Poker Bots [Note: Thread bumped from 10/05] [Archive]

sassy

10-30-2005, 02:42 PM

A problem now and more importantly in the near future of bots playing on the internet is severe. There is only one commercial program (that I know of) that is being sold as a poker bot. Whether this program is particularily good or not is debatable. What is not debatable is that there is serious research being done on Poker bots. The main one is at the University of Alberta. They have setups that allow you to use your poker bot against their award winnng bot. They open source some of their code. And in general are encourging the creation of bots.

A really good bot would not be able to win more than a really good player - PLAYING AT HIS BEST. This is the problem and danger of bots. Assuming for a moment that such a really good bot exists - it would win MORE than a comparable really good player, because it doesn't get tired, doesn't go on tilt, never forgets the way an opponet played a hand, etc.

I suspect that fair to good bots are already playing and that within a year or two MANY excellent ones will be playing. Will these be sold commercially? I doubt it. They probably would not want to make the fact known. Can the sites stop this? This too I doubt. This is going to be a massive problem. It's reported that Party Poker has 100 people involved solely in the research and monitoring of poker bots. If they are taking this seriously - shouldn't we? For other sites that do not have the resourses of Party Poker, the problem will only be worse.

The challenge of writing a "bot" program intrigues me. I'm a fair programmer and and only a fair to poor poker player. My bot could only play as well as I could program it to, so why the big problem in letting my bot play? None really. If fact everyone should encourage it. More playing time = more profits for you! The problem is that there are excellent programmers out there and teamed with excellent poker players, they are going to write some "killer" bots that just cannot be beat.

OrcaDK

10-30-2005, 03:44 PM

Bad bots could also pose problems you know. Set out 5000 slighty +EV bots, that'd totally thin out the fish market. Suddenly you'd be sitting at a table with 80% "okay" players instead of the usual 80% fish.

smoore

10-30-2005, 03:45 PM

Why couldn't you write a bot that followed SSHE to the letter? That's the problem I've always had with the argument of, "A bad poker player can only program a bad poker bot." I don't know much about programming but I can read, ya know?

SlowStroke

10-30-2005, 04:03 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Why couldn't you write a bot that followed SSHE to the letter?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because there is no such thing.

Poker is really a people game - it just looks like a card game.

Every decision is situational and unique.

Books can provide great ideas about what kinds of things you should be thinking about to arrive at good decisions for each of these unique situations.

In other words - there is no such thing as following SSHE to the letter. To believe otherwise is to completely misunderstand the nature of the game.

solucky

10-30-2005, 04:21 PM

they still play and win but they are not commercial

blackize

10-30-2005, 04:25 PM

Bots fare very poorly multiway. The University of Alberta's bot, which is one of the most advanced, sucks unless it is playing heads up.

Synergistic Explosions

10-30-2005, 04:50 PM

You should worry more about people playing with multiple ID's at the same table, or colluding with others at the same table more than bots.

tunnel

10-30-2005, 05:05 PM

I can still remember when the first chess bots were sold. They played awfully, and every expert told us they would never be able to beat a human grandmaster.

Nowadays, nobody can beat them anymore. However, people keep telling you that no one could program a poker bot which beats strong human players.

Wait and see.

smoore

10-30-2005, 05:06 PM

Well, I'm a NLHE tournament player by choice but I of course play LHE at the micros to clear a bonus. AFACT, I'm playing as close to the strategy outlined in SSHE as I can manage. I don't even pay attention to the game and barely pay attention to the other player's habits. It takes a real donk or a complete shark for me to put a note on them. As I type this I'm clearing the Paradise bonus at the .5/1 tables. I'm sure I could make more money if I actually paid attention but I simply don't care, I'm just there to pump my BR so I can try to move into higher tournament stakes sooner.

So in a nutshell I do understand that poker is a game of betting, not cards. I don't think it neccesarily has to be a game of people though, just a game of those little stats in my HUD.

I understand almost nothing of AI so I could very well be making different moves based on something I don't even notice.

2+2 wannabe

10-30-2005, 05:15 PM

OMG POKER BOTS ONLINE POKER IS RIGGED!!!!1111ONE!!

OrcaDK

10-30-2005, 05:23 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I can still remember when the first chess bots were sold. They played awfully, and every expert told us they would never be able to beat a human grandmaster.

Nowadays, nobody can beat them anymore. However, people keep telling you that no one could program a poker bot which beats strong human players.

