Bots in PartyPoker's 6-max Limit games?

[5thStreetHog]

[ 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 ]Bingo!! This guy is a cheat,a clown,and a coward.I have more respect for a guy dealing from the bottom of the deck in a live game.At least they have the balls to look you in the eyes while they try to hustle you,not hide behind their computers where they think they cant be touched.

[MicroBob]

I might have more respect for Ray if he would stop writing every post as if it were a poem.


Also:

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'm still not sure how all this relates to the bot argument.
For instance, many people doubt the cards truly 'random' on the internet. But what does that have to do with whether a bot should be allowed or will be successful?

[RayBornert]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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 ]Bingo!! This guy is a cheat,a clown,and a coward.I have more respect for a guy dealing from the bottom of the deck in a live game.At least they have the balls to look you in the eyes while they try to hustle you,not hide behind their computers where they think they cant be touched.

[/ QUOTE ]

5th,

your moral high ground is not as high as you think it is.
you have no way to prove that you do not:
track, bot or team.

just because i'm not accusing you doesn't mean you've not
done these things or that you would not or could not. any
claims on your part are just claims and i have no recourse
other than to just "trust" you.

in online holdem,
you're guilty until proven innocent.

ray

[5thStreetHog]

Your a moron lol

[MicroBob]

yeah, I'm even more confuse by his attempt at logic now.

Even though I disagree with him at least his arguments were just bad and defensive.
Now they just seem to be completely non-sensical.


"You can't prove that you haven't cheated therefore you are guilty until proven innocent therefore it's okay to use a bot."

[stigmata]

LOL yeah it's like this......

"I can't prove the guy next door isn't a thief, so that makes it OK to steal from his house."

[pkour]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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

[/ QUOTE ]

RAY your a [censored]

[5thStreetHog]

Btw,not to panic anyone,but Ray is the new nominee for next vacant seat in the Supreme Court.

[matrix]

[ 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

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.

[/ QUOTE ]

1) the muck. Deliver hole cards to each player encrypted so that noone aside form each player knows what their cards are not even the server, the server only records the hole cards in the event of a SD. It can't be that hard to make a deck that the server effectively shuffles "face down" so that the rank/suit of the "card" remains fixed and unchangeable but cannot be read by the server that deals it.

Setup a dealing system whereby once the hand is dealt the remaining cards are wiped from the system - provably so.

2) sites could very easily prove that the decks they deal are randomly chosen - say we have 100 possible decks that are randomly shuffled using the present RNG methods (which are independantly sampled and proved to be random by independant testers) just pick one of those 100 decks at random using similar randomising technology - you could get each player to "choose" a deck in turn but this would slow the games down and generate less rake...

3) webcams - each player at a site is sent a webcam/indentity device when they sign up (this tech is very inexpensive and was several years ago) - you could go so far as to have a thumbprint scanner built into each cam so that when a player logged on they cannot do so without providing a thumbscan before they can play - players could be required to visible on camera at all times during play.

[ QUOTE ]
t'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.

[/ QUOTE ]

4) only the hole cards need encryption during transit to the players computer. If the server is blind to what cards it is dealing in any case how CAN it collude?

The pot is only shipped after the SD (or all but one player folds) it would be a simple matter to check whether the server has colluded with a player after the completion of the hand but before the pot is shipped.

Consider the PGP encryption technique.

for every message thats encrypted 2 keys are used a public and private key. What if the shuffler shuffled the deck (which was chosen at random using a verifiable method) - after each card is individually encrypted once for every player (say there are 6 players then it makes 6 copies of each card using each players public key, which are then locked together as one unit) each unit of cards is dealt to each player in turn so you have 6 K[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] that all got encrypted using each players seperate public key dealt as one unit. Each player upon receiving their card tried to decrypt each card but obviously the key they have only unlocks one of them (as they are all the same it doesn't matter - the 5 other copies get discarded) provided that the cards are encrypted before the deck is shuffled the server traffic can be transmitted in plaintext and sniffed to stop any collusion between server and client. The server cannot possibly tell which cards it has dealt to whom. It doesn't need to know players hole cards until such time as they are shown down. A copy of each individuals hh can then be encrypted on each players machine and sent back to an archive server which holds each hh for a set period of time (but which cannot be accessed unless required) so that if any players are suspected of colluding between themselves somehow the records can be pulled and the complete hh rebuilt for any given hand to prove collusion one way or another

Provided the keys you are using have enough bits they are impossible to crack in any reasonable timeframe - and even if you knew another players key it wouldn't do any good as you cannot derive the private key that each player holds from the public key - you can tell if the server is sending card info to the wrong players as the server traffic is totally unencrypted and sniffable - once hole cards are dealt the rest of the deck is decrypted to deal community cards - once the board cards are dealt the remaining cards can be verifiably destroyed.

PGP technology has been around much longer than online poker has...

I might be wrong here (I'm sure you'll correct me if I am) but think I've just solved your four "insolvable" problems without spending a lot of money on research - security holes fixed - now you can stop breaking sites T&C's on some crazy whim we can all play on a level playing field and everyones happy - or is there something I've missed?

[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.