Bots in PartyPoker's 6-max Limit games?

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
Are you really that concerned about a bunch of rich companies making money off of rakes, or expert players making money off of losers? Because those are the only people that are going to be hurt if things go down... the fish would probably be better off!

[/ QUOTE ]
It's about the concept of a fair game.

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
i have very strong evidence that ftp and a few others encourage bot use. what do you think of this phil? do you not believe me?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know about encourage in the case of FTP, but as I said, the smaller sites definitely care less about bots. Party and Stars are very much anti-bot.

I questioned FTPDoug about this issue and I read his response as basically saying: "we're doing very little to nothing right now"

[HavanaBanana]

This thread is to long.
What did Party do in this case?

ToT

[trader01]

Thanks for responding with points.

[ QUOTE ]

1. Sites don't care/will do the least possible about/want bots. Therefore you shouldn't report them.

Party and Stars take bots very seriously. Management of both consider bots a serious threat to their business, and they have devoted significant resources and personnel to finding and catching them. Ask anyone who is in the business. The other, smaller sites appear to care less.


[/ QUOTE ]

There is no doubt that sites devote some resources to getting rid of bots, which is essentially the only point that you can prove with conviction. This is of course self-evident, but the question is, HOW MANY resources? Is it really all that they can do? Or are they doing (let's say) a 30% or 60% effort? We won't know the answer to that question, and neither would anyone who is not very high up at one of these sites. Surely you must admit that there is at least the appearance of a conflict of interest on the part of the sites which claim to be trying with all their might to get rid of their most frequent and profitable customers? What list of specific self-directed steps have they taken (let's say) in the last 6 months to combat the problem? From what I have heard they let some accounts play for 80 hours straight without investigation. I have seen a player playing with $100 account in a $0.05/$0.10 limit room for hours... doesn't sound like a human to me - who would play with that much in the bank without getting bored and moving to a higher table? These are some of the first clues I would look for in terms of tracking bots, and are no-brainers to detect. Yet have they even done this? If not, your argument that they are truly trying falls flat.

[ QUOTE ]

2. Attempts to get rid of bots by the sites are a waste of time

Bots get caught all the time. Furthermore, hassling the owners of bots helps stop their proliferation. As others have posted this is a manageable problem with hard work. Will you stop every one? No. But you can make it damn difficult and keep bot numbers under control.


[/ QUOTE ]

Of course bots get caught all the time, but that doesn't mean it's a manageable problem. Remember those people that got sued by the music industry for file-sharing songs a few years ago? They got caught too, but it didn't solve anything and tons of songs are still being shared online. Catching a few people here and there does not imply management of the problem. I'll believe that it's working when people stop complaining about bots on these sites - so far, that's not happening.


[ QUOTE ]

3. The best way to deal with bots is either to exploit them or not play at their tables. DO NOT report them.

This has some merit, but the simple fact is that many bots just aren't that exploitable in a full table environment. Most of them are also tight and don't create action. Plus, they should be reported for the reasons above.


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think that a good bot is really exploitable, but you can learn to avoid them. A badly written bot might be exploited, but that wasn't really the main thrust of my point - avoiding them was more the thing. I will concede that if it is easy to send a list of potential bots to the company, then it's worth doing - every good player that is removed makes it easier for me. I just wouldn't devote huge resources to it on a personal level, that's all... but if you guys want to, please go ahead!

[ QUOTE ]

4. There is nothing ethically wrong with a bot that doesn't collude

This is just laughable. It's equivalent to saying "there's nothing wrong with paying a smart friend to take an exam for me, provided I give him some tutoring on the subject" BTW, who's the say the user of the bot was the programmer? Your already shaky argument falls flat on that point.