Wait and see.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you can't see the difference between writing a chess bot and a poker bot, you're missing something.

thedustbustr

10-30-2005, 05:55 PM

All of your "people situations" and "reads" can be reduced to numbers by poker tracker, a piece of software. Many players use these numbers instead of reads so they can play 10 tables at once. Hell, when you post a hand for analysis from a session from more than a day or two ago, you almost certainly have forgotten these situational details you speak of and only have what PT has recorded. A bot can take these numbers and spit out a conclusion just as easily as a human can, in theory. Has anyone successfully written a bot that lives up to the potential? Probably not. Will they, in time? Absolutely. All of your "situational and unique" situations can be reduced to a set of numbers, and given these numbers, the players in this forum can conclude a "correct" course of action. If a human can apply a set of rules to arrive at a conclusion, so can a bot. Computers excel at following sets of rules. It's called an algorithm.

Any LHE player will tell you that limit poker is a game of math and odds, not people. LHE can be played profitably without any reads at all, if you play your own hand correctly. NL is also, to a somewhat lesser extent, the gap being the importance of reads. PT-type software tends to make up for this gap.

OP: As you theorized, you probably don't have to be scared yet, but yes, there will be poker AIs as advancements in AI continue.

Disclaimer: I am in school for computer engineering, minors in computer science and math. No, I don't have my degree yet.

thedustbustr

10-30-2005, 05:55 PM

oh, shut the [censored] up.

SlowStroke

10-30-2005, 06:05 PM

I think that you are underestimating the amount of skill that you bring to the game.

I know that LHE at the micros seems easy now. But I'll bet that at first it was not so easy. You probably spent many hours reading and studying the game. And I'll bet that it took thousands of hands of actual experience before you became a winning player.

All that experience many seem second nature to you now. And when confronted with a complex post flop problem, you can probably make a solid intelligent decision in a split second.

I believe that the skill you have developed to beat LHE is more of a pattern recognition skill - it is not just a long list of rule base decision making skills. This is certainly true of post flop play (pre-flop play lends itself more to rule based thinking)

Programming a rule based system is easy. But programming a pattern recognition system is much more complex than you would expect. Just because you and I are able to perform the task so effortlessly you might think it would be easy to program, but it is not.

Think of it like human face recognition. Infants can easily recognize people by looking at their faces. But even today computers have great difficulty with this task.

I think that when faced with a unique post flop problem you are able to match it to a pattern in your mind based on thousands of hands of experience and arrive at the best match that provides the best play. You are so good at it that it seems easy.

All I'm saying is that this is really an amazing skill - and to convert this skill into a rule based computer program is a very difficult task. I don't think reading SSHE is enough.

MyTurn2Raise

10-30-2005, 06:08 PM

to follow up...today, I played Bet365 with a bunch of whores that were clearly just trying to clear bonuses. The table VPIP was 18 and PFR 8. Ugly table, right? Not so, I just adjusted and ended 50BB up not even running that hot. SSHE does not make a complete player. IF you know that they know that you know that they know....what next?

ChuckyB

10-30-2005, 06:09 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Why couldn't you write a bot that followed SSHE to the letter? That's the problem I've always had with the argument of, "A bad poker player can only program a bad poker bot." I don't know much about programming but I can read, ya know?

[/ QUOTE ]

It could follow SSHE's pre-flop recommendations to the letter, but after the flop there are so many variables and possibilities, it would be very, very tough to consider them all.

smoore

10-30-2005, 06:11 PM

I see what you are saying. Like I said, I know very little about programming in general and even less about AI systems. I will defer to your intelligent and educated answer.

edit: so here's a question: Would a talented programmer who knew nothing about chess be able to create a tough AI opponent simply by researching? How about backgammon? I know I sure can't beat that popular backgammon program (snow?... don't remember).

SlowStroke

10-30-2005, 06:12 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Has anyone successfully written a bot that lives up to the potential? Probably not. Will they, in time? Absolutely.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree.

I am just saying that poker is a much more complex game than it looks like on the surface.

And to write such a program will require much more than simply reading SSHE.

Quicksilvre

10-30-2005, 06:17 PM

Didn't Party just add those security type-in things to prevent bots from playing?

OrcaDK

10-30-2005, 06:21 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I see what you are saying. Like I said, I know very little about programming in general and even less about AI systems. I will defer to your intelligent and educated answer.

edit: so here's a question: Would a talented programmer who knew nothing about chess be able to create a tough AI opponent simply by researching? How about backgammon? I know I sure can't beat that popular backgammon program (snow?... don't remember).

