one to play vs they won't be very useful.

It is not for you to say where should ppl go to play tbh...poker stars doesnt have so good deals and races and the euro sites do, plus there is allot of nitty regish action compared to mega fishes on euro sites so thats the reason why mostly....

Quote

10-25-2011 , 10:30 AM

#132

kevinb1983

old hand

Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 1,684

Sooo, looks as if Lock Poker is certainly on top of things...

"Hi Kevin,

Thank you for the email.

We have put the appropriate steps in place to ensure we stay online for all our players. It is business as usual for Lock with both our US and International players are receiving payouts without issue.

We thank you for your loyalty to Lock and hope this eases any unsettling feelings.
sincere regards,

Craig

---
CSR, Lock Support"

Hhhhhhmmmmmmmmmmmm???????????!!!!!!!!! I wonder if this is the standard email they send out to people who put "help" in the subject header because this is 0% relevant to the email I sent, lol.

Quote

10-25-2011 , 11:03 AM

#133

DaBusiness

journeyman

Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 366

Quote:

Originally Posted by nikinblinds

this is the best idea yet. ultimately however, the legalisation and acknowledgement of the need for protection for this business is the only way the disincentive will ever be great enough to make bot constructors sit up and take note of the risk in using bots. confiscation rarely worries them, i doubt they keep more than 5/6 buyins online and accounts are made through relatives etc.

perhaps sites could give a specialised mouse to suspected botters on which to prove play for a limited time period.

It is worth noting (just to enlighten the people not familiar with these bots) that they dont play many tables simultaneously, they play loose aggressive and they play for almost random amounts of time.

Stars is the only site that really cracked down on identity and has a comparatively huge security system. Sadly its the monopoly stars holds worldwide which has impacted on the lack of progression in other sites security, the stars business model not being in direct competition with other (high rb) euro networks. Legalisation and the risk of getting bent over by some mad mexican in prison is still the way to stop and make criminals think.

Thank you.

The mouse needs an independent custom CPU, specialist software and memory space of course, and information stored would have to be encrypted to prevent attempts from botters to try amend mouse movement data. Perhaps if every month or two, the site sends you a new mouse and you post the old mouse back, that way the custom cpu in the mouse with have no interaction with the host's computer whatsoever so hopefully this will also make it much more difficult for bot operators to hack into and read data in any intelligible way, and if they can't read the data they can't change the data either.

If one or more of the sites could invest in this product, it shouldn't cost a huge amount. I think it would definitely slow bots down and if as a result other players bankroll lasts longer then they'll be playing more hands and therefore more rake will go to the site, the play on the site will be softer too as the fish will stick around longer, it will be more fun to play, and the site's reputation will be enhanced and it can enjoy a longer future compared to sites that do very little.

Quote

10-25-2011 , 11:11 AM

#134

Stake Monster

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 5,941

Quote:

Originally Posted by kokolo

You're correct.. that's why in the end it's up for everyone to decide for themselves. However, I hope people who support these networks now don't complain too much when they can't win at poker anymore.

For me it's an ethics thing but as someone else said it seems like playing on PS for some isn't nearly as profitable, for now.

Quote

10-25-2011 , 11:47 AM

#135

Alex Wice

aka Double Ice

Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 5,952

I retract my claim about pokerstars security budget being less than the combined budget of professional botters. However my main point in that original post was about the fact that you can never catch pro botters long term, which is still true. Its just a giant shell game -- when you catch them, they can start over.

Quote

10-25-2011 , 11:59 AM

#136

Loki7

veteran

Join Date: Jan 2009 Posts: 2,157

Quote:

Originally Posted by Double Ice

Thanks for responding. It sounds to me like the days of high stakes and mid stakes online poker are numbered, and the security measures that the sites can put in place can only postpone the inevitable, but not prevent it. Any security measure I can think of can be worked around by making a person do the input (with the AI making the decisions), and potentially reading the cards from camera pointed at the monitor if the sites manage to create software making it very difficult to obtain the cards/board data from the software directly.

