Do not report bots!

[Josem]

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


[/ QUOTE ]

This is not a philosophical question. This is a market/consumer decision.


I feel that you're trying to be too clever with the issue. There is nothing grey about this - it is a very clear breach of the rules of the major online poker sites, and it is clearly cheating.


Start Metaphor
When playing live poker, I have a choice of providers. Some places that I can go to play live poker allow mobile phones to be used during play. Some do not. Some have excellent security. Some do not. Some are friendly, and so on. When I go to make a choice, I, as a consumer of gaming services, take these issues into account and consequently make a decision.
End Metaphor


The same thing applies to online poker. Some sites (I assume) allow players to use bots. Some do not. Some sites allow players to use PokerTracker and similar tools. Some do not. Some sites allow rakeback. Some do not. Some sites allow you to play a large number of tables. Some do not. Some sites have certain software. Others have different software... and so on.


Thus, when you're considering where you want to play, you have to consider the things that you feel are important in an online gaming service, and to choose appropriately.

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


[/ QUOTE ]

This is irrelevant. It is not a judgement made by customers here - customers do not make the rules, the sites do. We then choose a gaming provider that provide rules that are agreeable to us.

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because it is cheating. It is not grey. It is black. You're fooling yourself with all sorts of high fallutin logic that is not relevant.

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

No. You are wrong. It is not like this at all. I choose to play online poker at sites which ban bots because I do not want to play against computers. If I wanted to play against a computer, I would not play online poker at sites like PartyPoker, PokerStars, and so on.

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is no "shakey" (sic) basis of objection. Using a bot at one of the major sites is a clear breach of the rules that users agree to when using their site.

In addition, the use of the word "schizophrenic" appears to be another attempt to use big words and big concepts to describe a simple solution. Most obviously here, the word does not mean what you seem to be trying to get it to mean - inherently, a group is not possibly schizophrenic because there is discussion and dispute within a group.

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

You have the most simplistic and moronic argument here. The argument appears to be:

a) You claim that poker sites are "infested" by bots.

b) People highlight that poker sites reguarly ban and discipline players who use bots.

c) You claim that any banning and/or disciplining of bots is merely lip service.

d) You provide no evidence of any "infestation" by bots.

e) You ascribe quite offensive and derogatory intentions to a wide variety of poker site operators without any evidence.


Thus, you are providing no evidence of any bot infestation, while dismissing out-of-hand any evidence provided of opponents.

[ QUOTE ]
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).

[/ QUOTE ]
If you now admit you don't know how many bots are successfully operating, how can you possibly claim that there are too many and the sites are not policing this area well enough? That's just silly.

[qpw]

[ QUOTE ]
This is not a philosophical question. This is a market/consumer decision.

[/ QUOTE ]
Er, they are two separate questions.

Just because there's a marketing question as well does not mean the philosophical question vanishes.

[ QUOTE ]
I feel that you're trying to be too clever with the issue. There is nothing grey about this - it is a very clear breach of the rules of the major online poker sites, and it is clearly cheating.

[/ QUOTE ]
It is clear that it is against the rules of the poker sites. It's far from clear that it's cheating.

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


This is irrelevant. It is not a judgement made by customers here - customers do not make the rules, the sites do. We then choose a gaming provider that provide rules that are agreeable to us.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's irrelevant to the commercial considerations, but I wasn't posting about commercial considerations, I was posting about philosophical ones.

[ QUOTE ]
Because it is cheating. It is not grey. It is black. You're fooling yourself with all sorts of high fallutin logic that is not relevant.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I'm afraid what is actually happening here is that you are ignoring all logic and attempting to argue by dictat. You are saying: "I don't care about the logic, I say it's cheating so it's cheating".

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

No. You are wrong. It is not like this at all. I choose to play online poker at sites which ban bots because I do not want to play against computers. If I wanted to play against a computer, I would not play online poker at sites like PartyPoker, PokerStars, and so on.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're making a staw man argument here. I'm not saying that people running 'bots on a site that disallows ite not breaking the site rules.

I'm saying that I have trouble making a philosophical case that using a robot is cheating.

Much the same way that years ago, when the first bank started to use computers to cut the costs compared with clerks, you would have had trouble making an argument that they were 'cheating', even though their use of computers gave them a clear financial advantage over their competitors.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is no "shakey" (sic) basis of objection. Using a bot at one of the major sites is a clear breach of the rules that users agree to when using their site.

[/ QUOTE ]Again, you are not actually addressing the question I was.

You continue to shout: "It's against the rules, it's against the rules", but I have never disputed that.

I was addressing the philosophical question of why the use of a robot is cheating per se. The sort of question that you would have to address if you ever wanted full legal protection against 'bot operators.

[ QUOTE ]
In addition, the use of the word "schizophrenic" appears to be another attempt to use big words and big concepts to describe a simple solution.

[/ QUOTE ]
Another?

Was there a previous use of a big word that you had trouble with?

