Do not report bots!

[Josem]

[ QUOTE ]
If you have some objection to the facts or logic of what I posted, by all means state your objections,

[/ QUOTE ]

ok. i will.

[ QUOTE ]
but just saying "that's stupid" to a post you dislike marks you out as someone who is incapable of articulating an opinion.

[/ QUOTE ]

clearly, that's a common problem of mine on these boards..... (wait, borat, wait) ..... NOT!!!!

lol.


[ QUOTE ]
Neither can the poker rooms.

That's why they are still allowed to operate.

[/ QUOTE ]

they're not. the suggestion that poker rooms are allowing bots to operate - when there is a very high volume of posts on this forum claiming that people have been unfairly treated by poker sites - is absurd.

there are also a number of posts by site operators on here reconfirming their commitment to stamping out bots.

[ QUOTE ]
Certainly the poker rooms (well, some of them) pay lip service to the need to make sure their sites are 'bot free, but in reality, if they were truly bothered, they could stop the current wave in their tracks.

[/ QUOTE ]

how? what evidence is there to support this accusation.

[ QUOTE ]
Actually, I think it's only (some) people on sites like this that see a problem. Doubtless the 'bots come in grades from pure fish (people who buy them and lose money trying to make them win) to those making a moderate income.

[/ QUOTE ]

While I don't know why this accusation is "doubtless," what you say is plausible.

[ QUOTE ]
So as competition they are much like the human variety.

It's interesting also that there is a split even here between those who are relaxed about 'bots and just exploit those that are less able players than themselves to those who are hysterically anti-bot and believe they will kill on-line poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

1) if you're saying that this board is split evenly, then that is absurd. the overwhelming attitude of 2p2 posters is that bots are bad.

2) if you're saying that even here there is a split about bots that is a slightly less egregious use of the word "split." while technically accurate, it is meaningless, as the overwhelming attitude of the posters is that bots are bad. the difference comes between how people rank this as a risk in their lives.

[ QUOTE ]
I think there's very little chance of the later happening. The poker rooms would get serious about stopping them if it was in danger of hitting their bottom line.

[/ QUOTE ]

the poker rooms are serious about stopping htem.

the bots are hurting their bottom line - i've previously posted about a study that found that the single biggest concern amongst potential internet gamblers is the risk of the site being dodgy.

if you could guarantee a safer, fairer game, it would directly lead to an increase in the profitability of the sites.

[ QUOTE ]
There's probably a lot more danger from computer assisted low wage grinders.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, there probably isn't. 'cause if you're good enough to play poker yourself, it is not a "danger." How can it possibly be dangerous to have more people play poker? The purpose of poker is to provide entertainment for the people to play it. That's why the game exists.

[qpw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
but just saying "that's stupid" to a post you dislike marks you out as someone who is incapable of articulating an opinion.

[/ QUOTE ]

clearly, that's a common problem of mine on these boards..... (wait, borat, wait) ..... NOT!!!!

[/ QUOTE ]
I can only go by your actions on posts of yours I've noticed and remembered. That was none until now so although your response may not be typical, it's the one I noticed here.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That's why they are still allowed to operate.

[/ QUOTE ]

they're not. the suggestion that poker rooms are allowing bots to operate - when there is a very high volume of posts on this forum claiming that people have been unfairly treated by poker sites - is absurd.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've noticed very few such posts (although I've only been here a couple of months. The ones I have noticed all seem to have been caused by account anomalies and idiots playing multiple tables for 12 hour shifts.

[ QUOTE ]
there are also a number of posts by site operators on here reconfirming their commitment to stamping out bots.

[/ QUOTE ]
As I said, they pay lip service to the idea, and certainly will stamp on any account that is showing obvious 'botness'.

i.e. they'll do enough to give the impression of being against 'bots.


[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Certainly the poker rooms (well, some of them) pay lip service to the need to make sure their sites are 'bot free, but in reality, if they were truly bothered, they could stop the current wave in their tracks.

[/ QUOTE ]

how? what evidence is there to support this accusation.

[/ QUOTE ]
Obviously I'm not going to post such information in an open forum (which I'm sure is read by 'bot developers and operators), but to anyone who has had any dealings with computer security it is instantly obvious that there are at least three things they are not doing.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Actually, I think it's only (some) people on sites like this that see a problem. Doubtless the 'bots come in grades from pure fish (people who buy them and lose money trying to make them win) to those making a moderate income.

