[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If my hypothesis is correct it doesn't excuse anything. Using an AI program to make your decisions is cheating regardless of who is holding the mouse.
[/ QUOTE ]
Um, no it isn't [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]
As evidenced by nlnut et al - using computer-aided decision making is A-OK on FTP providing a human is at the controls and has the ability to override the bot's "suggestion"
Same goes for Stars regarding certain applications on the "allowed software" list.
Why on earth would a site deem "advisory" class applications a bannable offense?
The danger of poker bots is not that they play correctly - a trained human can do that - it is that they can play unattended 24/7 without tilt and can be replicated at will.
No?
[/ QUOTE ]
I think when you get to the stage of allowing players to just follow the output of some poker AI and say it's ok so long as a human clicks the buttons, then that will be a sure fire way to kill online poker. It seems strange that in online chess/backgammon it is quite clearly cheating to use an engine to advise you (even if you press the buttons yourself...).
First NU LHE was targeted probably because of the availability of research papers, but I fear that next SNGs will be targeted in a similar way. I previously tried to bring peoples attention to this in
this post, but was surprised at the level of apathy and the number of people who seem to think it's fine to use poker AI so long as "you click the buttons yourself".
If poker sites wish to allow realtime game-theoretic advisers for SNGs then I think they should also allow them for HU LHE. What exactly is the difference?
Juk [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]