[/ QUOTE ]

Given unlimited calculation time, a programmer should be able to write a chess bot without knowing anything about the game, except the possible moves and the chess board.

Jimbo

10-30-2005, 06:38 PM

OrcaDK

10-30-2005, 06:40 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I see what you are saying. Like I said, I know very little about programming in general and even less about AI systems. I will defer to your intelligent and educated answer.

edit: so here's a question: Would a talented programmer who knew nothing about chess be able to create a tough AI opponent simply by researching? How about backgammon? I know I sure can't beat that popular backgammon program (snow?... don't remember).

[/ QUOTE ]

Given unlimited calculation time, a programmer should be able to write a chess bot without knowing anything about the game, except the possible moves and the chess board.

[/ QUOTE ] (And the objective)

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes /images/graemlins/wink.gif

Innocentius

10-30-2005, 07:27 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I see what you are saying. Like I said, I know very little about programming in general and even less about AI systems. I will defer to your intelligent and educated answer.

edit: so here's a question: Would a talented programmer who knew nothing about chess be able to create a tough AI opponent simply by researching? How about backgammon? I know I sure can't beat that popular backgammon program (snow?... don't remember).

[/ QUOTE ]

Given unlimited calculation time, a programmer should be able to write a chess bot without knowing anything about the game, except the possible moves and the chess board.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, with unlimited calculation time, a computer could play perfect chess, but unfortunately you, me, our grandchildren, and probably all of humanity would be dead before it made its first move. I could write such a program in a couple of days, but it would be rather pointless.

A better answer to the question is no, a programmer who doesn't know anything about chess couldn't write a chess program able to beat top players without help from someone with chess knowledge. First of all, for a program to have a chance against top players, it needs a good opening book, and for that you need someone with good opening knowledge. Second, since programs do not have unlimited calculation time, they search only a limited number of moves ahead. At this "horizon" the resulting position has to be evaluated and assigned a number, so that the program can select the move that seems to lead to the most promising position. Writing a good evaluation function requires a lot of chess knowledge, and trial-and-error. Finally, chess knowledge is required for guiding the search itself. Top programs today evaluate "forced" lines first, which saves a lot of time, for instance. The programmer has to be able to tell the program how to determine if a line is forced.

Most top programs today are written by excellent programmers with a lot of chess knowledge, and with strong grandmasters as consultants. Above all, the programmers involved have a lot of experience with chess programming, which is not something you have just because you can program other things.

gurgeh

10-30-2005, 07:48 PM

[ QUOTE ]
All of your "people situations" and "reads" can be reduced to numbers by poker tracker, a piece of software.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have notes on several player that says something to the effect of the following:

"Bets at flops that he completely misses with a shitty A."

"Goes crazy after pairing any A"

"Caps every street with open-ender or better"

"Always slowplays strong flopped hands to river, strongplays top or second pair"

How exactly do you intend to use Poker Tracker to know these things? PT does not do postflop play analysis, at least as far as I know. Aggression factor is not the same thing.

I think you're mixing up "It will eventually be done" with "It's nowhere near that level." And in any case, nobody in his right mind would release such valuable software for any price. The profits at even $2-$4 10-tabling 24 hours a day, not to mention rakeback, would be far more than could be had via commercial sales.

Spee

10-30-2005, 07:53 PM

[ QUOTE ]
If you can't see the difference between writing a chess bot and a poker bot, you're missing something.

[/ QUOTE ]

Gee ... lemme see ... something about complete information and incomplete information. /images/graemlins/blush.gif

gurgeh

10-30-2005, 07:56 PM

1) Bots are not scary because they suck.
2) Bots are not scary because they will continue to suck well into the future.
3) Bots are not scary because even if bots were any good, the number and quality of countermeasures used against them would increase past the point that they are useful for anything but selling to gullible people on eBay.
4) Bots are not scary because anyone good enough at poker to write a decent one would immediately see the massive amount of money he could have by using it by himself, and the rather paltry sum he could have by selling it to lots of other people.

However:

Bots are scary because they are keeping new fish out of the game. People are already convinced that losing with AA 5/10 times is statistically impossible and think online poker is rigged. The idea of bots playing is one of the factors that may seriously eat into the pool of new players who would otherwise deposit, if only they thought the games were fair. That, rumors of collusion (and some real cases of it I guess), and the "poker is rigged" bit are going to seriously hurt us all in the long run unless better steps are taken to counter them.

