Do you think bots are cheating?

[J.A.Sucker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
jt,

If I'm a speed-freek who stays up for a week at a time playing online poker, does that make it unfair for the pro who can't play as much because they have a wife and kids who want to see daddy?

I think not. I've never been a guy who could play lots of tables or tons of hours, but I don't get jealous of those who can, nor do I see it as some sort of problem. It's just the way it is.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a flawed argument. If you take 2 identical players (wife and kids who want to see daddy and all) and one plays 30 hrs a week, the other plays 30 hrs a week, then when he's tired turns on his bot which makes him $20/hr while he's sleeping/playing with his kids - how is this not cheating? He has the same talents / restrictions as the first player, but is pulling a couple $k extra a week out of the games without lifting a finger.

If the counterargument is "well then the first guy should do it too" we have acknowledged that bot'ing provides an advantage.

If you are asking whether the advantage a bot provides is "right" or "wrong" I do not have an answer for you - personally I think it is unfair to the opposing players, and it is both bad for the games and a subversion of what poker is meant to be, a psychological and intellectual competition between humans.


Surf

[/ QUOTE ]

My argument about time restraints is really a non-argument. I don't care how long you can play for or how long you play. That has no bearing on whether you can win or not. I do understand that you should make hay while the sun shines, but the fact that someone can win faster or for longer than you should impact how you approach your game absolutely nill, except if you are considering playing them.

[J.A.Sucker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
jt,

If I'm a speed-freek who stays up for a week at a time playing online poker, does that make it unfair for the pro who can't play as much because they have a wife and kids who want to see daddy?

I think not. I've never been a guy who could play lots of tables or tons of hours, but I don't get jealous of those who can, nor do I see it as some sort of problem. It's just the way it is.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sucker,

I see a lot of parallels between this discussion and the steroids arguments (aside from the health issues). Isn't what you are saying above akin to "that guy is a natural freak athlete, its not fair to everyone else, we need steroids to level the playing field". Your own human ability may give you an advantage over someone else, but that's true in all things, and the way it should be in online poker too (I know this is idealized). I don't think the argument that one guy can naturally play 80 hours a week while another can only play 30 argues in favor of allowing bots to level the playing field.

-DeathDonkey

[/ QUOTE ]

I knew somebody would bring up steroids in this discussion. I am not quite bringing into play what you are thinking. I'm really trying to see where the boundaries of what's ok are.

It seems like people have a problem with something that pushes the buttons for you and I think that's insane.

I actually feel that ANY electronic information gathering software (including pokertracker) is against the spirit of the game. I don't like datamining. I don't like HUD's. I don't like the fact that it's considered OK to have multiple players play the same hand out, etc, because that's not POKER to me. However, since that's all considered OK in this slightly different beast called ONLINE POKER, then I say what the hell. A bot program is just the ultimate application of FAIRLY OBTAINED INFORMATION. The programmers had to understand how to make good decisions to be a winner and they got the information just like you could.

I can feel for why people don't like the bots, because they can and will likely dry up the games too fast by winning too much, but I think Pandora's box was opened when they let this kind of software and analysis get the way it is. It's ironic that what was once used to maintain the games' integrity very well may destroy it. However, you reap what you sow.

[Surf]

[ QUOTE ]

My argument about time restraints is really a non-argument. I don't care how long you can play for or how long you play. That has no bearing on whether you can win or not. I do understand that you should make hay while the sun shines, but the fact that someone can win faster or for longer than you should impact how you approach your game absolutely nill, except if you are considering playing them.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see how you can just say that time restraints is a "non-argument." If there were an infinite number of fish with infinite money, then yeah, sure.

However, given that player pools are limited and bots would be /are a significant drain on the poker economy, their use would directly affect any full-time player in a very personal way that goes far beyond "but he can play more hours than me."

edit: i see in your latest post you opine that bots may destroy online poker. This is exactly what I'm talking about.
Also, bot != PAHud. PAHud just gives you information that is readily available, plenty of players misapply or misinterpret that information, or get tilty / tired / frustrated and play bad for other reasons. PAHud doesn't make you a winning player, but one well-written bot can make anyone a winning player.

