Point taken, and I agree with what you're saying. Maybe a war cry to ban all user aids is something to think about, although It would most likely just fall on deaf ears.

It is not wrong in general to have an advantage over another player. The whole idea of this (poker) exercise is to gain or find and edge, and make more money. If I make better use of the available allowed software, yes, this gives me an edge. So do such choices (which are available to everyone) as table selection, reading poker books, reading on these forums, and memorizing pot odds.

I'm sure everyone on here wants to gain an edge and win money, that's the whole point. The question is whethere we all have the same choices, and the same infomation (such as whether we are playing against bots).

The discussion here is not if botting is cheating - as ALL of us agree that botting is cheating from ToS point of view, when the respective ToS do not allow bots. It is cheating in exactly the same way as if you play poker proffesionally on some poker sites, or if you say something bad about poker sites in a forum (for others).

So here we have no disagreement.

The rest of the discussion was more about how ToS should be improved, so that they don't just come with random clauses based on what majority of the players want (or their business wants), but that they also make some sense. Of course - if certain rule is want by the majority of the players then you can argue that it already make sense from business and players point of view - so it make sense in general. In that regard, my aim is more to find some kind of a compromise, which makes all parties happy (e.g. allow bots, but mark them as such, so that human players can know when they play against bots, and even have option to not choose to play them).

Almost everyone on here will use software (or hardware) in one way or another, in ways that are not against a TOS to get an edge. I just switched to a bigger monitor, and moved up from 4- to 6-tabling (tiled) You might practice using Wilson Turbo software. It PokerTracer didn't exist, I could set up my own SQL database.

What is it you want? Should I be nice and play just one table at a time, not use any software at all except PokerStars, and stop reading poker books? Then I guess it would be fair. And why are you on 2+2? Doesn't that give you a big advantage against those that aren't on a poker forum?

Well, I'm about to play, so I better get drunk, lest I have an unfair advantage against others that are doing the same.

Umm.. you mean your goal here is to change the TOS to make YOU happy?

You just basically admitted that the majority of players do not want bots, which is true. Do you think most people have a desire to play online poker with bots instead of people? Of course not. Likewise, you confirmed that it's bad for business for sites to admit them. People are already paranoid of online poker, obviously admitting bots to the site would be horrible for business - like I said, no one wants them. So what exactly is your argument? Sounds like YOU want to change things for YOU.

Go away and get a hobby that doesn't cheat people. Go form your own site where bots can play.

Lets draw an parallell to another sport Tennis.

i build a robot that plays as good tennis as the best tennis players in the world and then I let it play a tennis cup instead of me beating all competition and it wins the gold prize wich is mine because I build the robot.

Does anyone think this would be accepted by the other tennis players?

Why should poker players ever accept playing poker against bots (robots)? especially as they dont know it.

Why dont we send robots to play poker at WSOP ? same thing as if we use them online.

Because bots are accepted in other online environments - like stocks trading, or online chess.

And on the tennis example, let say, TODAY, they allow bots to play (but they have to pay an entry fee too). Do you think players will NOT want that (today). You see - the thing is you assume somehow bots are going to win. While in fact, bots are no different than the rest of the poker players (and even at worse conditions), so 95% of them are actually going to lose.

And yes - I want to change the TOS to something acceptable for both human and bot players. I think if the topic of bots is trivialized by allowing them - this will work better for the fishes, than some FUD going on. And of course - I expect that many human players will not want to allow bots "as is", except if done in acceptable manner, as well as many botters will NOT want bots to be allowed - because they make more money when bots aren't allowed.

Poker bots are not like people, and neither are tennis bots.

Actually, it probably would be trivial to design a tennis bot that could serve at 160 MPH, or whatever the practical limit would be, and place the ball into one of the four corners of the serving area. That bot should win every game when he (it?) is on serve.

And poker bots are not the same as humans. Being able to play at peak efficiency for a month without resting, or to instantly calculate pot odds to several decimal places, is not trival. Poker is about making money in the long run, and a bot can grind for a very long run, and those decimal places (small edges) can add up pretty quickly.

This is tired. Indiana is delusional imo.

If a Bot is not unfair or gives no advantage. Why dont the botters give us none computer geeks their best bot to use. Why keep the info to themselves ??? Must be a reason.

Hey (I would answer 1 poster by exception)

A bot is as good as it is developed to be - as good as it strategy is. Why don't you as a pro post your complete strategy on 2+2? Your strategy is what gives you advantage, but this does not mean it gives you unfair advantage.

If course there are many bots that lose money (>95%) and their authors will not mind to give them to you, or try to sell them for minimal price.

