I'm not sure if it's "cheating" IN GENERAL, but I would categorize it with short stacking ring games which is pretty lame. It IS cheating, however, on certain sites as they have made it against their rules.

Hey, they make their "arbitary rules" because they think they would make their customers feel safer and that their revenues would thusly increase, and it's in their right to do so.

If a player wants to play in an enviroment where there are no bots and he can play with other humans where he believes he has an edge (as most do) as opposed to against bots which they (wrongly, some posters have claimed) think have an edge over them-- they have the right to do that. They choose to play on sites where bots aren't allowed.

Now let's assume that bots are made public.

Will there be more or less dead money for regulars? Answer this.

Now let's also assume that there are sites which allow bots, and those that don't.

Which will have more traffic?

These are the practical issues. If you play Turbo SnGs or SSS in FR games, you're practically a bot anyway, multing 24 tables or more. Aside from the added advantage of running 24/7 (and perhaps getting caught) I don't see how it is any different, since you don't have any unfair advantage as a superuser who can see hole cards would. Is using a calculator while playing poker "cheating"? I would think not. Is following a little card with all the push/fold ranges written on cheating? I doubt it. So essentially it's like having a bunch of Chinese WoW gold farmers, except they'd be playing "poker" instead.

AFAIK human gold farmers is better than bots for some reason, but I don't really know why. Maybe having a bunch of poor guys to glue their eyes onto a screen is more ethical. Something like that.

Anyway, the bottomline is that it's +EV for the regular grinders that bots banned, and they probably will be banned where possible, so it doesn't really matter.

Yes, I think there's a point in saying that botting isn't cheating in the traditional sense. Botting isn't

a) setting up decks
b) colluding and gaining information that others do not have access to (HUDs don't count, as I consider it as simply a precise analysis of the information presented)
c) breaking/bypassing game rules

"Fatigue" is irrelevant because you can't say another player is cheating just because he drinks a coffee or redbull or has inhuman stamina. Bot or human, that "player" is playing by the rules and is not cheating at Texas Hold'em. At most he's "cheating" by breaking the site's particular rules.

I don't know if you believe in moral relavatism, but if people wants to play on a site that does not allow botting, that's their choice, so despite all that, botting is unethical because it is, afaik, against the poker site's regulations and the players' expectation. Maybe I'm wrong in that, in which case the players should just move sites. It's that simple.

@RoSeeker - this is good and very rational post. Even if we have different goals and incentives (mine is to rationalzie botting), I'm happy to see that there are people able to argue with reason, and I can't say that any of your argumentaton is flawed.

There are, however, few thigns to add (or turn your attention to). While we both agree that everything against the ToS is cheating in the particular casino (and not neccessarily in general), you have to see that the current ToS of the pokersites are business driven - not only from the point of view of what "players" want, but the casino itself. Think of ToS rules rules like "you should not play proffesionally" or "you should not say anything bad about the casino in media or forums". Is there any 2+2er that doesn't break those rules?

Such argument, of course, does not rationalize botting, it just says that when botting is cheating as defined in the ToS, it's not a huge moral issue for the players that choose to break this, as all players break the same ToS anyway.

The second thing to turn you attention is that while currently sites ban botting, they allow things that are unfair advantage from game theory point of view. Simple thing here is exchanging hand histories, or buying them. If you build opponent models with illegally obtained hands, you gain unfair advantage (if you know game theory - the thing here is look at NE not for one hand, but for a whole session. If you have to theoretically calculate NE in such setup, you are at advantage by having profiled your opponent appriory. It is like knowing one of his hole cards).

If some sites go forward and make illegal to use ANY software while playing poker on them, then I would revisit and rethink my position.

Finally - on the practical aspect of things (i.e. we forget all of how things should be defined) - if sites allow bots, but put enough effort in linking accounts and disallowing multiaccounting - I'm definitely sure that money in poker will increase for regulars if bots are allowed (and in the current situation - I cannot be sure it is the case, but it is at least zero sum, i.e. bots don't take money away).

IMO if bots become as strong and as available as they are for chess, backgammon or even Scrabble it would kill online poker. Poker is just about the only game where humans will play a significant amount against each other for cash online. This is in large part because of the absence of freely available world class strength bots.

Hm, I'll take any bot HU4Rollz.

Unless they make a bot that can switch gears. Until then, you can pickup on betting patterns/plays/etc 10x easier than against a human who isnt always rational.

Each site makes their own rules.

Just about every site in existence says bots are against the rules.

Therefore bots are usually against the rules and using a bot is cheating.

No need to even go into what advantage using bots may gain you. Just the act of using one is illegal.

Hmmm .... maybe you would take any bot HU at NL with decently deep stacks for rolls. But if you'll take any bot at limit holdem for rolls you're likely dumb as there is one bot anyway that can currently hold its own at HU limit poker against the best HU limit poker players in the world. Sure you could probably beat 99.5% of bots but you said any bot and I'd say there's at least 1 bot that can beat you probably. Bots have a lot more trouble when more people are at the table and have a riciculously large more amount of trouble at No Limit games. Combine the two ... bots are very far off if it'll ever happen from owning the games ... but if you narrow the game enough; for example to HU Limit Holdem a bot can do alright ... in fact the top bot designed by pretty much the smartest people on Earth who tried .. anyway yea it holds its own vs. the top human players though a couple of those humans did outperform it although a couple others lost.