Surf

[Joe Tall]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There is a bit of a fine line/slippery slope here.


[/ QUOTE ]

Um no, It's really clear as day. Using a bot is against the rules of a poker site. It is cheating.

[/ QUOTE ]

Joe,

You missed the point of my post, and of Dave's I think, which is to ask the question of how much automated assistance is acceptable.

[/ QUOTE ]

I understood where Dave was going with this and playing devil's advocate but I think my simple point leads you to your answer:


[ QUOTE ]

I do not think it is at all clear where on my list of six steps one crosses the line into bot territory.


[/ QUOTE ]

Ask the poker site if you can do the things you have listed. If they say no, it's cheating.

I frankly feel it's as clear as that. If you can build something that is allowed within the poker site's T&C, so be it.

You've got two days before the PokerBot World Championships, gogogogogo! [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[milesdyson]

[ QUOTE ]

Also, bot != PAHud. PAHud just gives you information that is readily available, plenty of players misapply or misinterpret that information, or get tilty / tired / frustrated and play bad for other reasons. PAHud doesn't make you a winning player, but one well-written bot can make anyone a winning player.

Surf

[/ QUOTE ]
how is a bot not just using readily available information? it would look through past hands vs. specific players and evaluate pt statistics, all of which is information "legally" available to any player. the bot simply automates your logical process faster than you can do so yourself, much like PAhud compiles statistical information faster than you can do it.

[MarkD]

[ QUOTE ]

1) Just use the stats pokertracker readily provides?
2) Use the stats PAHUD (and similar) computes from your PT stats?
3) Use arbitrary stats of your own creation, produced by running your own custom made software on the PT database?
4) Use software that takes the stats from (3) and estimates the EV of any action you might make?
5) Use software that just tells you the most +EV action computed in (4)?
6) Use software that just goes ahead and takes the most +EV action for you?


[/ QUOTE ]

I feel as if 1, 2 and 3 are really the exact same thing. I could go ahead and program my own database from scratch if I wanted to and it should be exactly as legal as pokertracker is.

I also feel that 4, 5, and 6 are exactly the same thing. Although 6 removes the human from the process it is no different, in my mind, then the program computing the correct decision for you and allowing you to press the button.

I do think there is a huge disconnect between 3 and 4 though. Removing our brain from the calculation of equity and from calculating the right play to make based on that equity is exactly where I view the "cheating" line to begin.

Now, what JoeTall is saying is the correct answer of course, but it answers the wrong question IMO (it's simply not interesting).

[detruncate]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Also, bot != PAHud. PAHud just gives you information that is readily available, plenty of players misapply or misinterpret that information, or get tilty / tired / frustrated and play bad for other reasons. PAHud doesn't make you a winning player, but one well-written bot can make anyone a winning player.

Surf

[/ QUOTE ]
how is a bot not just using readily available information? it would look through past hands vs. specific players and evaluate pt statistics, all of which is information "legally" available to any player. the bot simply automates your logical process faster than you can do so yourself, much like PAhud compiles statistical information faster than you can do it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Neither PT nor PA understand the game of poker even superficially. Bots do (however rotely), and for me that's the critical difference.

PT has a photographic memory but has no idea how to play poker. PA will project PT's memory onto my screen, but offers no help re. applying any of the data either.

Raw data is useless until it's transformed into information via the addition of proper context. The data can be organized into an infinite number of patterns, but absent the addition of someone (or something) who understands the rules of poker it's the equivalent of an unwatched dvd. Similarly, teaching a program the rules of poker is not a problem in itself. That program also needs to be supplied with observed data to apply those rules usefully in real time for it to become an issue.

The bottom line is that human agency needs to be the only functional, real time bridge between collected data + an understanding of the rules unless bots are specifically allowed.

Programs like Poker Stove fall into a grey area for me. As is, they're clunky and general enough that they're not much help at the table. But refine them to the point where they quickly and easily have access to the data they need to generate real time equity estimates and it becomes a problem.

