Bots in PartyPoker's 6-max Limit games?

[grinin]

[ QUOTE ]
Otherwise he would be tending to his bots

[/ QUOTE ]
I think it is pretty clear that Ray was not able to write the code to beat the game.
If so he would never be selling his "bot in a box" software.

[RayBornert]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is my second post of the day that goes:

What is wrong with you?

[/ QUOTE ]
What's wrong with him is that he is a cheat and a criminal. This bothers his conscience and so he comes to 2+2 to try and justify his actions. Subconsciously he hopes that this will make him feel better but of course it won't.

Soon he will probably answer this post by claiming that I am all wrong and he is completely comfortable with himself. But he will be lying to us and probably himself as well. Otherwise he would be tending to his bots or otherwise being productive. Instead he is here making arguments that only draw attention to his activities and increase the risk of counteraction by the sites.

We should ignore his posts and all other cheats as well. We can't stop them but we can leave them alone with their guilt. Don't provide an audience for their confessions.

[/ QUOTE ]

stell,

assuming that you've played at a site with a t&c
that forbids tracking, botting, teaming

prove to me that you're obeying those rules
while you play or if you're willing to admit
that you can't prove this then please admit
that you want me to accept on good faith
that you're obeying those rules.

be honest.

ray

[disjunction]

[ QUOTE ]


I want to stop bots.

I am trying to think of ways that regular players can help to do this because it seems unlikely to me that the poker sites will be proactive in doing it, mostly because of the reasons you just said.

[/ QUOTE ]

Initiate table chat with anyone with 2+2-like stats. If they consistently do not respond with intelligent conversation, they are most likely a bot.

This would require 2+2 custom to be to respond to table chat on occasion.

[rograndom]

[ QUOTE ]

Even if there were bots, I'm not convinced of the danger. They shouldn't be hard for a good player to beat, and it would especially help to be able to identify a bot. We do too many things against humans which are the opposite of what you should do to a bot. Everybody knows how to beat AIs from playing video games, you figure out what it's dumb about, and beat it to death.

[/ QUOTE ]

The problem is that they are beating the bad players and we're not.

[Vern]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


I want to stop bots.

I am trying to think of ways that regular players can help to do this because it seems unlikely to me that the poker sites will be proactive in doing it, mostly because of the reasons you just said.

[/ QUOTE ]

Initiate table chat with anyone with 2+2-like stats. If they consistently do not respond with intelligent conversation, they are most likely a bot.

This would require 2+2 custom to be to respond to table chat on occasion.

[/ QUOTE ]
What color is the trout?

[disjunction]

[ QUOTE ]

To me, Ray's logic isn't much of a stretch from saying that two or three bots sitting at the same table and sharing hole-card info with each other would be acceptable since there's no way the site would be able to prevent it anyway.

If the bots are good enough to beat 10/20 and higher 6-max limit right now and make adjustments against certain players (TAGs or LAGs or whatever) then it's not a stretch to think that multiple bots at the same table can increase their odds by learning which outs are no longer there and also raising/colluding to increase the pot when to their advantage.

Peter Rus's ideas on all this are indeed starting to scare me somewhat.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is why I've been participating in bots/collusion threads for the last several months. When you rely on something for income, it's nice to scope the future out.

A good player should be able to beat these bots. I actually expect to make quite a handy profit off of them. Most likely these are rule-based bots, which are fundamentally limited. And from what I've read on here and other places, the AI for non-rule-based bots just isn't there yet. And AI progresses slower than you think.

As for bot-colluders, this should be very easy for the sites to detect, if they want to. In order to have collusion affect your EV in limit hold'em, you must collude in a noticable way. There is no getting around it. In December I intend to do an analysis of this issue, whether the sites seem to care or not. I'm pretty sure I can do it without knowing hole cards.

[disjunction]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Even if there were bots, I'm not convinced of the danger. They shouldn't be hard for a good player to beat, and it would especially help to be able to identify a bot. We do too many things against humans which are the opposite of what you should do to a bot. Everybody knows how to beat AIs from playing video games, you figure out what it's dumb about, and beat it to death.

[/ QUOTE ]

The problem is that they are beating the bad players and we're not.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes I'm aware of this. I've said it. I think it may be possible to beat bots for almost as much as bad players. (I'm not saying for sure). I think knowing that they are bots helps a LOT.

[OldLearner]

[ QUOTE ]
try to think like a site operator for a moment.
your business model is tied to rake generating chairs.

how motivated will you be to spend money to stop those
rake generating chairs?

hmmm ...
spend money to increase rake generating chairs
... or
spend money to decrease rake generating chairs

if you as a player generate x amount of rake per day and
a pro botter generates 10 times that much at the same limit
then i can assure you that what the pro botter wants is 10
times more important than what you want. especially since
the pro botter has almost zero support cost because they
dont ever complain.


[/ QUOTE ]

Ok Ray. Let's use your own argument. Let's think like a site operator:

"I am an intelligent site operator". I make money from rake. This money comes from the winners and from the losers.

The losers cause me no concern, they simply lose. My only concern with the losers is that they will eventually lose all they can and I will not be able to rake from them.