[/ QUOTE ]

While I don't know why this accusation is "doubtless," what you say is plausible.

[/ QUOTE ]
Well, I would find it extremely odd if people were just springing up with working 'bots that make money from day one. They'd need to spend a lot of time and money to get the things to provide an income. So, I have no doubt. YMMV.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So as competition they are much like the human variety.

It's interesting also that there is a split even here between those who are relaxed about 'bots and just exploit those that are less able players than themselves to those who are hysterically anti-bot and believe they will kill on-line poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

1) if you're saying that this board is split evenly,

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not. I didn't say anything to indicate I thought the split was even.

[ QUOTE ]
2) if you're saying that even here there is a split about bots

[/ QUOTE ]
That is very cleary what I'm saying. You even quoted it.

[ QUOTE ]
that is a slightly less egregious use of the word "split."

[/ QUOTE ]
It is not in the least egregious. This is one place where you would expect people to be rabidly anti 'bot so the fact that 'even' here some are not is noteworthy.

[ QUOTE ]
... while technically accurate, it is meaningless, as the overwhelming attitude of the posters is that bots are bad.

[/ QUOTE ]
I disagree that it is meaningless. I have seen several people say that they like 'bots because they are easy to exploit and they can make money from them.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think there's very little chance of the later happening. The poker rooms would get serious about stopping them if it was in danger of hitting their bottom line.

[/ QUOTE ]

the poker rooms are serious about stopping htem.

[/ QUOTE ]
But not serious enough to do certain obvious (to anyone versed in this sort of security) things that would rid them of current 'bots.

[ QUOTE ]
the bots are hurting their bottom line

[/ QUOTE ]
That depends on how many there are. The more players - human or computer - the more rake. Only when the amount of money they are losing from 'bots driving away custom exceeds the amount of money they are making from rakeback on hands dealt to 'bots will they have a finacial incentive to take serious action.

[ QUOTE ]
- i've previously posted about a study that found that the single biggest concern amongst potential internet gamblers is the risk of the site being dodgy.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think you'll find that the biggest concern amongst potential gamblers (in the US at least) is that they believe it's illegal, or that the don't know how to get money into, and out of, the system.

[ QUOTE ]
if you could guarantee a safer, fairer game, it would directly lead to an increase in the profitability of the sites.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think most people are more concerned that the sites are being run by crooks and that they won't be able to get their money out than that some of the competion may be better than they are because they are computers. The fact that a player is a 'bot does not alter the fact that you don't have to sit down with it if you can see it's that much better than you.

[ QUOTE ]
There's probably a lot more danger from computer assisted low wage grinders.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, there probably isn't. 'cause if you're good enough to play poker yourself, it is not a "danger."

[/ QUOTE ]
You misunderstand my point - it was not clear, I admit.

What I was intending to say was that even if the poker rooms implemented the extra security features that I mentioned, you would still have the problem that someone could take their robot to a low wage country and teach people to use it as an aid in such a way that it would be completely undetectable for the simple reason that a human being would be making all the plays.

[RIIT]

[ QUOTE ]
I will never understand the "eliminate them" mentality.

[/ QUOTE ]

QueBob: I agree with you but not necessarly for the same reasons; I tend to hold this view out of simple pragmatic common sense. There is a great line in the film Cold Mountain where Ruby is flaming mankind for the stupidity of the civil war:

"Every piece of this is man's [censored]. They call this war a cloud over the land, but they made the weather and then they stand in the rain and say "[censored]! it's rainin'"
- Ruby Thewes (Renée Zellweger - Cold Mountain)
(note: Renée won an oscar for this role)

In the world of online poker it is "raining" computers and yet we have people shouting "omg! it's raining bots" as if that is somehow abberant given the starting conditions.

Here is what I imagine to be a plausible example of a conversation between a well reasoned alien visitor and an online player.

