10/20 6-max .. WPEX v Stars

[bugstud]

if it's easy, you should be 4tabling them right now and just print the money.

[___1___]

[ QUOTE ]
I may very well be underestimating the bots, but of the ones I've played, I didn't think any of them were tough. There were a couple who would take the aforementioned line 2-5 (if not more) hands in a row. I really don't think anyone will convince me that choosing a random series of hands to give away money for no reason is a good idea - and I have a hard time believing it's optimal from a game theory standpoint, but I might be completely wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

First off, I'm working under the assumption that the code (HU specifically) for all these bots is the same. There could be subtle differences in how each of them is coded but I think that's unlikely.

While their play is FAR from optimal, at this point I'm not sure they are exploitable. In other words I think their play is pretty close to optimal from a game-theory standpoint (i.e not exploitable). That's just my impression so far. As I gather more information it'll likely change.

[ QUOTE ]
choosing a random series of hands to give away money for no reason is a good idea

[/ QUOTE ]

Game theory certainly looks this way sometimes.

___1___

[___1___]

[ QUOTE ]
I could raise his flop donks with nothing and take down the pot; I could wait for the turn to raise and take it down; I could wait for the river.

[/ QUOTE ]

You do realize, as cool as this may sound, if the bots are playing off of game theory this garners you no edge, right?

[SteveL91]

[ QUOTE ]
if it's easy, you should be 4tabling them right now and just print the money.

[/ QUOTE ]

I just stated my observations and said I could be wrong. I also said the observations weren't based on a huge sample. I don't particularly know why you took offense and I don't care. So, to make it simple, here's the answer: I don't really like playing HU, but every now and then I feel like it.

___1___ ,

[ QUOTE ]
You do realize, as cool as this may sound, if the bots are playing off of game theory this garners you no edge, right?

[/ QUOTE ]

When I said that, I wasn't thinking about game theory. I mentioned it because I thought it was proof of a non-human playing because there wasn't a single adjustment to any adjustment I made. I didn't say it to try and seem "cool" or anything; I was just trying to further the case of likely bots on the WPEX.

As I've said, I don't know much about game theory, and for all I know, the bots have a good foundation to crush the games. If nothing else, I'm sure they don't lose enough (if any) overall to overcome the 100% rakeback.

[___1___]

[ QUOTE ]
I didn't say it to try and seem "cool" or anything; I was just trying to further the case of likely bots on the WPEX.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was saying "cool" regarding the ability to raise a particular street with air and have the bots fold. The comment had nothing to do with you specifically.

Also, it's not a matter of whether or not there are bots on WPEX. There are without question and a lot of them. From everything I've observed/logged so far, I'd guess between all limits there's easily 100+ bots on the site.

[ QUOTE ]
If nothing else, I'm sure they don't lose enough (if any) overall to overcome the 100% rakeback.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, I'm sure the bots win a bunch. Especially with the ability share cards. Obviously, I have no ability to substantiate that claim. However, one thing I have looked at are what players join HU matches between a bot and non-bot. In most cases, this involves two or three bots joining a particular match. Strangely enough, I have yet to witness a bot join and human vs. human match. As I observe more I'll have to see if that trend holds true.

Further it should be obvious why this is happening (and to the degree its happening) at WPEX. Initially, there are no names in hand histories. I believe Victor mentioned UB having a 6max table where a number of players had the exact same stats within a tenth of a decimal place. Obviously, that's not a concern for the bots at WPEX. Secondly, it's rake free poker. Bots can card-share, with limited (or none at all) explicit collusion, play straight up against one another, and not lose rake to the site.

Further, I really think that 90%+ of the bots on this site are run by the same person/network. My ideas about card-sharing sort of lend itself to this.

The real problem is proving this. Again there are no hand histories. And, as long as the people running these bots have the technology to avoid WPEX's detection methods it's a difficult chore.

___1___

[SteveL91]

[ QUOTE ]


I was saying "cool" regarding the ability to raise a particular street with air and have the bots fold. The comment had nothing to do with you specifically.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fair enough. Sorry if I came across as defensive.

Thanks for sharing your observations. I wonder what - if anything - WPEX plans to do about this. It seems their measures to dissuade the HUD players to join has clearly cultivated an environment that allows the bots to thrive. I wonder which they feel is the bigger evil.

[bugstud]

steve, apologies on sounding harsh. I play on there enough that if it was that easy, no one would be concerned about it [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[inferno]

[ QUOTE ]
Oops yeah I do know your name cuz you told me but I don't remember playing with you. Looks like lots of mostly lurkers here play on the site but none of you are 20/40+ regulars unless you are twayankees and if you are I'm sorry but you are a LAG fish.

-DeathDonkey

[/ QUOTE ]

I sat with you a couple of times but why would I even want to play at the same talbe. I rather sit with someone else

edit: like it better now butstud?;p

[bugstud]

does anyone else want to out the rest of the fish so I can stop making money k plz thx

[DeathDonkey]

Fish that have been mentioned so far in this thread:

twayankees
bugstud

That is all.

-DeathDonkey