Quote

10-25-2011 , 12:33 PM

#137

SoLost

old hand

Join Date: Oct 2008 Posts: 1,888

Quote:

Originally Posted by pokerfish_

I'm not comparing 1 reg vs 1 multiaccounting botter, I'm looking at the bigger scale. For each succesfull botter there are like 1000 regulars who kill the game. People at microstakes complain they don't enjoy poker anymore, you think that is caused by bots? No that is caused by a huge ammount of 24 tabling microgrinders. At least I hardly enjoy it anymore when I'm up against 5 nit players. So who's killing the games here? I hear more complains about Russians then I hear about bots btw.

Your example of 10 accounts at different skins of ipoker makes no sense as well, yes you can play with 10 different screennames but not at the same time, when you try to login to the client with your 2nd account it says you can't login twice or something like that. And if you find ways around that like different IP, well I guess it won't take long till they figure out and ban you for multiaccounting.

Yeah the problem is all the regs ARENT CHEATING. All the reasons I list show why someone who creates bots (especially when they multi-account the bot) is cheating.

Yeah you're prob right about multiple skin accounts, but this bot still has a TON of accounts running constantly.

Anyway, yeah of course good players are killing the games. I'd be totally in favour of taking measures against 24 tabling nits or extreme bumhunters even though I obviously don't judge each of them on a personal level and don't exactly think it's an outrage people are allowed to bumhunt.

I mean obviously there's self interest here, but who cares it's easily justifiable because bots are cheating anyway. We have a game which we can take money off idiots by clicking buttons, and people are cheating by programming bots that are going to destroy online poker. How can you not be against that?

Quote

10-25-2011 , 12:36 PM

#138

Dylanzesz

veteran

Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 2,620

Reply from Ipoker:

Dear Dylan,

The use of automation software ("bots") on the iPoker network is not permitted in any way. If there is evidence to indicate the use of such prohibited software it will result in the closure of the account.

We have detailed information on every accounts playing patterns, connection information and other confidential tools which can be used to indicate use of prohibited software.

If you suspect any account of using prohibited software please email your cardroom support team with the details for investigation by our specialists.

Kind regards,

Bob

Quote

10-25-2011 , 01:11 PM

#139

munkey

veteran

Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 3,106

Watching the Committee Hearing today two minor side comments (@different times) by Ms. parry Aftab with Mr Barton intrigued me.

(1) use the technology of AI used in bots to detect them.
(2) someone(Barton ?) noted in a casino there is easily verifiable a real person in a seat, she noted many of us have GPS on our phones.

Combine with Barton's line of questioning about if a bot was suspected he'd ring the 'player' up and ask them questions for 15mins.

Maybe an anti-bot tech solution involves once identified, suspected bot accounts are all phoned up at the same time by CS co-ordinated by Security and the GPS location of the respondents logged.

If it's a botter he can't answer the questions about the hands in play on all his bot's tables and and be in several places simultaneously. The only way to respond is to have knowledgeable people that can reply consistent with the bots level of knowledge in different locations. Kinda defeats the point of having a bot if you need several knowledgeable people in all the locations at all times.

This one measure doesn't work so well vs an individual operating a single bot on few tables, but tying in GPS just adds another level of security and dissuasion.

Quote

10-25-2011 , 02:23 PM

#140

pokerfish_

banned

Join Date: Oct 2011 Posts: 307

Quote:

Originally Posted by SoLost

Hacking the pokerclient to see opponent's holecards or future commoncards is cheating. Chipdumping and colluding is cheating. Botting isn't very fair or right from an ehtical point but I wouldn't call it cheating.

Quote

10-25-2011 , 02:49 PM

#141

Land Of The Free?

old hand

Join Date: Apr 2011 Posts: 1,695

Quote:

Originally Posted by pokerfish_

Whether a certain activity is considered cheating is decided according to the sites' TOS, we're not talking about ethics here.