So yeah, poker bots are a factor. But not in the way you say they are.

Spee

10-30-2005, 08:02 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Most top programs today are written by excellent programmers with a lot of chess knowledge, and with strong grandmasters as consultants. Above all, the programmers involved have a lot of experience with chess programming, which is not something you have just because you can program other things.

[/ QUOTE ]

There's a huge different between programming a poker bot and a chess pot. One involves finite variables and complete information. The other involves a much greater number of variables and incomplete information.

If a human player knows what the rule sets are for a poker algorithm, then it is likely that the player may be able to determine a strategy to beat the bot (i.e., make it make errors). I think commercial apps like PT and TTH give a good indication of how many different ways these variables could be represented, and what strategic alternatives might be.

Unabridged

10-30-2005, 09:12 PM

if i were going to write a bot, it would be for stud8. the game's decisions are much more calculation based than read based. i think it would be many times easier than writing a bot for LHE.

thedustbustr

10-30-2005, 09:27 PM

[ QUOTE ]
"Bets at flops that he completely misses with a shitty A." "Goes crazy after pairing any A" "Caps every street with open-ender or better"

[/ QUOTE ]All these are symptoms of a loose maniac 40 VPIP, Post Flop Aggression 5.5, 10 Bluffs/100 (not recorded in PT but easily calculated by a computer logging a table). Do you think that a program can't note the fact that a guy constantly shows down bluffs?

[ QUOTE ]
"Always slowplays strong flopped hands to river, strongplays top or second pair"

[/ QUOTE ] OK, there are no PT stats for this, but a clever program can calculate seperately the % times a player aggressively plays monsters and the % times a player aggressively plays vulnerable hands. If you can make a note on it, a computer can keep a stat on it.

gurgeh

10-30-2005, 09:40 PM

[ QUOTE ]
All these are symptoms of a loose maniac 40 VPIP, Post Flop Aggression 5.5, 10 Bluffs/100 (not recorded in PT but easily calculated by a computer logging a table). Do you think that a program can't note the fact that a guy constantly shows down bluffs?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yet another reason why your program won't work: The guys I made notes of in this case don't fit your profile.

[ QUOTE ]
OK, there are no PT stats for this, but a clever program can calculate seperately the % times a player aggressively plays monsters and the % times a player aggressively plays vulnerable hands. If you can make a note on it, a computer can keep a stat on it.

[/ QUOTE ]

A clever program? What program would that be? Now we're into clever programs that don't exist that are supporting poker bots that don't exist.

This is all a lot of poker learning and a lot of hard coding for a program that Party won't have much trouble sniffing out anyway.

MyTurn2Raise

10-30-2005, 11:01 PM

[ QUOTE ]
if i were going to write a bot, it would be for stud8. the game's decisions are much more calculation based than read based. i think it would be many times easier than writing a bot for LHE.

[/ QUOTE ]

I suggest omaha8. I think a bot could bet the .5/1 within 6 months if it isn't already.

TheNutStraight

10-31-2005, 11:33 AM

[ QUOTE ]
The profits at even $2-$4 10-tabling 24 hours a day, not to mention rakeback, would be far more than could be had via commercial sales.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you allow your bot to 10 table 24/7 you will draw attention to your bot. You have to allow it to play the number of hours a human would play. I'm sure there are other red flags that Party watches for......

POKhER

10-31-2005, 12:03 PM

I think many of your underestimate/Overestimate a few things:

When you multitable(8 for example) I dont believe many of you pay attention and make many notes per hour... I believe if playing 8tables your moving around from table to table so fast your focusing on that hand at that one moment in time.

Therefore when you come into a hand heads up Vs Mr 10/2/0.10 and he bets and raises you, you may assume your behind and fold?

Why cant a computer check this AF and fold also? Why cant a computer examine its hand and apply values to it in order of strength?

It will take a while and alot of universal modules to be coded aswell as a good "Value system" to apply values to Hand strengths etc.

But i could write a program i play a flush draw sucessfully, I could write a program to play alot of draws and Poketpairs sucessfully im sure.

Of course there will be tough situations, the ones we post in this forum that will be hard to code... But i think you guys are making two major mistakes.

1, Underestimating the power of computers/programs.
2, Over estimating the skills you use whilst multitabling to grind 1-2BB/100.

