Do not report bots!

[Bobo Fett]

[ QUOTE ]
Firstly, I'm sorry if I included you unjustly in amongst those I accused of a certain lack of intelligence. I was getting a little overburdened by some real idiots who weren't reading what I said and insisted on responding to something else.

[/ QUOTE ]
Thanks.

[ QUOTE ]
The whole cheating thing is a matter of semantics.

[/ QUOTE ]
Mmmmm...yeah, more or less.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't particularly like the expression 'cheating' because the 'bot is playing by the rules of poker.

If you go to a B&M and one of the rules is 'no smoking in the toilets', and you smoke, you are breaking the sites rules, but you are hardly 'cheating' at poker. So your dictionary definition is no real help because it paints with too broad a brush.

[/ QUOTE ]
Except that the rules we are talking about here or those that apply directly to the game, and breaking those quite neatly fits the dictionary definition of cheating. The rule against smoking in the toilet isn't a rule of the game. But as you say, this is semantics, so I'll let it go at that. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[ QUOTE ]
But this is just pedantry on my part. Just because I wouldn't choose to call using a 'bot cheating doesn't by any means imply that I think they're a good thing or should be tolerated. I don't think murder is cheating but it's certainly a BAD THING.

I suppose you could call the question I'm trying to discuss 'ethics', but that makes it sound rather academic, and, as I've said before, I believe that the question will come back and bite us in the future.

When people start to run good (i.e. effective) robots, the sites will start to get serious about stopping them. They'll probably pretty much get rid of the problem, at least for a few years.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is a little different than what you said earlier. If sites stop winning bots as quickly as they can, that's all we can ask. You had talked before about the sites taking action when it affected their bottom line, which is different. I suggested that it doesn't affect their bottom line until the bots start driving away the fish, which is too late because by then the damage is done.

[ QUOTE ]
What that won't address is the much tougher problem of people using the robot's engine to make advisors that can be used by unskilled (at poker) operatives in a completely undetectable manner.

[/ QUOTE ]
Agreed. There may never be a way to stop this, I think about all a site could do is discourage obviously scripted and/or bot-directed play by banning such players. It wouldn't be fair to take their money, but they could approach this much the way I believe B&M casinos do with suspected card counters.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm interested in where people think the line should be drawn as regards, if you like, ethical behaviour.

[/ QUOTE ]
You'll likely get a wide variety of opinions if you ask people. Personally, when it comes to a card game, I don't distinguish between rules and ethics. If it's within the rules, I consider it ethical. I read books, study & exchange hands, use PT & HUDs. I don't data-mine (although I have in the past). So I guess my ideal site would allow these things and nothing more. However this isn't so much an ethical stance as it is one that serves my own self-interests. As I said, ethics don't really play into it for me, but I know it does for others.

[ QUOTE ]
I realise now, of course, that I was bound to get aggresive responses and no answer because the question as I posed it simply highlights people's hypocracy when it comes to their desire to use aids up to the point that they have chosen to use them.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't think it's hypocritical for people to desire that sites allow what they use and nothing more. It would be hypocritical to want to be allowed to use something no one else can, though. Now, if a site allows more than a player likes, the player can choose to play elsewhere. If site XYZ decides to openly allow botting and I don't like that (which I wouldn't, of course), I would take my business elsewhere.

[Bobo Fett]

[ QUOTE ]
I have spent the past few DAYS searching all the other threads on the internets for one worse than this one. This one wins.

[/ QUOTE ]
You need to look closer to home...like right in this very forum. Here you go. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[qpw]

[ QUOTE ]
I have spent the past few DAYS searching all the other threads on the internets for one worse than this one. This one wins.

[/ QUOTE ]
Well, thats quite an accolade and I'm sure all the people who have taken part would like to thank you.

Your endorsement means so much coming from someone who has the intellectual capabilty and speed of thought (not to mention equipment and comms capability) to search all the other threads, not just on this internet, but on all of them.

Phew!

You must be absolutely exhausted.

That would be many billions of threads.

How many hours each day did you spend?

If I were you I'd have a jolly good rest now, but in the future, if you should decide to spend some of your valuable time searching all the threads on all the internets in order to find the worst, please be sure to let us know which one gets the honour.

[NFuego20]

To be fair that one is pretty bad, although I didn't notice it until after I made my post. I guess I need to do a better job searching the internets.

[RIIT]

[ QUOTE ]
Thank God, at last someone has actually read and [/b]understood[/b] what has been written here.

I assumed that, as you say:

<font color="blue">This leads to the 'Arbitrary Line' issues. Ideally a player wants a site that has drawn a line that very closely matches the computer assistance avenues that the player has studied and mastered.</font>

And this is why my question is so uncomfortable for them.

They realise that, unless they use no computer aids, they themselves have an unfair advantage over anyone using less, or lass able, computer assistance.

I think, though, that question will have to be addressed by someone, at some point in the future.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're welcome. I have to admit that I had to read a couple of exchanges before I saw the disconnect. Your question could have been worded better and I too might have interpreted it the way Josem did without the additional info.

I don't think it's fair to indict those who favor some type of computer assistance as a means to prosper.

Your observation does have some truth in that, as the line moves, within your slippery slope list, various segments of players gain/lose ground NOT in equal proportion; but this is not an indictment on those who gain more ground than others due to an additional computer assistance avenue.

The virtue of any available computer assistance avenue is related to the total number of players that see themselves as gaining ground over others if that tool is added to the mix. Those who think they lose ground will be against it; those who think they gain ground will be for it.

Tracking is a good example. Some are for it and some against it. Some players are very astute trackers and some are not. It makes sense that those without the skill would seek to avoid sites where tracking is a major element.

It also makes sense that those who have found a site where their skill set is right at or very near "the line", would want assurances that all of their opponents are also playing at or inside the line but not over the line. And I think this is well expressed by Josem and BoboFett. Their desires are perfectly rational.

My natural reaction to those complaining about encountering non t&amp;c players (i.e. over the line players) is to resort to an annoying parental posture (which does not help me gain friends) and say "I told you so; you're playing poker in a world where computers naturally outnumber humans 2 to 1 and there is naturally no eye contact; WTF did you expect?"

RIIT