The use of bots is prohibited by the TOS of all of these sites, therefore it is cheating, end of story.

Now from an ethical perspective it is cheating as well, because even though most regs know about the presence of bots, all the casual players on the site have no idea that they're playing against bots, especially because the sites advertise a bot-free environment, so the casual players are ultimately deceived and therefore cheated since they might very well decide not to play on the sites if they knew that bots were playing there.

If the sites advertised and accepted the presence of bots, it would solve both the legal and ethical aspects of botting, but it's very far from being the case.

EDIT: Actually from the sites' perspective (which again, is what matters in terms of determining whether something is or isn't considered cheating), botting is a much more serious offense than the things you mentioned, such as collusion, chip dumping, etc...

Lots of players have gotten away with a warning for chip dumping, collusion, etc..on both PS and FTP, but botters have their funds insta-confiscated and their accounts banned forever.

Last edited by Land Of The Free?; 10-25-2011 at 02:59 PM. Reason: no need for insults, I guess...

Quote

10-25-2011 , 02:51 PM

#142

kokolo

journeyman

Join Date: May 2010 Posts: 232

Quote:

Originally Posted by Double Ice

The main problem in this story is that some bot programs are up and running for years and nobody even gives a sh.it....so thats that....

There is no need in sites to invest anything at their own...they just need to follow up on the informations of players and with that alone 90 percent of bots will be destroyed first day and sure they can start over but then again they will crush it in few days....if sites where to proceed in that manner i believe it wouldnt make much sense for bot owners to continue playing on those sites and burn money....

Quote

10-25-2011 , 03:12 PM

#143

Stake Monster

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 5,941

I wrote this on my blog but not sure if I am allowed to link it and I don't think it's worth a new thread, so here it is. It's long.

Spoiler:

The only solution to bots is tough legislation and regulation*

Internet Gambling Commission
I was just watching the Congress meeting on Internet Gambling. Bots were brought up and I was glad to see it did, even though most of them are not that knowledgeable about online poker. The biggest worry I have about bots, as said previously, is that it would be impossible to detect someone hiring others to play based on the bot queries. This opens up bulletproof tactics around any potential bot policies.

Legislation is the best method to combat botting
It's becoming pretty clear to me that in regards to the creation of an unbeatable and undetectable bot, it's not a matter of how anymore, but when it happens. Bots will become perfect poker players and it is impossible to enforce an efficient policy against them. Right now, our only solution for a healthy game is having legislation in place to protect us. We need penalties handed down by the governments to be extremely harsh, on par with bank fraud and money laundering. Players have to be afraid of becoming caught. The consequences need to make someone really think 6 times before cheating.

You and me could probably make millions selling cocaine but we don't do it because 20 years in a prison doesn't exactly appeal to us. With harsh penalties and prison time, it will cut down the amount of botters drastically, based on the fear alone.

Regulatory Body and Security
Additionally, strict security measures should be created, managed and enforced by one regulatory body and one security department overseeing every poker site nationally. This would help make policy enforcement and technology development more effective. It would also be one designated place for all users to address their concerns to. Right now if you get screwed by a poker site, who do you go to? The police?... lol.

Legilsation and Governments
We need legislation for online poker to survive in the long run. I think a lot of us are currently in denial that online poker is seriously sick right now. Not tomorrow or in 5 years. Some of us just want to keep the dream going for a while more. We're still making money. Less than before but it's still better than a "real job". Yes, it's probably going to be OK in the next year or two, but beyond that, who knows? I think a year ago our answers would have been very different from today.. Personally, I am rather split on where I stand regarding poker's future online, but I am hoping for something to validate dedicating myself to this game in the long-run.