-----------------

alien: so you have a problem?
human: yes.
alien: ok what?
human: people are botting in online poker.
alien: and you don't like that?
human: no.
alien: why?
human: a computer might play better than me.
alien: and you think that's not fair?
human: no. i despise those who try to get more edge than me.
alien: but the computer player might be inferior.
human: yes it could be.
alien: so why don't you do what they do and use a bot.
human: i don't want to.
alien: why?
human: too much extra effort. i just want to login and play.
alien: but you still don't want anybody to use a bot.
human: yes that's correct.
alien: so you want to force everyone to play the way you do.
human: yes.
alien: even though some don't want to.
human: yes.
alien: and you think that's a reasonable expectation?
human: of course. i expect others to cooperate with me.
alien: and you really do think that's reasonable.
human: very much so.
alien: hmmm ... ok so ... humans invented poker?
human: yes.
alien: humans invented computers?
human: yes.
alien: humans invented your golobal internet?
human: yes.
alien: humans moved poker onto your internet?
human: yes we did. isn't it great!
alien: it seems quite popular.
human: the internet is amazing!
alien: but it's swarming with computers.
human: yes it is.
alien: especially within online poker.
human: yes. computers may outnumber humans as much as 2 to 1.
alien: but you expect every player to never use a bot.
human: yes that's correct.
alien: even though the environment is filled with computers?
human: yes.
alien: and you really think your view is reasonable?
human: yes. very.
alien: hmmm ... one moment please

[ alien taps his ear ... slight audible beep ]

alien: jagon? ... yeah we've got a problem here. it seems we screwed up the dna cross splicing on our last visit and there's been a very serious drop in common sense in this sector of the gene pool. beam this one up for immediate anal probing and re-analysis ... no don't worry about gradually ramping up the probe size just go straight to number 17 we've got a major crisis on our hands here. i hope we can fix this.

Ray.

[qpw]

Quite amusing RIIT.

Philosophically, my problem with this 'bot thing is where exactly do you draw the line?

The whole point of poker is to play better than your opponent so that you can win some of his/her(/its?) money.

To this end, the following things are deemed fair by the majority of denizens of this site:

1) Practice
2) Coaching
3) Self analysis
4) Reading books (i.e. using other peoples knowledge and experience to give yourself an edge).
5) Rememembering details of games you've played before and analysing them to give yourself an edge
6) Using tables of equities and such like
7) Using your computer to keep notes
8) Using your computer to dynamically calculate equities and make recommendations
9) Using a mentor to make suggestions
10) Picking sites where opponents are weak to maximise your income
11) Picking tables where your opponents are weak to maximise your income
12) Playing at times when players are likely to be tired or drunk to give yourself an edge.

(All of these are things I've seen suggested/admitted to here without the poster in question being castigated).

However, let anyone suggest that you let the computer do the last 1% of the job and press the button for you and all hell breaks loose.

Quite honestly, the whole anti 'bot thing seems nothing more than a group of people who are prepared to go to almost any length to give themselves an edge but have set down an arbitrary demarcation line.

And the shakey basis of objecting to 'bots also explains the rather schizophrenic reactions whereby some people maintain that the poker rooms do enough to stop them operating whilst others insist that the rooms are infested with 'bots.

I'm pretty sure that if there comes a time when 'bots threaten the poker room's bottom lines we will suddenly see them start to take 'bots very seriously and there will be big culls of 'bot operators.

Until that time you pretty much stuck with them, whether they comprise 1% or the players or 50% (and I, unlike a lot of others, haven't the vaguest idea what that percentage might be).

[AChustler]

What?

[qpw]

[ QUOTE ]
What?

[/ QUOTE ]

I said:

Quite amusing RIIT.

Philosophically, my problem with this 'bot thing is where exactly do you draw the line?

The whole point of poker is to play better than your opponent so that you can win some of his/her(/its?) money.

To this end, the following things are deemed fair by the majority of denizens of this site:

1) Practice
2) Coaching
3) Self analysis
4) Reading books (i.e. using other peoples knowledge and experience to give yourself an edge).
5) Rememembering details of games you've played before and analysing them to give yourself an edge
6) Using tables of equities and such like
7) Using your computer to keep notes
8) Using your computer to dynamically calculate equities and make recommendations
9) Using a mentor to make suggestions
10) Picking sites where opponents are weak to maximise your income
11) Picking tables where your opponents are weak to maximise your income
12) Playing at times when players are likely to be tired or drunk to give yourself an edge.

(All of these are things I've seen suggested/admitted to here without the poster in question being castigated).