For example, a program telling me that Villain has c/r'ed 2% of the time is fine. As is a program that requires me to type in a range and spits out a simple equity estimate. But combine these two functions into something that has the ability to tell me, for example, that I have xx% equity vs players with similar stats in this spot, and/or my opponent's likely range is xx in this spot with a confidence level of xx adjusted for sample size, and my program has stopped being a passive observer or basic calculator and started being an active participant. It understands enough to know what equity means, and a necessary component of this is some basic understanding of the rules of the game. It simultaneously has access to the data it needs to make knowing the rules at all useful. One of the other is fine. But not both.

In short, when programs begin to have the ability to actively make real time suggestions about how we might profitably make use of collected data, let alone the ability to actually do so themselves (semi)autonomously, the line has clearly been crossed.

[Surf]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Also, bot != PAHud. PAHud just gives you information that is readily available, plenty of players misapply or misinterpret that information, or get tilty / tired / frustrated and play bad for other reasons. PAHud doesn't make you a winning player, but one well-written bot can make anyone a winning player.

Surf

[/ QUOTE ]
how is a bot not just using readily available information? it would look through past hands vs. specific players and evaluate pt statistics, all of which is information "legally" available to any player. the bot simply automates your logical process faster than you can do so yourself, much like PAhud compiles statistical information faster than you can do it.

[/ QUOTE ]

As mark so eloquently states, there is a huge leap between simply organizing your data(PT/PA - it gives you information but you have to know what to do with it and know how to play) and automating the decision-making process to the point where it does not require the user to think(you do not have to make any decisions or know how to play).

Surf

[Surf]

[ QUOTE ]

In short, when programs begin to have the ability to actively make real time suggestions about how we might profitably make use of collected data, let alone the ability to actually do so themselves (semi)autonomously, the line has clearly been crossed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Great post.

[DeathDonkey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
jt,

If I'm a speed-freek who stays up for a week at a time playing online poker, does that make it unfair for the pro who can't play as much because they have a wife and kids who want to see daddy?

I think not. I've never been a guy who could play lots of tables or tons of hours, but I don't get jealous of those who can, nor do I see it as some sort of problem. It's just the way it is.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sucker,

I see a lot of parallels between this discussion and the steroids arguments (aside from the health issues). Isn't what you are saying above akin to "that guy is a natural freak athlete, its not fair to everyone else, we need steroids to level the playing field". Your own human ability may give you an advantage over someone else, but that's true in all things, and the way it should be in online poker too (I know this is idealized). I don't think the argument that one guy can naturally play 80 hours a week while another can only play 30 argues in favor of allowing bots to level the playing field.

-DeathDonkey

[/ QUOTE ]

I knew somebody would bring up steroids in this discussion. I am not quite bringing into play what you are thinking. I'm really trying to see where the boundaries of what's ok are.

It seems like people have a problem with something that pushes the buttons for you and I think that's insane.

I actually feel that ANY electronic information gathering software (including pokertracker) is against the spirit of the game. I don't like datamining. I don't like HUD's. I don't like the fact that it's considered OK to have multiple players play the same hand out, etc, because that's not POKER to me. However, since that's all considered OK in this slightly different beast called ONLINE POKER, then I say what the hell. A bot program is just the ultimate application of FAIRLY OBTAINED INFORMATION. The programmers had to understand how to make good decisions to be a winner and they got the information just like you could.

I can feel for why people don't like the bots, because they can and will likely dry up the games too fast by winning too much, but I think Pandora's box was opened when they let this kind of software and analysis get the way it is. It's ironic that what was once used to maintain the games' integrity very well may destroy it. However, you reap what you sow.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now that I understand you a bit better I 100% agree with this post. Interestingly I played on iPoker when there was no PT/PA available and WPEX under the same circumstances and felt that I played way better, but on the sites where I have the option I tend to use the tools so that I don't give up some edge to the other TAGs in the game.

-DeathDonkey