[RayBornert]

[ QUOTE ]
Bob - i don't know if you know, but this team bot play through hole card sharing is already happening and i understand that Ray and is perfectly happy with it and openly supports it. this functionality is built into his software. i believe he justifies this on the basis that he has no way of knowing for sure that other players aren't doing this, so therefore he feels he has the right to. judge this argument for yourself.

i'm not sure if the bots collude as such in terms of bloating the pot etc, but they can definitely sit and the same table and share hole card info to gain more information.

oh, and ray - if you really, genuinely believe that bots becoming the dominant force in online poker, and the public knowing about it, would be good in any possible way for online poker... you need your head examined. i'm serious. this is like, delusional self-justifying behaviour. for just some of the reasons, see StellarWind's excellent post above.

[/ QUOTE ]

tom,

i have no idea if tracking, botting, teaming will take over
the game or not. but, in general, i do believe that complex
systems tend to move toward their most stable state over time.

i was one of the lucky few that was able to clearly understand
that the internet forced the game to change
(whether players realized it or not) and that the final
stable state of the online game would look different than
the live b&m game (assuming there is a stable state within
the internet - this is an interesting topic in and of itself)

the truth is that 4 security holes were created
when the live game moved to the internet
1) the muck is no longer guaranteed to be forgotten
2) sites do not prove their deck selection is random
3) players cannot physically see other players (nor the site)
4) cant prove that the server isn't colluding with a player

the reason i knew this early is because one of my first
assignments in the gaming industry was to find all of the
security holes in the online game and address them with a
view toward applying for certification for an internet server
platform within the state of nevada.

what i learned was that the ngc does not care how popular
a game is or even what the players or the house really
want. all they care about is whether or not the game is
physically secure and whether or not they are able to
physically police and measure all aspects of the game in
question.

in the final analysis, the structure of the live b&m game
cannot be secured in an online context due to the 4 items
already mentioned. keep in mind that the nevada gcb wont
certify a game if the security of any aspect of the game
is dependent on the "good faith" of any entity involved
in the game.

if you read this honest holdem t&c
you'll find that it specifically states that it's
impossible to both secure the players card info on
the internet and prove that the server is not colluding
with a player. it turns out that the internet makes
it impossible to do both. if you turn off the encryption
then you can prove that the house is not colluding with
a player but then the players card info is at risk. if
you secure the card info then you cant sniff the traffic
to prove the server didnt collude with a player. it's
a catch-22 and it's an unsolvable problem security wise
except via "good faith" measures which are not sufficient
security for certification.

so the honest holdem t&c is the answer to the question:

"what would the game look like if you remove as many of
the 'good faith' security issues as possible"

and i think everyone agrees that the game described is
not the same as the live b&m game (although many players
have been tracking, botting, teaming for over 3 years now)

i think everyone will admit that there are many things
you can do while playing online that you cannot do in
a live b&m game and as such i assert that this is evidence
that the online game is indeed different and that it is
surviving the internet. i'm willing to further assert
that the final stable state of the game will look a lot
like the honest holdem t&c - i base this assertion on the
same idea that drives the policies of the nevada gcb -
that a game with too many "good faith" security requirements
is not stable and cannot be secured (and must either change
or die).

ray bornert