Having our governments regulate poker will probably suck in many ways but it will be a sacrifice worth doing for all of us. I am personally pretty tired of putting so much of my networth on the line with people from god knows where who are doing god knows what with MY money. I'm also tired of seeing so many scumbags get away with stealing MY money. I know you are too.

Trade-off of Legislation
We'll have to give up some of the benefits we have had from playing online poker for a living. Like a monitored tax rate, a much smaller player pool, no more HUDs and a high rake. But, if nothing is done, in the near future it won't be so much about grinding our dollars online, our focus is going to be about protecting the integrity and viability of our game. There is no integrity in the game if it's possible at any time that who you're playing might be an unbeatable bot that no one can stop if he gets by the cracks. And, as usually computer-savvy people, we all know people who want to cheat something online always end up getting past them.

*The Pickle
In general, I feel like we're reasonable people. I think we can accept some part of the pie to go to the cheaters who risk 10 years in prison to make money. They're idiots and if they get caught that's good, right? I'm not one of them so I don't care what happens!...

....And this is the pickle in the jar. How many citizens will go in jail for nothing because they were accused of running illegal software? How do determine accurately who is guilty? or innocent? How do you prove it? Can it be 100% accurate? Probably never. How do you determine what punishment someone guilty receives? How much botting is too much botting? What if your patterns of play are supremely efficient and very advanced? Are you a bot? Is he a bot?

This is a social rights issue and I can guarantee that with harsh penalties handed to players deemed guilty, the social rights groups will have a field day with this. As they should, too often people will give up their neighbor's freedom in exchange for their own. There will be innocent people going to jail because of the inconclusive nature of determining cheating online. Especially when you can bypass human detection systems so easily and everyone will report everyone else as bots.

Reasonable doubt
This reasonable doubt over justice handed down could be a big problem to any future legislation. Our dear politicians might just decide that there's no way to police the games properly enough to ensure consumer protection and that would be sayionara to online poker. GG. This issue of bots will be a huge factor in deciding the faith of online poker. The balance between punishing and injustice needs to become a big part of the conversation if the US goes forward on tough poker legislation. We need to protect the industry by having harsh penalties for cheating, yes, but not to the point where innocent people get thrown in jail for years. We can never justify injustice done to others, for the sake of a game, a career or paying our bills.

Self-policy would NOT work
I heard one of the panel members on the Commission say that sites should employ a self-policy approach where people can blow the whistle on players suspected of botting. This would not only never work due to technical reasons but also because you would have people report bots left and right.. whoever they have lost to. It would be a mess and should never be any part of a comprehensive anti-bot policy.

1-2-3 Strike System: Still Harsh but More Fair
To smooth out the issues of injustice I suggest having a one strike system. If you get caught using a bot the first time, you receive a notice and your software becomes locked until you have spoken to a security expert who has been trained in investigative techniques. This expert will ask you some questions and then see if it was a technical issue on the computer or something else that triggered the bot detection. IF someone gets caught twice they go to court to answer to the charges. It could be a 3 strike system as well if people want a softer stance. In this case would you REALLY want to test your bot out at all anywhere? If the site uses randomized daily checkups, server-side, on their software to detect bots, how could you ever make your bot adapt? You would be unable to bypass the security because you wouldn't know what it is going to be that on that day. It's encrypted at the highest level possible. So now you don't just need to be a botter, you need to be a hacker as well.

I use to be opposed to legislation because I didn't want my government to come ruin the party. But now I think we need the goverments to step in and give us some reasonable but effective protection, otherwise we'll be the ones closing the light on the way out.

cliffs:
- Tough legislation and penalties should be handed down to people who are caught cheating.
- Regulation and security should be handled by one organization overseeing every poker site nationally to increase its strength and efficiency.
- Getting caught with a bot should come along with a very harsh penalty but using a 2 or 3 strike system.
- Jail time or big fines are strong deterrents but they also need to be sensible and reasonable, otherwise way too many innocent people will pay for nothing.
- In the long run we don't have a choice anymore and we need to seek regulation in every country.. and hopefully they do it right.
- There's a chance they won't even make it legal based on the possibility of undetectable bots and/or methods used by botters rendering security measures almost useless.

