Bots in PartyPoker's 6-max Limit games?

[stigmata]

Ray,

Don't bother trying to justify what you do, especially here. Your arguments are shallow and meaningless.

Like, WTF is a "divine right to..... tracking, botting, teaming." LOL. The bottom line is that you have no legal right whatsoever, especially not a divine one.

What you do is unethical and cheating, in terms of the opinion of the player community and the sites themselves.

I might be able to muster a tiny incy bit of respect for you if you just stood up and said "What I do is wrong, but I do it for the money".

[Victor]

"all online players have a divine right to do
everything in their power to try and win including but
not limited to: tracking, botting, teaming"


lol, take this argument to smp.

[RayBornert]

[ QUOTE ]
Ray,

Don't bother trying to justify what you do, especially here. Your arguments are shallow and meaningless.

Like, WTF is a "divine right to..... tracking, botting, teaming." LOL. The bottom line is that you have no legal right whatsoever, especially not a divine one.

What you do is unethical and cheating, in terms of the opinion of the player community and the sites themselves.

I might be able to muster a tiny incy bit of respect for you if you just stood up and said "What I do is wrong, but I do it for the money".

[/ QUOTE ]

stig,

i didnt create the problem dude.

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

i value physical security within a real money
game much more than "good faith" security.

see the honest holdem thread
this is the most secure form of online holdem possible
i measure security based on whether or not the
mechanic or rule needs "good faith" cooperation
on the part of any entity.

honest holdem has only one "good faith" security requirement.

ray bornert

[Rudis]

This is my second post of the day that goes:

What is wrong with you?

[stigmata]

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.

[Newtown]

[ QUOTE ]
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 ]

[matrix]

[ QUOTE ]
Ray

[ QUOTE ]
i didnt create the problem dude.

[/ QUOTE ]

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



[/ QUOTE ]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

So do I.

Ray here is a suggestion so that you ca stop being a massive part of the problem and instead might help the situation for all online players bots and humans.

step 1) Start your own poker site - make the terms and conditions anything you like - allow botters, allow teaming and allow humans.

step 2) Withdraw wh support for existing sites, and lobby them to allow bots and then abide by the t&c's of each poker site - you can even point them towards the massive success(?) of "HonestHoldem" to help give your arguments some much needed weight.

step 3) profit (?)

I realise this is very similar advice to the advice you got from 2p2 way back when and you didn't take it then but hey [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[ QUOTE ]
Ray, [...] 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 ]

QFT

[slim]

It seems like there were over 40-50 bots? How can someone create that many accounts on party unless it was a team of 40-50 people with all those different addresses and identities?

[Mathemagician]

<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

[stigmata]

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.