Most people do not want bots - even if you have 1000 people on your forum that want bots that is like 1% of the poker population. Allowing bots on poker sites would hurt the site's bottom line more than it would help because people enjoy playing against other people - most do not want to play against a bot... it's simply human nature for most to prefer playing against humans. If there are a few labeled bots at many tables it can be hard for people to find bot free games - which sucks because most people do not want to play against bots. Also people are paranoid of online poker as it is. I think the bottom line is that sites that allow labeled bots would lose customers, so you really have no good argument as to why they should incorporate them anyway.

I understand that it is interesting to you to create bots and try to beat people and to that end I suggest, as I did before, that you do that in your own way in your own experiments or create your own site.

It is ludicrous to deny the potential unfair advantage bots can have - they can play 24 hours a day without emotion or tilt, always making the perfect mathematical decision. You're incorporating them on a poker site which explicitly says bots are not allowed. You're using them against unsuspecting opponents. In contrast, huds are allowed for all those who choose to use them and this is common knowledge. You're cheating people and you're doing it to satisfy your own interests. This is why you suck.

Bots are not well accepted in online chess in the sense that you are comparing poker to chess. Yes there are bot vs bot rooms and bot vs human rooms however virtually no one plays chess for money online because of freely available world class bots. Playing online backgammon for money disappeared overnight when world class bots (Jellyfish, Snowie) became widely available.

What the non-engineers fail to grasp...
Is the same fate is INEVITABLE for online poker.

Badbeat Poker is the template.

This is a sophisticated Irish financial trading firm...
That branched out into backing and managing...
Mid-level online poker grinders.

Their business model was possible for 2 reasons:

(1) A $5 million investment.

(2) Pre-existing trading computer infrastructure...
That allows close surveillance of their players.

Backing talented winning players is Step One.

Step Two...
They went to a 3rd World country (Serbia)...
And trained 50 intelligent novices from scratch...
To play in a very structured system...
And we able to manufacture break-even players...
Basically Human Bots.

Step Three becomes obvious.

You merge sophisticated Poker Bot AI infrastructure...
With the 3rd World "Human Bots"
Intelligent, break-even players you train from scratch...
And run sweat shops of "cyborgs"...
Smart guys running sophisticated Bots.

People are working on this...
The ONLY thing slowing it down...
Is that most people with 7-8 figure capital...
Are deploying it in the financial markets...
Because the poker world is actaully very tiny and sleazy.

That's what is slowing/stopping me.
I could do the above...
But I'm making 7 figures net annually trading...
So why bother with all the BS that comes with poker?

Today...
A bunch of penniless Grad Students...
Or idiot savants on skateboards...
Are the leading edge of Botting.

Who cares.

If Google threw $50 million at Poker Botting...
(Petty cash for them)...
It would be the end of online poker as we know it.
An equilibrium level of quality Bots in online poker...
Is a 100% forgone conclusion eventually.

So let's talk about it.

http://www.badbeat.com/Ease/ContentS...=Y&itemID=7349

[QUOTE=AliasUnrise;7211715]Most people do not want bots - even if you have 1000 people on your forum that want bots that is like 1% of the poker population. Allowing bots on poker sites would hurt the site's bottom line more than it would help because people enjoy playing against other people - most do not want to play against a bot... it's simply human nature for most to prefer playing against humans.QUOTE]

Yeah, I'll rethink my position when bots can come up with witty chat like the following at PokerStars:

"You called with king-three? You suck!"

"So does you mom, she was good last night."

[QUOTE=Poker Clif;7230497] surely bots can be programmed for this

The last two posts just shows my point about tilt is valid.

I'm BAFFLED by the lack of argument that "Bots can play without human supervision." If your bot is good enough, as Indiana claims his is, you can make money without actually being there playing at the computer. THAT IN ITSELF is WHY it is "morally wrong". **** the Terms of Service and technicalities. **** trying to rationalize what you KNOW is "wrong". Lastly, **** your bots. You want to make money playing poker, do it at your computer like the rest of us, you botting twats.

The above link illustrates exactly why humans are not bots. It is stated that they gave John Tabatabai a starting roll, but he did not respect the bankroll guidelines, and burned through the roll in no time. If John was a bot, this would not have happened. DUCY?

IndianaV8,

I don't care that bots are in use, and maybe even well accepted, in the stockbroker and online chess worlds. I am no stockbroker, nor do I play chess online. I do not care how they are made, nor how they function, since I know nothing of those worlds.

I do play poker however, and I know some things about it. Here is why a bot will never be "just like any human player":

1: Bots don't get overconfident.
2: Bots don't get frustrated.
3: Bots don't get impatient.
4: Bots won't get scared when playing at a new limit.
5: Bots will never play scared.
6: Bots don't get bored.
7: Bots don't get tired.
8: Bots do not have nor can lose nor gain respect of the game they are playing in.
9: Bots do not get distracted.
10: Bots will never have something on their minds, like "I gotta pay rent" or "Im in a hurry since I gotta go pick up the kids at school", that could affect their play, and somehow deviate from their actual programmed logic.
11: Bots will not have vendettas against certain players.
12: Bots cannot react, nor overreact, to situations in a way that affects their game.
13: Bots can't get emotional, nor angry, nor upset.
14: bots will not protect wins.
15: Bots cannot be affected by a string of negative results; their game will not deviate from their programming.