The winners, on the other hand, although paying the same percentage of individual rake as the loser, are in direct competion with me. The winner is removing money from the poker economy. Because I can no longer rake that money, it costs me money. This is, for the most part, a loss in the long term, but nonetheless a loss.

I could assume that the fish population is limitless, but I am an intelligent site operator and I know this is not true. The fish population is finite.

I cannot ban winning players or change the playing field so that losers have a better chance to last longer (I am an ethical site operator as well).

But if the winners are not actually people, rather computerized bots that can play endlessly, faultlessly and can replicate themselves, then this represents a real danger to my business. These bots can remove money from the poker economy that will have a crippling effect on my business. At some point, the fish will all be gone, the bots will leave, my site will be empty and my business will cease."

Think not?

Many B&M rooms in my area would not run higher limit games because the fish would lose all their money in one session (instead of 10) and they would make 6 hours worth of rake instead of 60.

Party has recently reduced the number of tables from 12 (?) to 6. They want to limit the devastation the multi-tablers have on their finite fish population even though they could collect twice as much rake from the 12-tablers. Think not?

Your argument that because the security loopholes exist, you must take advantage of them or you will be taken advantage of is a classic that is, unfortunately, difficult to argue against. At present, you are right. In the current internet world, we can only police ourselves.

That is why it is SO IMPORTANT that, when a cheater like yourself is caught, that the site bring down the hammer of the law and punish you to the fullest.

If this means confiscating your balance, whether they keep it or give it back to the poker economy in freerolls or whatever, so be it.

That is why the ZJ debacle was so important. When proactive policing is difficult, harsh, reactive penalties must be used to fill that gap.

[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

[RayBornert]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
try to think like a site operator for a moment.
your business model is tied to rake generating chairs.

how motivated will you be to spend money to stop those
rake generating chairs?

hmmm ...
spend money to increase rake generating chairs
... or
spend money to decrease rake generating chairs

if you as a player generate x amount of rake per day and
a pro botter generates 10 times that much at the same limit
then i can assure you that what the pro botter wants is 10
times more important than what you want. especially since
the pro botter has almost zero support cost because they
dont ever complain.


[/ QUOTE ]

Ok Ray. Let's use your own argument. Let's think like a site operator:

"I am an intelligent site operator". I make money from rake. This money comes from the winners and from the losers.

The losers cause me no concern, they simply lose. My only concern with the losers is that they will eventually lose all they can and I will not be able to rake from them.

The winners, on the other hand, although paying the same percentage of individual rake as the loser, are in direct competion with me. The winner is removing money from the poker economy. Because I can no longer rake that money, it costs me money. This is, for the most part, a loss in the long term, but nonetheless a loss.

I could assume that the fish population is limitless, but I am an intelligent site operator and I know this is not true. The fish population is finite.

I cannot ban winning players or change the playing field so that losers have a better chance to last longer (I am an ethical site operator as well).

But if the winners are not actually people, rather computerized bots that can play endlessly, faultlessly and can replicate themselves, then this represents a real danger to my business. These bots can remove money from the poker economy that will have a crippling effect on my business. At some point, the fish will all be gone, the bots will leave, my site will be empty and my business will cease."

Think not?

Many B&M rooms in my area would not run higher limit games because the fish would lose all their money in one session (instead of 10) and they would make 6 hours worth of rake instead of 60.

Party has recently reduced the number of tables from 12 (?) to 6. They want to limit the devastation the multi-tablers have on their finite fish population even though they could collect twice as much rake from the 12-tablers. Think not?

Your argument that because the security loopholes exist, you must take advantage of them or you will be taken advantage of is a classic that is, unfortunately, difficult to argue against. At present, you are right. In the current internet world, we can only police ourselves.

That is why it is SO IMPORTANT that, when a cheater like yourself is caught, that the site bring down the hammer of the law and punish you to the fullest.

If this means confiscating your balance, whether they keep it or give it back to the poker economy in freerolls or whatever, so be it.

That is why the ZJ debacle was so important. When proactive policing is difficult, harsh, reactive penalties must be used to fill that gap.

[/ QUOTE ]

excellent analysis.

this issue was discussed thoroughly from
the position that the perfect world for any site would
be a world where money flows into the site (i.e. deposits)
and no money ever leaves - and of course this implies that
a site actually is not in favor of winners of any kind
(human or bot doesn't matter). in this world our entire
purpose is to deposit and then churn it all into rake and
never withdraw anything.

ok now let me say that i totally get this.
however, let me also say that i'm not going to lift
a finger to help the house keep more of my cash. if
they dont like winners or dont want to pay them then
that's their problem to solve and not mine. it's not
my role to voluntarily win less money to keep the
site operator happy or protect the game.

i want the server at my site to be physically forced
into the most neutral of all possible positions and
just let the players duke it out to the max come hell
or high water damn the torpedoes.

i'm not in favor a any site performaing social or
economic engineering on the herd. the very best
thing a site can do for the players is to stay
100% neutral and keep the rake as low as posssible.

ray