Serious Discussion about Poker Bots, PokerTracker, HUDs, etc.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
And as my reply stated, that simply says the difference between them, not the difference between the morality of them. Take away the specifics, what each one does and the other doesn't -- it's still accomplishing things that you wouldn't be able to do without the aid of a program.

[/ QUOTE ]
It seems pretty simple.

If something if known about (or very easy to find out about) and allowed by the T&C of the site then its okay.

If its not allowed by the T&C then its definitely not okay.

and if its some sort of well kept secret to the extent that its not covered by the T&C then it may be a grey area.

chez

[steamboatin]

[ QUOTE ]
And as my reply stated, that simply says the difference between them, not the difference between the morality of them.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think we are at an impasse.

Human vs Human boils down to a contest of skill, knowledge and ability. Yes, that includes the knowledge of PT and HUD software and any other program that doesn't make the decision regarding the play of the hand.

When you are playing live poker, it is one player to a hand. It is not allowed to ask your buddies how to play the hand. When you log on a poker site and the game starts, you and only you are supposed to be playing and making decisions. When the bot is making the decisions, you are not.

I hate to fall back on the default but bots are against the terms of service of all poker sites, that I know. Anything that violates the terms of service is cheating. Cheating is breaking the rules to gain an unfair advantage and therefore if the rules say no bots, using a bot is cheating.

Cake Poker does not allow the use of Poker Tracker, so if you choose to play at Cake Poker and figure out how to make Poker tracker work with their site, that would be cheating.

[Artsemis]

[ QUOTE ]
Human vs Human boils down to a contest of skill, knowledge and ability. Yes, that includes the knowledge of PT and HUD software and any other program that doesn't make the decision regarding the play of the hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

Still going around in circles here... computers can't make the decision but computer aided decisions are ok? That doesn't seem right and never applied until online poker.

[ QUOTE ]
I hate to fall back on the default but bots are against the terms of service of all poker sites, that I know. Anything that violates the terms of service is cheating. Cheating is breaking the rules to gain an unfair advantage and therefore if the rules say no bots, using a bot is cheating.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the only solid reason I've seen anywhere but still doesn't explain the "why".

[fraac]

If one rule in a set is unenforceable, the entire rulebook is weakened. Lee Jones knew this when he said there was no 'one player to a hand' rule at Pokerstars. Online poker is a different animal to live, always will be. It's well worth playing, in my opinion.

[steamboatin]

[ QUOTE ]
Still going around in circles here... computers can't make the decision but computer aided decisions are ok? That doesn't seem right and never applied until online poker.


[/ QUOTE ]

Do you use Poker Tracker? Poker tracker has never aided me in a decision. It merely shows the stats of a particular player but doesn't tell me what to do or give me suggestions about how to play the hand. It is just a really good memory. I have to decide how to play the hand.

I am only asking to make sure we are on the same page.

[Artsemis]

Replace PT with HUDs

[Hoi Polloi]

[ QUOTE ]
PT and HUDs are acceptable because the poker sites allow them. Bots are not allowed because poker sites do not allow them.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is an argument from authority which is at best weak.

[Hoi Polloi]

The discussion so far:

1. T&C conditions argument; if the site allows it then it is not illegal, not unethical, etc.

2. PT/HUD are tools that aid decision making. People making decisions is legit no matter what informs those decisions, so PT/HUD are okay.

3. To the extent that bots are making decisions, we are playing against a machine; who plays chess against a machine for anything but practice? This should be illegal.

4. One person, one bot instance; this may be okay.

5. One person, a million bots all playing simultaneously 24 hours a day. Is this ethical? Should it be allowed by sites and/or regulated by state? Would this be the end of online poker?

To me, the essential difference with a sufficiently skilled bot is that it would allow a sufficiently bankrolled owner to "play" hundreds/thousands of hands simultaneously for a profit. PT/HUD doesn't allow a player to play more hands simultaneously as such. That is limited by other factors (stamina, carpel tunnel syndrome, processor speed, etc.), though PT/HUD provides useful information during the course of play.

PT/HUD have not been the death knell of online poker though one might have heard this argument 5 or so years ago: "once the fish learn that the pros are tracking them with databases they'll stop playing." Would the same apply to bots? Arguably the recreational lows stakes player might prefer playing against bots if the bots don't berate them for laying bad beats on them.

I think that if very strong bots became common, dominated play and took most of the money, people would play less online poker. Who wants to sit at a table with 5 Phil Iveys? Especially if there's no "I played against Phil Ivey" brag, just lots of losing sessions.

If a few clever fellows developed strong bots but kept it to themselves then that would not have any impact expect in NVG where you would see a lot of threads with titles like: "Which pro is IAmABot on PokerStars?"

Theoretically, a very sophisticated EV calculator would have the best of it long-term against any person. Would using such a thing be ethical? Should using such a thing be illegal? What would it take to develop? (How much did IBM spend developing Deep Blue?)

If a decent bot comes along that makes 0.15BB/100 at any game, but is generally a loser to strong human players would you care? In other words, if you beat the bot would you not want it at your table?

[Artsemis]

Good post Hoi.

[ QUOTE ]
2. PT/HUD are tools that aid decision making. People making decisions is legit no matter what informs those decisions, so PT/HUD are okay.

[/ QUOTE ]

This brings up my other question -- PT has all the data a bot would use. What if it would display the decision the bot would make? Then you can simply choose to listen to it or not. Since this would turn poker into a game of blackjack with a strategy card -- does automation really matter since the decision is the same regardless?

I'm becoming less and less concerned with playing a "bot", but only worried about collaborating bots, in which it becomes a problem of breaking the core rules of the game.

[Jeff76]

[ QUOTE ]
This brings up my other question -- PT has all the data a bot would use. What if it would display the decision the bot would make? Then you can simply choose to listen to it or not. Since this would turn poker into a game of blackjack with a strategy card -- does automation really matter since the decision is the same regardless?

[/ QUOTE ]There is software out there that does this. A friend of mine tried it and it lost him a bunch of money. It's suggestions were horrible.

I think the point is, NLHE is a game that requires more than crunching math and odds analysis. It is not blackjack, where there are only ever a few options and the answer is almost always completely, perfectly solvable. NLHE requires a ton of strategy and analysis, and even seemingly similar situations can be dramatically different. In black jack, simple math and observation can do the trick. Poker is not such a simple game, especially NL HE. Odds/Math are important, but they are not the only skills required.

If you could really write a program complex enough to offer such suggestions that would allow a player to be more profitable than that same player would be with a reasonable amount of study and experience, you'd probably have more important pursuits than creating such an application- at least for consumer use that is.