Wait. no. no. I meant they definitely are NOT good for the game. Now that I messed up and made a click- baityish type title for this thread, I'll just have to come up with something positive to say about them or its possible one could construe this as me derailing my own thread.

Fact: It is my opinion that the general online poker playing community has determined that quite a few bots are able to not only beat, but stomp the stakes they play at.

Non-sarcastic Logic: One can only determine that (outside of collusion between bots) if bots are able to beat the game by a wide margin over a ridiculously large sample size .... that skill > luck when it comes to this particular game.


TLDR: bots suck, we all know that, but if bots can win playing by the same rules as humans, does it not seem logical that the factor of skill is greater than luck when opponents are "gambling." ?

Note: The op also realizes that luck is a contributing factor to the game. The op just does not believe it to outweigh skill over a large enough sample.

OP, are you doing okay?

Hey Browski, did you forget your promise for a sober friday this week?

This is what happens when 5th level trolling meets 9th level failing.

I want to eat a cookie.

I'll admit, you present a tough argument, but I stand by my nonsensical two cents.

Are bots decent/beating certain limits? I'm sure they are..

but if you are a winning reg i dont think bots are a problem. They might lower your winrate abit, but you still beat them by a fair margin.

If PIOsolver, uses minutes to compute a single hand GTO lines with all the parameters prefixed, (bet sizes etc) with a modern solid PC, then a pre programmed bot are FAR AWAY from crushing top regs.

And 11th level trying too hard.

Should have just made an argument about why bots are good for the game