[/ QUOTE ]

Not really. Sites most certainly do NOT make the claim that you are playing only against unaided humans. In fact, some sites even have deals with companies that make programs that can give you playing advice live. A human using this program and doing whatever it says (call/raise/fold) is almost EXACTLY the same effect as a single bot working on its own, and not only is this supported by Paradise Poker and a long list of others, some sites even go to the point of providing these companies with promotional codes to attract players! So they are most certainly NOT making the claim to their customers that there will be no computers involved in the decision making process against them.


[ QUOTE ]

The other point is people have a right to play against other humans, if they sign up for a site that only permit non bot players to play. It's like steroids in sports. If everyone agrees to steroids, no problem. But if the rules are that you must be steroid free, and someone agrees to this in a contract but takes steroids anyway, then he is a cheating scum. I think most people would agree with this.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed, except that my above point disproves your contention. If they allow decision making programs to be used on their site, then they are not promoting it as "steroid free". These programs have behaviour that is almost exactly like a bot - very tight play, can take down fish easily, hold their own or lose a little ground against good players - and they are LEGAL and PROMOTED. So the argument that you are signing up to a site that is promoted as "computer free" simply does not exist, and it's the companies themselves that are engaging in this behaviour.

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
The question is, HOW MANY resources [for bot detection/prevention]? Is it really all that they can do? Or are they doing (let's say) a 30% or 60% effort?

[/ QUOTE ]
From what I understand Party has an entire bot team dedicated to detecting bots. Stars has spent significant resources on programming bot detection software and employs staff for that same purpose. Exactly how much, the sites would have to say. Any Stars support around?

Could they do more? Of course, which is part of the point of this thread.

[ QUOTE ]
[Bots may not be a manageable problem]. Remember those people that got sued by the music industry for file-sharing songs a few years ago? They got caught too, but it didn't solve anything

[/ QUOTE ]
Different problem, different scale. Differences are:

1. Detection - p2p users communicate with other users only. Poker players interface with site servers a few times a second, and the site's software runs on their computer. Most cashouts require ID verification, so there is usually a name.

2. Ease of punishment. Sites can confiscate money immediately with the click of a mouse button. The RIAA had to take individuals through an expensive legal process to get any money and publicity.

3. Number of violations. Bots number in the hundreds, possibly thousands of users. Each one that's caught needs a new ID. Music downloads number in the tens of millions.

4. The wishes of customers.

[ QUOTE ]
Sites most certainly do NOT make the claim that you are playing only against unaided humans.

[/ QUOTE ]
It is in the T&C. They spell what is and isn't allowed, and what will result in account banning. People that choose to play there are restricted to those things.

[ QUOTE ]
Sites most certainly do NOT make the claim that you are playing only against unaided humans. A human using this program and doing whatever it says (call/raise/fold) is almost EXACTLY the same effect as a single bot working on its own

[/ QUOTE ]
The poker playing community has agreed to a set of rules. One is that a completely automated system (that the user can walk away from and have play in their place) is forbidden. It's that simple. Autofolders, even though are hardly bot technology, are forbidden on many sites too. Sites have taken a very clear stance here in deciding that a person must actually be sitting at the computer pressing buttons. BTW, the programs that you speak of are on the very borderline, and forbidden at certain sites.

[trader01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The question is, HOW MANY resources [for bot detection/prevention]? Is it really all that they can do? Or are they doing (let's say) a 30% or 60% effort?

[/ QUOTE ]
From what I understand Party has an entire bot team dedicated to detecting bots. Stars has spent significant resources on programming bot detection software and employs staff for that same purpose. Exactly how much, the sites would have to say. Any Stars support around?

Could they do more? Of course, which is part of the point of this thread.


[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, my point was that they could very EASILY do more than I am seeing myself and hearing about from other people, and they don't seem to be. Case in point, the obvious bot playing irregularities which I mentioned in my previous post (someone sitting with a large cash hoard for hours on end a at a small blinds table accumulating money, for example). Don't know what those programming teams are doing to catch bots, but they obviously need some lessons... as a programmer, I can tell you that detecting that type of behaviour is trivial if they wanted to do it.