I was going to try make a bot, Unfortunatly i have little time as i prefer to play than code... and reading the cards off the table on some software would be tough.

However, Software such as VC display your hand in text form which can be read.

I dont see bots being a major issue, However i disagree with the belief that they cannot be made and play profitably.

Geee, Newbies using a starting hand chart can win vs newbie fish at party for example.

I would be very interested in creating a basic bot to play some poker when i have some free time, Not to be released or used. Just as a challenge.

tunnel

10-31-2005, 12:35 PM

[ QUOTE ]
If you can't see the difference between writing a chess bot and a poker bot, you're missing something.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I spent some time programming chess software, and I have decent knowledge about game theory as well. So you may believe me I see the difference.

This was not my point. I just tried to show that people tend to underestimate the possiblity of progress. It is not logical to say "creating a poker bot is more difficult, so it is impossible." I prefer to say "creating a poker bot is more difficult, so it will take a little bit longer."

OldLearner

10-31-2005, 12:35 PM

Around 20 years ago, one of the first "expert" weather systems was implemented.

The weatherman still deviates from what the "expert" system predicts the weather to be. But this is an example of AI working with a lot of incomplete information 20 years ago. It does it much better today and is often correct when the weatherman deviates from the forecast it has determined.

Do not be so naive to think that the technology/methodology does not exist to write a poker bot that could beat 95% of the players.

Consider a bot that can

- record much more detail about a player than you can
- recall that detail flawlesslly and instantaneouslly
- "learn" and draw conclusions from accumulated information

A good bot will actually make a lot of "close" decisions better than you because it's memory is flawless and is not clouded by human factors.

95% of players DO NOT THINK OUTSIDE OF THE BOX. Rather, their play can be reduced to a rather FINITE set of rules. Better players have more sophisticated or "better" sets of rules that guide their play, but only the very best players actually think outside the box.

AI is stll in its infancy as far as "thinking outside of the box" goes. It's still ahead of the majority of good poker players, let alone the fish.

Do not be so naive to think that just because it hasn't been done yet that it is not possible.

gurgeh

10-31-2005, 09:30 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The profits at even $2-$4 10-tabling 24 hours a day, not to mention rakeback, would be far more than could be had via commercial sales.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you allow your bot to 10 table 24/7 you will draw attention to your bot. You have to allow it to play the number of hours a human would play. I'm sure there are other red flags that Party watches for......

[/ QUOTE ]

And your point is . . . what? A poker bot that could be created to win consistently would be more profitable being used by the creator alone. By selling it to the few people foolish enough to buy it, you're basically sending a message to online poker sites that they need to use more resources to detect AI, and they WILL succeed in doing so. One guy creating a poker bot is not a threat, and mass distribution of a poker bot means that it either a) blows donkey balls, or b) can't get around being detected. Anything better would be pointless to release to the general public.

marvepo

11-22-2005, 02:45 PM

The game level demonstrated by the bots in WSOPR that have taken place in Las Vegas, was really good, the 6 bots had a level worthy of this competition, it was very touching to see how they played, even better than many humans.

punter11235

11-22-2005, 03:03 PM

[ QUOTE ]
There's a huge different between programming a poker bot and a chess pot. One involves finite variables and complete information. The other involves a much greater number of variables and incomplete information.

[/ QUOTE ]

Amount of variables in poker is finite too.
Ok Poker is diffrent than chess and harder to program but it doesnt change the fact that optimal strategy in poker exists and you can play perfectly without even noticing who is playing with you.
Leaving alone optimal strategy I dont see any reasons why programs are doomed to be worse than people at exploiting one's tendencies etc. Its only matter of time and programming techniques. (But there is some hope, maybe Poker is complicated enough that writing any good program will be very difficult (which is the case with go for example where even the best programs cant compete at amateur level).

Best wishes

The_Drizzle

11-22-2005, 05:10 PM

I have made a bot, slowly in my part-time over a year.

PreFlop it uses SSHE Strategy.
PostFlop is uses the ideas outlined in the research from U of Alberta. [These are great sources]

My bot made me $30,000 this last year. About half was from bonus whoring, about $15,000 in table profits.

I am currently investing my time in moving to new sites and I will be moving up to $2/$4 LHE this year (I've never played above $1/$2). I have friends that run the bot under their accounts also, I give them a 25% cut of profits.