Quote

10-25-2011 , 03:17 PM

#144

ICUScoobyDoo

grinder

Join Date: Oct 2011 Posts: 442

Usually a bot can be easily detected, here are some examples of screennames bots commonly use to throw people off.

Bots_suck
notAbot
ihatebots
realhumanplayer
manNoTMachine

When you see screennames like this you should usually suspect it may be a bot.

Quote

10-25-2011 , 04:07 PM

#145

GoDeViLs

veteran

Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 3,486

what about imabot?

reverse physcology maybe

Quote

10-25-2011 , 04:12 PM

#146

pokerfish_

banned

Join Date: Oct 2011 Posts: 307

Quote:

Originally Posted by Land Of The Free?

Lots of players have gotten away with a warning for chip dumping, collusion, etc..on both PS and FTP, but botters have their funds insta-confiscated and their accounts banned forever.

Again, rather play on a table wiht 5 bots then on a table with people sharing holecards. Btw Pokerstars gives a warning first when they detect botsoftware on your pc and gently ask you to remove it. If you don't do that before you login again then they will bann you.

Quote

10-25-2011 , 04:22 PM

#147

northeastbeast

banned

Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 1,373

I would use a mouse trap to get bots. I hate giving my ideas away for free but I care about poker. I would appreciate being compensated if Stars decides to use my ideas. Anyway I'll give you the answer.

Picture one is a picture of MS Paint.

Quote

10-25-2011 , 04:52 PM

#148

northeastbeast

banned

Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 1,373

This information should populate a new table. So if you're playing five tables it would show up as a sixth table. They wouldn't initially have the signatures of all the accounts. The first use of the software would be to get a signature on file. The system would operate in the same way paint does except the cursor would appear like a writing utensil and there wouldn't be any other options to confuse people. The mazes would be computer generated and obviously extremely simple to solve. The signatures and maze completion would be verified by some type of point by point comparison or manually. I don't envision the test ever stopping someone from playing if they made a mistake on it. What would happen is that results that were off would be manually looked at and forwarded. Then the person would be sent a retest or their computer paused.

I think this method goes a long way toward someone using labor in third world countries to circumvent the test. They would obviously be able to circumvent the maze part of the test but it would be a lot more difficult for them to circumvent the signature part of the test. A signature is like a fingerprint. I think the combinatin of these two things could eliminate 99 percent of automated botters. It would be pretty tough for a bot to do simple mazes AND to have the same mouse patterns as human while doing them.

Quote

10-25-2011 , 05:04 PM

#149

Stake Monster

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 5,941

If all you want to do is verify that Mr. X is playing on Mr.X's account, it would be a lot easier to have fingerprint scanners sent to everyone who holds a certain amount of money in their accounts. You could even have this scanner have other biometric security features built into it. It could be the size of a thumb drive keychain.

This still does not make it impossible to use bots. But along with really tough penalties (prison, etc) it should be enough to put away a big % of botters.

Quote

10-25-2011 , 05:13 PM

#150

RNauta

veteran

Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 2,163

Quote:

Originally Posted by munkey

I posted in the leg forum but once there is clearer legislative situation and some cheaters are prosecuted in civil or criminal Courts for cheating and fraud then there will exist more disincentives.

I don't think you will have a case though. Not only because poker sites are based offshore and the bot and opponents are probably from different countries, making jurisdiction hard to determine, but because one civil party imposing an arbitrary rule and another civil party then breaking it is a matter between those two, the law isn't interested in that. It's like a football coach sneaking an extra player onto the field in football and the referee only finding out after 10 minutes, you won't see cops cuffing the coach for that.

Quote

Page 6 of 15

First

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Last

Post Reply Subscribe

...

Page 6 of 15

First

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Last