So yea there was one bot desinged like that though everyone knows about it. It was more like a science project.



Edit:


Still wanna say bots are not too available. The ones that are available usually suck and lose money anyway. There are a very few number of bots that are successful in a very narrow type of game and the only bot that most people recognize as being somewhat successful (successfull at ONLY exactly HU Limit Holdem) is basically a science expironment for I don't remember who.....But it is well known. (At the very least it's well known among poker players anyway .... it was discussed in a few threads at 2+2 although I don't remember whjat forum ... and many top limit players commented on it and in fact played against for probably a small sample but did play it.).



Edit: I didn't read a lot of posts before this one. I apologize if mine is repetitive or even worse I apologize if mine is contradicted by people who know more than me.

you don't... until you get some "Extra" money in your poker account.

not very widespread i guess.. but there are probably ( wait no scratch that, there ARE] bots at EVERY poker site

Yes. It's as illegal as saying that UltimateBet is a bad site (Both things are against some business ToS, to which you agreed).

if u honestly believe there is cheating involved you should contact the site support str8 away, and if u have, what has there response been?

What's your point?

aahhh.. too much reading.

someone just tell me where i can purchase a bot. ty.

His point is... most poker site TOS ban:

(1) Professional players.

(2) Slandering the poker site with wild accusations.

(3) Using bots.

So every single high volume 2+2er...
Is committing "illegal" acts constantly...
But people are unfairly singling out #3...
A subject ONLY software engineers understand to any degree.

People... a grip.

20 years ago fully automated stock trading was illegal. Not just against some offshore web site's rules. But ** criminal ** under US Federal Law. Every order had to be sent by a human decision and keystroke. Though it could be a complex basket order like 80s "program trading".

Today > 50% of ALL financial trading is 100% computerized... with NO human intervention whatsoever. And it's 100% INEVITABLE that the online poker world will soon have some equilibrium level of Bots... 20% or 30% or 40% whatever. Most of them will be run by very smart teens... because there is no "Adult Money" in poker botting.

The online casinos do not give a ****...
About Bots or about YOU.

Stop complaining. Just adapt... or die.

What sites bans professional players, and what is that site's definition of a professional?

The last time I looked, Full Tilt, PokerStars, and many other sites let you play against players such as Chris Ferguson and Daniel Negreanu, who by any definition would be considered professionals.

Indiana and others want to turn this into a "no game theory advantage" discussion. I don't understand why a business's terms of service must be limited in such narrow ways.

It's entirely legitimate for a private business to provide services along the lines that the overwhelming majority of customers want. If a poker site wants to ban bots - in accordance with the wishes of the overwhelming majority of its players - then it should be entitled to do so. The idea that bot writers have some sort of "right" to use the private services of a private business is truly absurd.

Efforts to circumvent these rules are neither moral, nor just, and they shouldn't be permitted by the various sites.

This is nonsense.

Hey Josem.

On your first post we are in complete agreement. You agree that there is nothing immoral in using bot as such (from game theory standpoint), it is just like using any other software, while playing poker. Being it HUD, or anything else. And I agree with you - that any pokersite is a business, that is in its full right to provide its service under any terms that it likes (of course only such that are legal under site's local jurisdiction).

So in that respect, we are in agreement, and I only hope that at some point enough people would wish that Stars introduce a way to allow bots - by marking them as such, for example, so that players that do not want to play against bots - can avoid them.

There are two things, where we disagree:

1) If you say it's moral and fine (and I agree to that), that a site can pull any terms of service based purely on the site's business model, then I would say people trying to circumvent the bot detetions, and by this break the terms of service agreement, are not doing something inherently immoral. They simply weight risk vs reward, as any business do, so they do exactly what Starts does.

2) What RedManPlus says is not nonsense. We know you guys are good at fine tuning things in your ToS, but everyone of RedMan's statements has been part of several casinos ToS. The one about banning proffesional play was UB & AP - OK, we know about these sites - but still. The matter of fact is, many poker player has violated this ToS. Then take the rule "don't say something bad about my pokersite in media or forum" - this is in the ToS of PartyPoker. Then take the datamining thing - which is against FullTilt, but many people choose to do, and FTP don't care on top.

In conclusion, I think the "game theory standpoint", that I often reiterate, is important, and I do not say it just to rationalize botting. I say it because it is fundamental point, one that distinguish things like collusion, client hacking, server hacking, services like pokeredge - from things like bots, advisors, and just any helper software, that does not make use of unfairly obtained information.

This is very important line to draw, and respect.

You're spot on that if you limit the morality to a game theory standpoint - but my point was that limiting the morality to a game theory point of view only is not reasonable.