Now I am in no way a good programmer. Imagine what would happen if someone competent made a bot? I am only speculating, but I do not see any reason why the researching team at U of A wouldn't have a bot playing online for real money right now.

[ QUOTE ]
The challange of writing a "bot" program intrigues me. I'm a fair programmer and and only a fair to poor poker player.

[/ QUOTE ]

You should seriously write a bot then. Initially, I did the 'bot' so that I could develop my programming skills. And this did happen, but I also grew tremendously as a poker player.

In the first few months when I watched it play it was so exciting. It was sometimes teaching me to play. There were times it would make a move and I would say WTF? I would look it up in SSHE, or I would carefully check the odds and the bot was almost always making the better move.

There is nothing more exciting than building a bot from scratch, watching it, tweaking it, learning from it, making money on it, etc. It was a great personal accomplishment and I am proud of myself.

I realize I opened the floodgates...so please respond with your "you're an idiot/moron", "YSSCKY", ethics/morality lessons, whatever...

Alobar

11-22-2005, 05:16 PM

[ QUOTE ]
It's reported that Party Poker has 100 people involved solely in the research and monitoring of poker bots.

[/ QUOTE ]

ahahahhahahhahah, thats funny.

Inside im crying tho, because I know that statement is oompletely false

galahad_187

04-18-2006, 11:42 AM

those damn type in things have been there for months. back when i 12 tabled 25nl 6m i had about 1 of those damn boxes an hour and it screwed me up.

Our House

04-18-2006, 12:11 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Bad bots could also pose problems you know. Set out 5000 slighty +EV bots, that'd totally thin out the fish market. Suddenly you'd be sitting at a table with 80% "okay" players instead of the usual 80% fish.

[/ QUOTE ]
Sorry for the hijack, and I know I've talked enough [censored] in other threads, but this sounds strangely similar to what software tools have done for humans.

JOEL_

04-18-2006, 02:24 PM

They don't want to listen... Coz winning money ethically(taking unfair advantage) is only when they do it, it's ok.

If someone else does something different it is unethical.
S I M P L E. In poker while you are playing, if you are not just using your brain, then it is not poker as we know it.

Invent another game with all kinds of tools but don't call it poker. Be it bots or software(whilst playing).

Call it another game where everyone knows what their up against and all is fair.

wTrix

03-23-2007, 11:35 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Do not be so naive to think that the technology/methodology does not exist to write a poker bot that could beat 95% of the players.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with this entirely. 18 months ago, when you posted this, there was only one readily available automatic poker solution, which was dire near impossible for your average person to either understand or operate effectively, but technology is gaining speed at an alarming rate.

Poker bots that play no-limit still aren't common even now (most are still hidden away in research labs) but bots that play fixed limit games, and play as good - if not better - poker than real humans are readily available today.

One of the most popular comes equipped with automatic playing features, but there are other lesser known applications that certainly play a better game of fixed-limit poker than the majority of humans ever could.

No-limit poker is a different game altogether, but in fixed limit games it would be relatively easy to build a rule-based bot that could play at a very high level.

ImsaKidd

03-24-2007, 12:00 AM

Lol sweet bump.

wTrix

03-24-2007, 12:08 AM

I thought that myself when I saw the date, but I was actually searching the forum for info on bots. I'm writing a report on different poker applications and wanted to see if there was anything juicy I could pick up here /images/graemlins/smile.gif

MrGatorade

03-25-2007, 03:19 PM

BOTS EXIST...

I HATE BOTS!!!

-MrGatorade (Crazy Mike)

fusting4321

03-25-2007, 03:37 PM

http://ochremedia.com/blog/media/mindHat.gif

dostofan

03-25-2007, 09:11 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Lol sweet bump.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed. The bot issue is too easily dismissed by a lot of people. The technology IS becoming easier and easier to obtain every day.

Bots are obviously going to be more problematic. However, I think I get even more irked when a player who is brand new to poker cleans up on a table because the software they use analyzes every outcome and tells them the correct decision. How do I know they're using this software? Usually, I don't, but several times people have volunteered it and even bragged that they don't have a clue how to play poker-they just let the software do the work. One or two of these players would be no problem, but when I'm at a table and 3 people know what XXX is and it's a low limit table on Bodog, I get concerned. I had to learn to play poker the hard way like most of us, and I'm glad I did, but there is a new wave out there learning to play a different way. I think the bot scripter who said he learns from watching his bot play pretty much sums it up.