However, let anyone suggest that you let the computer do the last 1% of the job and press the button for you and all hell breaks loose.

Quite honestly, the whole anti 'bot thing seems nothing more than a group of people who are prepared to go to almost any length to give themselves an edge but have set down an arbitrary demarcation line.

And the shakey basis of objecting to 'bots also explains the rather schizophrenic reactions whereby some people maintain that the poker rooms do enough to stop them operating whilst others insist that the rooms are infested with 'bots.

I'm pretty sure that if there comes a time when 'bots threaten the poker room's bottom lines we will suddenly see them start to take 'bots very seriously and there will be big culls of 'bot operators.

Until that time you pretty much stuck with them, whether they comprise 1% or the players or 50% (and I, unlike a lot of others, haven't the vaguest idea what that percentage might be).

[MrGatorade]

[ QUOTE ]
Where's Mr Gatorade???

[/ QUOTE ]
Bots are bad and are ruining the game. If you let the bots play and do not report them its morally unethical and your contributing the the major problem online poker faces.

-Crazy Mike (MrGatorade)

[AChustler]

Are there really bots? If so how do you know?
Who controlls them? Are they always winners?

[RIIT]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Where's Mr Gatorade???

[/ QUOTE ]
Bots are bad and are ruining the game. If you let the bots play and do not report them its morally unethical and your contributing the the major problem online poker faces.

-Crazy Mike (MrGatorade)

[/ QUOTE ]

Mike,

Can you explain how you arrived at the mindset where you see the use of bots as unnatural in an environment where computers may outnumber humans 2 to 1?

[Bobo Fett]

How good of you to fill this thread with the same lengthy post a second time in response to some (now banned) dimwit, especially when he wasn't even replying to your post.

Anyway, I think you are missing the main problem of bots. We've had all of these same tired arguments many times in the past, but I'll jump in here and give it a go.

Bots could become a major drain on the poker economy. Let's assume for a minute that OP is correct. In fact, let's assume that ALL bots are mediocre and exploitable by good players.

If they really suck and do nothing but lose money, they will quickly be gone.

However, many people will be able to fine-tune their bots enough to eke out a small living, especially with RB. Once they acheive this, what will they do next? If they can get away with it, they will have them multi-tabling, and then put them on more sites, buy a few more computers, etc, etc. You see, unlike people playing, a bot operation is quite easily scaled up. Maybe all these mediocre bots can do is win a few dollars an hour, and get beat around by anyone who learns how to exploit them. So maybe most of us can beat them, where does all of their money come from? From the fish, of course. So the better players can beat the bots, but the bots keep taking even more money from the fish. These bots can be endlessly replicated. As games fill with bots, it becomes harder and harder for the fish to stay in the game, and even if they can, the games get more boring. They have no one to chat with, everyone around them is playing tight, nitty poker. They have no fun, they lose their money, they stop playing. Then it's just the better players and the bots. Now the bots are losing money, so they either get better or stop playing. Now what's left?

Now of course this is a worst-case, poker doomsday type scenario. However, if the sites were to do NOTHING (which most are not), what would stop this from happening? If the sites wait until it hurts their bottom line to do something, that wouldn't be until the fish start leaving, and by then it's too late.

We've seen the "arbitrary line" argument before as well. There's usually nothing arbitrary about it, but admittedly not everyone agrees on exactly where the line should be drawn. Usually people would define a bot as something that makes the decisions for you. Now of course you have poker odds calculators, and then you could have sweat shops of minimum wage players working off scripts, etc, etc. And what about "multi-tabling HUDbots"? But just because some of these different things start to blur into one another doesn't mean sites should throw up their hands and say "Where do you draw the line? Let everything go!". Each site has to decide what they will or will not allow, and then players can decide for themselves where they want to play. This already happens, as some sites allow datamining, some do not; some are HUD compatible, some are not; some are PT compatible, some are not.

Now am I advocating some kind of Mr. Gatorade style "witch hunt"? No, that's not for me. If you don't want to report bots, don't. I think if you are fairly certain you have spotted money-winning bot(s), you would be wise to report them, but that's up to you. Just don't try arguing that bots don't matter, and that we don't have to worry about them until they start affecting the sites' bottom lines...I don't buy that for a minute.