[ QUOTE ]
Most obviously here, the word does not mean what you seem to be trying to get it to mean - inherently, a group is not possibly schizophrenic because there is discussion and dispute within a group.

[/ QUOTE ]
I described it as schizophrenic because there is one group that are convinced that the poker rooms are infected with robots and another that maintain that the poker rooms are on top of the situation and there isn't a problem.

quote][ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

You have the most simplistic and moronic argument here.


[/ QUOTE ]
Can you not conduct a discussion without calling other people's points 'moronic'. It's a very schoolboy style of argument.

[ QUOTE ]
The argument appears to be:

a) You claim that poker sites are "infested" by bots.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nope, I've said several times that I've no idea how many robots there are.

[ QUOTE ]
b) People highlight that poker sites reguarly ban and discipline players who use bots.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have never said that poker sites do noting to discourage robots.
I've never even said that the only do the bare minimum.

All I have said is that it is blatantly obvious that they are not doing all they can since there are certain actions they could take that would stop winholdem robots dead and yet there is a thriving community of operators.

[ QUOTE ]
c) You claim that any banning and/or disciplining of bots is merely lip service.

[/ QUOTE ]

Indeed, because they are not taking the steps that they could easily take to stop the problem.

[ QUOTE ]
d) You provide no evidence of any "infestation" by bots.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't claim that there is an infestation. Merely that there are robot operators on forums chatting about their 'botting activities and if the sites were doing all that it is possible to do, there wouldn't be.

[ QUOTE ]
e) You ascribe quite offensive and derogatory intentions to a wide variety of poker site operators without any evidence.

[/ QUOTE ]
All I'm suggesting is that they are looking out for what is best for their bottom line at this particular point in time.

The evidence that they are not doing all they can to stop robots is on the 'bot operator sites.

[ QUOTE ]
Thus, you are providing no evidence of any bot infestation, while dismissing out-of-hand any evidence provided of opponents.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not providing evidence of infestation because I'm not claiming infestation. Simple as that.

[ QUOTE ]
If you now admit you don't know how many bots are successfully operating, how can you possibly claim that there are too many and the sites are not policing this area well enough? That's just silly.

[/ QUOTE ]

Only because you haven't analysed all I have said correctly.

To recap:

There are robots and their operators maintain forums where their activities are discussed. (I don't claim to know how many there are, despite you repeated and erroneous assertion that I'm claiming 'infestations'.

Having read some of these forums, it is quite clear that not one of the poker rooms is taking the steps that they could quite easily take to stop these current operators dead in their tracks.

Given that robots generate rake and that is where poker rooms get their money, I don't find it in the least surprising that they are not as pro-active as they might be.

Poker rooms are run for the benefit of the shareholders in poker rooms, not for 2+2 members, nor fish, nor robot operators.

[NFuego20]

Wow, this back and forth is getting nearly unreadable. Who's gonna give in first.

All in response to a moronic post that didn't deserve any serious responses, by somebody who has probably never even played against a bot.

[zomg]

this is the worst thread on the internets

[qpw]

[ QUOTE ]
this is the worst thread on the internets

[/ QUOTE ]
WOW!!!

I'm impressed.

You've checked, not only every thread on this internet, but every thread on all the internets, and have awarded the accolade of 'worst' to this one.

It must have taken you hours to review them all.

[Bobo Fett]

I figured my reply would be skipped in your hate-match with Josem, but that's OK. However, there's something in your lats post I just can't let go.

[ QUOTE ]
It is clear that it is against the rules of the poker sites. It's far from clear that it's cheating.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'll be nice and refrain from saying what I really think of that point, but, ummmm...wow! From the "Free Online Dictionary":

----------
cheat (cht)
v. cheat·ed, cheat·ing, cheats
v.tr.
1. To deceive by trickery; swindle: cheated customers by overcharging them for purchases.
2. To deprive by trickery; defraud: cheated them of their land.
3. To mislead; fool: illusions that cheat the eye.
4. To elude; escape: cheat death.
v.intr.
1. To act dishonestly; practice fraud.
2. To violate rules deliberately, as in a game: was accused of cheating at cards.
3. Informal To be sexually unfaithful: cheat on a spouse.
n.
1. An act of cheating; a fraud or swindle.
2. One who cheats; a swindler.
3. Law Fraudulent acquisition of another's property.
4. Botany An annual European species of brome grass (Bromus secalinus) widely naturalized in temperate regions.

[qpw]

[ QUOTE ]
I figured my reply would be skipped in your hate-match with Josem, but that's OK. However, there's something in your lats post I just can't let go.

