Bots in PartyPoker's 6-max Limit games?

[Peter_rus]

With futher grow of AI and computers the problem with poker-automating is similar with problem with chess or backgammon. Both games are close to death for commercial purposes due to close to perfect algoritms. An argument for "game of open information" isn't enough, cause vast amount of simulations can cause this lack of info close to "completely enough" i believe. If so - online and live poker will be dead, cause once it's real online - more people will (as already do for some house games) will bring miniaturized devices with them.

I dunno about trading but i've heard - winning strategies there depends on a plenty of info. Who has more info and can handle it right - wins, who lesser - lose. So in poker will win bots who has more info about opponent bots.

Pure mathematical strategies already cannot win in trading markets. So will be with poker industry probably. It will either die or bot-full (and real concur will be between bots not humans) or there'll we be invented more games, more complex, than Texas Holdem thus not computerized easy for current level of AI.

I'm not voting for bots, cause i play myself and win good money, but i understand that really cool AI can win money from me probably already, probably in future (close?). But i also understand that we cannot defend against bots-infesting online and live. This is a law of progress i guess. AI can make a lot of things better than a human today and will make a lot morethings better than a human tomorrow. We can only make this progress slower like oil companies force invention of new kinds of fuel to stay as slow as possible. Protecting of "oldered" (i don't know right word in English) business, the thing we're actually do now by berating the bot-makers won't last long enough. Probably a couple of years.

My position is stay quiet and play while i can make money, building a bankroll for further games in my life, not especially gambling ones.

[JackStrap]

[ QUOTE ]
With futher grow of AI and computers the problem with poker-automating is similar with problem with chess or backgammon. Both games are close to death for commercial purposes due to close to perfect algoritms. An argument for "game of open information" isn't enough, cause vast amount of simulations can cause this lack of info close to "completely enough" i believe. If so - online and live poker will be dead, cause once it's real online - more people will (as already do for some house games) will bring miniaturized devices with them.


[/ QUOTE ]

do think we can said that chess or bg is "close to death" but i agree that since computer dominated those games , they have loose in popularity ... why i dont know

[Jake (The Snake)]

Peter,

[ QUOTE ]
An argument for "game of open information" isn't enough, cause vast amount of simulations can cause this lack of info close to "completely enough" i believe. If so - online and live poker will be dead, cause once it's real online - more people will (as already do for some house games) will bring miniaturized devices with them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Although I agree that bots are a huge threat to destroying online poker, I do not think I would say the same for live poker. I think stopping the miniaturized devices would not be too difficult, although I could have the wrong impression about how they work. In any case, the end of online poker would have a huge effect on live poker.

[ QUOTE ]
But i also understand that we cannot defend against bots-infesting online and live. This is a law of progress i guess. AI can make a lot of things better than a human today and will make a lot morethings better than a human tomorrow. We can only make this progress slower like oil companies force invention of new kinds of fuel to stay as slow as possible.

[/ QUOTE ]

Although I am more pessimistic than most, I am not yet convinced that this is inevitable. Does anybody with programming experience have a comment on this?

[TheRock69]

[ QUOTE ]

But i also understand that we cannot defend against bots-infesting online and live. This is a law of progress i guess. AI can make a lot of things better than a human today and will make a lot morethings better than a human tomorrow. We can only make this progress slower like oil companies force invention of new kinds of fuel to stay as slow as possible.


Although I am more pessimistic than most, I am not yet convinced that this is inevitable. Does anybody with programming experience have a comment on this?


[/ QUOTE ]
Yes finger and face recognition technology. A bot may be able to play but there can only be one identity on at a time. This will also end multi accounters/friends playing others accounts, but will never happen because poker sites will have to buy the hardware and supply it for free to the players which they would never do, because their profit will still be the same but expenses increased.

[Zele]

You may be right about online poker, Peter (though I tend to think that some cat-and-mouse "dynmanic equilibirum" such as exists with viruses and anti-virus software is more likely than the death of the online game), but I doubt this will affect live poker much.

At least in the case of US public cardrooms, most jurisdictions have a "device law" on the books which makes using a hidden computer cheating. Unlike online, a live botter would be risking imprisonment, rather than merely their bankroll. Sure, it will go on, but I doubt it will dominate. Hidden computers which could crush roulette and blackjack were developed and used decades ago, but these games still prosper.