In short, humans are affected by all of these, but bots do not. How exactly can they ever be considered "just like any human player"?



Wake up from your delusion, and quit this nonsense.

Somewhat interesting thread, although most of it centers on the ethics of botting, and not so much on "Get to Know Your Bots".

There are at least two major technologies that are developing, the artificial intelligence and the automatic execution of the actions.

The AI has been developing over the years as knowledge of optimum poker strategy has improved. Knowledge of such things as starting hand selection, board reading, pot odds, aggression, position, stack sizes, player statistics , table statistics, etc. have improved for players in general. There are software tools and that allow online players to incorporate these considerations more effectively into their game, while still keeping the player in the loop. Most of these tools completely automate the recognition of the current game state and player stats. Most are allowed under the TOS of poker sites.

The automatic execution portion executes the strategy automatically, which eliminates player error, emotion, and fatigue. It permits "force multipliers" such as multi-tabling. The automatic execution portion is what is prohibited by almost all poker sites.

The AI portion will continue to evolve and improve, limited only by processing power programmer ingenuity and tenacity. Since NLHE is a game of imperfect information, the game will never be "solved".

The automatic execution portion will also evolve based on the detection and enforcement activities of poker sites.

Bots will range from simple "Trash-Folding Bots" to "Aggression Bots" to multi dimensional Profiling Bots that factor opponent tendencies into the strategy, and to "Collusion Bots".

I do not use bots. I support efforts by poker sites to eliminate them. It will be a never-ending battle.

Jere Tristan,

I can make same list against using HUDs and any sort of software. For example:
0: without a HUD but having only notes, you'll never know you play against 23/8 guy.

You get the idea.

Of course using software assistance while playing poker gives certain advantages (or potential for advantages). If software assistance is allowed, it's hard to draw a line. I'm sure that using HUD with big database gives bigger advantage against unaware fish in terms of EV, than all of your points above.

With that, discussion usually go back to the argue "but HUDs are allowed in the ToS". Okay, we do not disagree on this line, what's in the ToS is in there, making sense or not. We (and I) can only ask to change it. But don't tell me bots are in any serious way different than any other software assistance, nor they give bigger edge against unaware recreational player.

I have also rarely seen cases where HUDs decrease your EV. While we have 90-95% of the bots or botters actually losing money.

VP$IP, you have good understanding of things. I think you are incorrect that because poker is game of imperfect information it will never be solved. These two things are not related.

Solving poker is nowhere near us, because of the computational complexity, and the much more built in EV in exploitive situations rather than optimal play. That's why there is no "universally winning bots" - but it's a struggle to build one, and maintain one, just as any fish is struggling to become as good as a pro.

I also have one special remark:

I would like to separate collusion, from bots, and people need to do that as well. Collusion is independant thing and certainly not bound to bots. Collusion is cheating from pure game theory point of view, to illustrate that: it is on the level of hacking your opponent PC and reading his hole cards e.g. - that's the level of cheating it is at. And certainly you don't need a bot to collude.

In fact, most botters despite collusion, and have done concrete actions against that (collusion in/with botting). This is a matter of fact - I cannot be more specific without going into some sort of cross-forum marketing, so feel free to PM me if you like and I will prove this to you easily.

Firstly...
It's just as difficult to build/maintain an elite Poker Bot...
As to build/maintain a high level of poker expertise.

About 1% of REGULAR online poker players make > 100K/year...
And perhaps only the Top 1-2% of programmers...
Could build a Bot Operation that can net > 100K/ year...
And all these guys are already making 6 figures...
With GOOG or whomever.

Because it's not a shortcut at all...
But requires GREAT SKILL...
Successful Botters do not feel like they are "cheating".

Secondly...
The only comparable industry is Automated Trading...
Which is 1000 times more advanced and capitalized...
And perfectly legal.

I netted 7 figures in 2008... with sophisticated, quant Automated Trading System infrastructure that I've been evolving for 15 years... and am mucking around, as a hobby, with a Poker Bot driven by a 20 million hand database.

The Poker Bot is MUCH more complex than my ATS... and it will work... but I will ** probably never actually deploy it **... because adding 6 figures annually from shady Poker Bots... to 7 figures annually from respectable Automated Trading... is not a moral bridge one crosses lightly.

If even a few dozen well-capitalized Algo Trading firms...
Like the Bad Beat guys...
Diverted even 10% of their resources to Poker Botting...
Online poker would be over as we know it.

http://www.badbeat.com/Ease/ContentS...ategoryID=1464

Lol, so taking away 7 figures from other people is respectable, but taking away 6 fugures from other people is shady.

Otherwise - nice post!