Bots in PartyPoker's 6-max Limit games?

[RayBornert]

[ QUOTE ]
<background>I am a Commodity Trading Advisor i.e. I trade commodities for a living.</background>

This whole discussion reminds me of the discussion that goes on in the trading community about the proliferation of computerized trading systems. The parallels are simply astounding. People go back and forth about how there are too many computerized systems trading the markets and how there won't be enough losing traders (analogous to our "fish") to feed the markets. There have been such systems since the late 1970s and there are still plenty of retail "fish" in the markets. Interestingly, the vast majority (estimates range from 80%-90%) of people who create and trade computer systems find out that they lose money when deployed in the real world anyway. This is in line with the estimates of the percentage of losing "discretionary" traders. There are also traders who specialize in identifying computerized system activity and exploiting it for profit, as well as firms that heavily market both approaches to retail investors (who then proceed to lose all their money using these methods). All trading system design software comes with a collection of built-in default trading systems, and they all are losers over the long run (as the default bot is reported to be). Anyway, I guess the net effect is that the bots are the system traders of poker, and if that is the case (and the poker economy is dynamic/robust) then a balance will be struck between the "discretionary" poker players and the bots, and the poker economy will be just fine.

M

[/ QUOTE ]

now this guys knows his proverbial defacation !
well said man.

ray

[slim]

how much do you guys think these bots won? I mean they took 5K between me and Flint alone.......

[RayBornert]

[ QUOTE ]
Whilst the analogies you highlight are interesting, the trading market is much more complex than any devised game. As such, it is inherently more difficult to program. There are also other factors at play such as the "reputation" of online poker which could destroy the economy altogether.

Unfortunately, I do agree that the only realistic long term outcome is going to be a 3-way balance between winners/losers/winning-bots.

The problem with winning bots is that they can be infinitely proliferated at no extra cost (unlike a professional!), and are thus liable to unbalance the economy to the point at which it is essentially destroyed (e.g. profit is reduced so much that only bots can afford to play).

Thus, the poker bots must be kept in check by certain measures, such that they do not upset the equilibrium.

[/ QUOTE ]

they keep themselves in check.
10 identical holdem systems at the
same table generating rake will all
steadily leak at the same rate.

ray

[Jake (The Snake)]

I remember 2+ years ago we had arguments here and many people thought the idea of winnin bots was a joke. All you have to do is look at chess bots to see what they are capable of. The above quote from the cheaters' forum is a good example of some of the things that are possible.

Besides reporting potential bots to the sites, is there anything productive that regular players can do?

[stigmata]

[ QUOTE ]


now this guys knows his proverbial defacation !
well said man.

ray

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, you only see something that is vaguely supportive of your stance, but choose to completely ignore the truth of the situation.

[stigmata]

[ QUOTE ]

they keep themselves in check.
10 identical holdem systems at the
same table generating rake will all
steadily leak at the same rate.

ray

[/ QUOTE ]

Stop acting so childish. Your defensive stance is utterly transparant to all. You will convince nobody, so why bother trying?

Unless you are mentally unwell, or completely retarded, you must understand the fallacy of your arguments.

Either contribute meaningfully to the debate, or just go back to your own forums.

[Robby Box]

The problem for a poker site is getting the balance right between detection, prevention and intrusiveness to genuine players.

I think that it has become somewhat of an "arms race" between botters and poker site security.
I also think that should Stars or Party want to get even tougher on bots, there will be an impact for genuine players and this is what holds them back.

For instance...sites could take screen shots (if they already don't), but there would be a privacy uproar. They could send no hand histories at all or those with no names. They could shift cards and buttons round the screen, change colours, send captchas or logic tests. They could attempt to prevent/detect all applications that read the screen and control the mouse. They could insist on all players winning over $5k to have a webcam running. They could send an rep to your home to watch how you 10 table $2000 NL and win 10BB/100 per table, or else they close your account...

Although some of these measures are fanciful, it is an example of the arms race.

I don't know the answer and the point is...how intrusive do we want our favourite poker site to get before it spoils our game?

[RayBornert]

[ QUOTE ]
Ray

[ QUOTE ]
i didnt create the problem dude.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, but your actually a massive part of the problem.

[ QUOTE ]
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

[/ QUOTE ]

This is so totally irellevent and flawed I can't be bothered to start.

[ QUOTE ]
honest holdem

[/ QUOTE ]

Your actually right that something like this is the only way to garauntee a straight-up game. But people don't want to play that game -- they want to play other people on a level playing field. They don't want to learn C++ and spend years programming an uber-bot to do that. They just want to sit down and play poker, their wits against someone elses.

(I actually think a real-money poker site that was specifically designed with bots in mind would be a facinating experiment).


Ray, you seem to have spend so much time constructing defences and justifications for unethical behaviour, that you have started believing in your own madness. Just be straight up and admit that you are A) going against the T&C of the poker sites B) behaving in a way that 99% of players believe is unethical and cheating C) you are doing this for profit. Stop even bothering to defend it, because then we might be able to have a more useful debate about the subject.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
This is so totally irellevent and flawed I can't be bothered to start.

[/ QUOTE ]

stig,

i kind of stopped reading when you appeared to ignore
these security issues and aren't willing to discuss them.

the game you want to play on the internet has huge security
holes.

and you seem to be saying that holes wouldn't be an issue
if i'd just agree not to step through them.

prove to me that you're not stepping through the same
holes or do you want me to just accept it on good faith
that you're a good faith player?

go ahead say it ... just say this i know you want to

"ray i want you to trust me"

ray

[MicroBob]

They could patrol around the tables and actually make an attempt to find them.

They can identify players that have been on for extremely long sessions and make sure they are human.

If a bot is playing for 80 hours straight then can't they at least look into it?

If a bot takes some breaks in there to try to counter-act it but has still played for some in-human amount of time like 75 out of 80 hours then it is worth looking into.

Yes, there is the risk of ticking off some crazy fish who just happened to play for an insanely long amount of time. But most winning players who play marathon sessions will understand the need to be pro-active on this stuff.


This is assuming the sites do it the right way and approach the player professionally about it.
This is different from the way many sites seem to have developed of just locking/freezing accounts and not telling anyone why.


If the sites would confiscate funds in the obvious situations that would help a lot as well.
I suspect a significant percentage of the current botters would be intimidated against continuing or trying it in the first place if they hear of someone losing a ton of money after getting caught.

Redistributing it to some of the other players should be considered also of course.

[RayBornert]

[ QUOTE ]
I remember 2+ years ago we had arguments here and many people thought the idea of winnin bots was a joke. All you have to do is look at chess bots to see what they are capable of. The above quote from the cheaters' forum is a good example of some of the things that are possible.

Besides reporting potential bots to the sites, is there anything productive that regular players can do?

[/ QUOTE ]

jake,

first things first. i love that avatar icon you got man.

i dont know what your goals are so i'm not sure how to
advise you. tell me what you want and i'll try to give
you an honest answer.

ray