To make a metaphor: The 100metre Olympics race is, from a game theory point of view, a contest to see who can run the fastest from Point A to Point B.

It is permissible and moral to train, and to use vitamin supplements, and the like. It is not permissible, and immoral, to use drugs to enhance your ability. The Ben Johnsons of the world are clearly immoral cheaters - because the organisers of the contest decided that protein supplements are acceptable, and testosterone supplements are not.

The onus is not on the Olympics to run a testosterone-permitted 100m race - if you want to compete in such a race, you are welcome to go do so elsewhere. Start your own and see how many people want to take part.

The same thing applies here - it is permissible and moral to study, and to use acceptable software and the like. It is not permissible, and immoral, to use bots to enhance your ability. The bot-users of the world are clearly immoral cheaters - because the organisers of the contest decided that databases and HUDs are acceptable, and bots are not.

The onus is not on the existing poker operators to run a bot-permitted poker game - if you want to compete in such a game, you are welcome to go do so elsewhere. Start your own and see how many people want to take part.

You still ignored my 1) and 2) points - and picked up on the morality of botting. Fair.

I think your example with the Olympics is inappropriate. Vitamins don't make real difference to the run. HUDs and data mining do. So your example translates to something like "only allowing drugs produced in US, but not allowing drugs produced in Vietnam, e.g." - this is a policy that allows HUDs and data miners, but do not allow bots.

You try to motivate, that something a player can learn - worth allowing. Well - players can learn to develop bots. They can learn programming, and combining their programming skills, with their poker skills, allows them to implement a bot. It's the same as learning to use a HUD, isn't it? It's just a bit more effort. Please tell me the difference, otherwise.

So we are back to what you want to allow as a business, based on your business model. Of course you will follow what most of your players want. If most of all your players want to change the rules of poker, and add 2 additional cards per player, and allow players to share 1 of their cards, and allow playes to play if they haven't drunk any coffee - you will do it, as you are, first of all, and after all, a business.

So please leave the morality out of it.

Is indianaV8 the same person as Indiana who used to post here a long time ago?

@guitarizt - No, I never used to post on twoplustwo under different name. Otherwise, I'm usually indiana in every place where this isn't taken already.

An obvious explanation of "doing what is right"...
So your buddies can say, "Good show that, Old Chap".

Unfortunately, "morality" plays ** no significant role **...
In business, politics, or sports... never has.

But this debate is REALLY about technology...
And web site rules that hold back computer technology...
Sort of like silly ISP rules banning Spam...
When in fact ISPs profit from Spam...
Similar to the way poker sites profit from Bots.

Bottom line...
You cannot stop Spam...
And you cannot stop Poker Bots...
You cannot stop Automated Financial Trading...
You cannot stop Insider Trading.

Why?

Because the "bad guys"...
Are ALWAYS smarter and more highly motivated...
Than the "good guys".

Indiana is smarter and more highly motivated...
Than the engineers in a Northern India sweat shop...
That are punching the clock...
And maybe slowing down botters a wee bit.

It took Party Poker 3-4 years to roll out a new version last month... with extremely minimal enhancements. "Rocket scientists" do not work for poker sites... 3rd World grinders do.

Well, I am Bot, and am easy to beat, so no worries mates, we Bots are way too prediccccc whoops gotta charge the batterrrriie

forgive me if i missed a post as i only skimmed through this thread. I have on several occasions been asked to type passwords in the chat box on pokerstars. i believe they do this to ensure i am not a bot or something. has anyone had this happen to them on stars. to be more clear, it will be a password like that you need to enter to make s/n's on yahoo where the letters are all squigly etc. thanks.

Jus tell em UberBot sent u, u should be OK mate.
Your post has nothing to do with this thread.

I find that your lack of comprehension gives me a headache.

First off, vitamins don't really make a difference to a run? What planet are you from? Please show me some Olympic athletes who are deficient on some of their vitamins. Your point here is completely irrelevant but annoying for being so wrong.

If the organizers of the race said you can only use drugs from the U.S. and you knowingly use drugs from Vietnam - that's immoral and cheating. It makes no difference what the drug's effect is. The point is you know the rules of the race and deliberately violate them.

Let me show you one connotation of the meaning of "immoral":

immoral

adjective
1. deliberately violating accepted principles of right and wrong

Now we could travel down a dark hole trying to discuss what's truly "right" and "wrong" but that doesn't seem remotely necessary here.

Using huds is accepted and using bots is not, so if you're using a bot you're cheating everyone else.

Your other points don't make any sense. I suppose you're trying to say that it motivates you to try and use a bot and it gives you something to do with your skills. What if it motivates me to kill people and I'm very skillful at it, does this make it morally acceptable? Obviously the answer is no. And obviously it's not morally acceptable to use bots because it motivates YOU.

Yes a business is concerned with it's bottom line, that doesn't change the fact that there are moral and immoral ways to treat one another. And by the way you haven't even remotely shown why morals should be left out of the equation by simply stating that a business will adapt for its customer base so your final plea is laughable.

Come on man.