[ QUOTE ]
It is clear that it is against the rules of the poker sites. It's far from clear that it's cheating.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'll be nice and refrain from saying what I really think of that point, but, ummmm...wow! From the "Free Online Dictionary":

----------
cheat (cht)
v. cheat·ed, cheat·ing, cheats
v.tr.
1. To deceive by trickery; swindle: cheated customers by overcharging them for purchases.
2. To deprive by trickery; defraud: cheated them of their land.
3. To mislead; fool: illusions that cheat the eye.
4. To elude; escape: cheat death.
v.intr.
1. To act dishonestly; practice fraud.
2. To violate rules deliberately, as in a game: was accused of cheating at cards.
3. Informal To be sexually unfaithful: cheat on a spouse.
n.
1. An act of cheating; a fraud or swindle.
2. One who cheats; a swindler.
3. Law Fraudulent acquisition of another's property.
4. Botany An annual European species of brome grass (Bromus secalinus) widely naturalized in temperate regions.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're making exactly the same mistake that josem is making.

You are arguing the specifics of playing on particular sites whilst I was considering the philosophical implications of claiming that using a robot was cheating 'per se'.

If you want to change the question and answer another one, go ahead but it doesn't mean anything.

Forget about the various poker site's rules. I'm not disputing that people are breaking those rules.

All I'm interested in is at what point does using aids move from a legitimate tactic to cheating.

Rather than spout on about 'tired old arguments', tell me where in the following list you believe that a player starts to cheat.

1) Uses tables he worked out by hand to determine play.
2) Uses tables he worked out on a computer to determine play.
3) Uses tables someone else worked out to play.
4) Uses a program that calculates simple equity to assist in play decisions.
5) Uses a program that calculate complex equity to assist in play decisions.
6) Uses a program that remembers all previous games played by user and calculates stats that go into the advice given
7) Does all above and calculates optimum bluffing and anti-bluffing strategy
8) Does all above and adds check/raise slow play strategy
9) Does all above and adds table reading strategy
10) Sits at the bottom of the screen watching 12 tables and giving user an exact bet/raise this amount, check/call or fold suggestion
11) Presses the appropriate button if the user has to take a leak.
12) Keeps pressing the buttons whilst the user goes down the pub for a couple of hours.

You see, I'm not trying to make a case for robots here.

What I'm trying to do is come up with a philosophically sound argument and a delineation of the time at which using aids turns into cheating.

Unfortunately, people such as josem don't read the question and go off at halfcock desparately answering a question that hasn't been asked and becoming quite unnecessarily offensive defending a premise that isn't actually under attack.

[Mike Haven]

This will make the thread better. Funniest thing I've seen for a long time! (My apologies if it's aready been posted in the Zoo, but this thread seems an apt place for it.)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6qc_QRy6B4

[qpw]

[ QUOTE ]
This will make the thread better. Funniest thing I've seen for a long time! (My apologies if it's aready been posted in the Zoo, but this thread seems an apt place for it.)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6qc_QRy6B4

[/ QUOTE ]
Priceless!

[Bobo Fett]

[ QUOTE ]
You're making exactly the same mistake that josem is making.

[/ QUOTE ]
Ummm...no, I made NO mistake. I was merely correcting yours:

[ QUOTE ]
It is clear that it is against the rules of the poker sites. It's far from clear that it's cheating.

[/ QUOTE ]
I won't bother requoting the dictionary definition again. You've stated above that it's against the rules, yet it isn't cheating. By definition, breaking the rules IS cheating. I really can't make it any clearer than that.

[ QUOTE ]
You are arguing the specifics of playing on particular sites whilst I was considering the philosophical implications of claiming that using a robot was cheating 'per se'.

If you want to change the question and answer another one, go ahead but it doesn't mean anything.

Forget about the various poker site's rules. I'm not disputing that people are breaking those rules.

All I'm interested in is at what point does using aids move from a legitimate tactic to cheating.

Rather than spout on about 'tired old arguments', tell me where in the following list you believe that a player starts to cheat.

1) Uses tables he worked out by hand to determine play.
2) Uses tables he worked out on a computer to determine play.
3) Uses tables someone else worked out to play.
4) Uses a program that calculates simple equity to assist in play decisions.
5) Uses a program that calculate complex equity to assist in play decisions.
6) Uses a program that remembers all previous games played by user and calculates stats that go into the advice given
7) Does all above and calculates optimum bluffing and anti-bluffing strategy
8) Does all above and adds check/raise slow play strategy
9) Does all above and adds table reading strategy
10) Sits at the bottom of the screen watching 12 tables and giving user an exact bet/raise this amount, check/call or fold suggestion
11) Presses the appropriate button if the user has to take a leak.
12) Keeps pressing the buttons whilst the user goes down the pub for a couple of hours.

You see, I'm not trying to make a case for robots here.

What I'm trying to do is come up with a philosophically sound argument and a delineation of the time at which using aids turns into cheating.

Unfortunately, people such as josem don't read the question and go off at halfcock desparately answering a question that hasn't been asked and becoming quite unnecessarily offensive defending a premise that isn't actually under attack.

[/ QUOTE ]
I already made my "philosophical" response a few posts ago. I don't consider cheating to be a philosophical issue, it's pretty clear-cut for me. A player is cheating when they break the rules. Simple.