Just for the record, in reference to your points below, I never said that bots and the music industry problem were similar in their characteristics, merely that the blanket statement of "they are catching people" is not enough to justify the conclusion of "therefore the problem is under control". Now, to get to the specifics:

[ QUOTE ]

1. Detection - p2p users communicate with other users only. Poker players interface with site servers a few times a second, and the site's software runs on their computer. Most cashouts require ID verification, so there is usually a name.

2. Ease of punishment. Sites can confiscate money immediately with the click of a mouse button. The RIAA had to take individuals through an expensive legal process to get any money and publicity.

3. Number of violations. Bots number in the hundreds, possibly thousands of users. Each one that's caught needs a new ID. Music downloads number in the tens of millions.

4. The wishes of customers.


[/ QUOTE ]

All quite true points, yet the fact remains that bots still proliferate, ergo, they are successful. In the end, the proof is in the pudding - we are still complaining about bots right now. You contend that over time this problem will be resolved with hard work, I contend that bot makers will always find a way around the issues as tactics escalate - that is, assuming these so-called programming detection teams can ever bring themselves to write a few lines to code to detect some of the very obvious bots that are running now!

In any case, nobody will really be able to prove that they're right until time passes - a year or two from now if bots are even more prevalent I think you'll have to admit that I was right - otherwise if they are markedly reduced I'll have to admit that you were.

[ QUOTE ]

The poker playing community has agreed to a set of rules. One is that a completely automated system (that the user can walk away from and have play in their place) is forbidden. It's that simple. Autofolders, even though are hardly bot technology, are forbidden on many sites too. Sites have taken a very clear stance here in deciding that a person must actually be sitting at the computer pressing buttons. BTW, the programs that you speak of are on the very borderline, and forbidden at certain sites.

[/ QUOTE ]

I never said that bots weren't forbidden, or that it wasn't against the rules of the site - just that a company which claims in its t&c that bots are forbidden yet allows programs that can make decisions for you is one that is hardly standing on an unambiguous moral high ground, and therefore shouldn't preach too loudly. What is going on at a LOT of these sites implies the allowance of computer aid (more sites allow these programs than ban them), and I'm not sure that there is that big of a difference.

What is so morally great, and what does it have to do with poker, when I can stand in front of my computer and faithfully press whatever button it tells me to, but I can't just let the machine do it itself? To me, the sites are saying that me being a button-pusher is fine, but the computer being a button pusher is not. It's something that makes the statement "we don't want computers influencing our games unfairly" ring a little hollow, that's all.

[Max on wh]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
would any one like to try playing against a table with a few bots? for not for real money, see how you do...its all free. would you guys be interested?

[/ QUOTE ]

It would not be on a poker site, you can use whatever name you want, you invent a user name and a log in. No money involved. If you would like you could get on the table with another buddy and collude, but then you would not know how well the bot really does.

I use a bot but i do not collude. I can put the same bot in 9 different chairs on the table if i want, but they each play individually, and do not share cards.

If you are interested send me a pm, and i could set up a table and we play tonight, or whenever you would like. come on, for those that are curious, would it not be something interesting?

there is no way to link any of us to a real online site, there is no money involved. Yes you can cheat if you wanted to, but then your own results would be way off.

Max

of course id like to help you make a better bot that will take more moeny out of poker and give me nothing in return.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is worth noting that there are significant efforts ongoing to improve poker AI, beyond their use against real money players online.

[/ QUOTE ]

[satya]

[ QUOTE ]


bottom line is that they will be interested in the goal
of increasing the number of rake generating chairs.

ray

[/ QUOTE ]

Until all the live players are chased away because they can't win?

Until there are only bots left playing?

Sounds like a plan to rule the i-net poker world.

Good luck with that.

Was it Freud who said, "The ego is not master in its own house"?

[acIdREIGN462]

[ QUOTE ]
This thread is to long.
What did Party do in this case?

ToT

[/ QUOTE ]