Bots and the future of online poker

[RIIT]

[ QUOTE ]
I am not worried. Won a lot over 4 years. Money in the bank. When bot's rule it's off to travelling and playing live poker around the world

[/ QUOTE ]

There will never be a day when "bots" rule. They have already been playing against you 24/7 more than you realize.

If you're already doing well then chances are you'll continue as you were. If this were the stock market then the price of the stock has already taken into account the fact that bot are already playing each and every day 24/7.

Most of what is said in threads like this is myth and hype.

RIIT

[RIIT]

[ QUOTE ]
Bot's will come because AI is developing so fast. That said, it's not only poker that's doomed, it's several other human tasks.. biological has had it's time. Read some Ray Kurtzweil books.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a fine example of hype and myth. Bots have already been doing their thing for many years now. They're already here and have been but they're just not publically identified in order to keep the peace due to backward player thinking that seems to still prevail.

RIIT.

[Adebisi]

[ QUOTE ]
If anyone were able to program a bot to beat poker, why would he bother? He should be able to beat the game himself.

[/ QUOTE ]


I can't 10-table 24 hours a day 7 days a week. If I had a winning bot, I would have it 10-12 tabling mid-stakes at Stars for 6 hours, then Full Tilt for 6 hourse, then various smaller sites for 12 hours. I could earn like 200x my bot's bb/100 every day. A bot that could beat 3/6 limit for 1bb/100 could earn 500k per year. I'd have to "work" for less than an hour every day.

[dismalstudent99]

Time to suck up our egos: Eventually bots will be better than most, if not all human players. This happened to chess, why not poker, especially seeing how bad most humans are? Even in the case of the game Go (more complex than chess), computers can still beat "casual" players (like myself!).

Bots will be able to make calculations, randomize their actions (yes, good bots can randomize!), and process data from thousands of hand histories more effectively than most humans.

Even if the bots can't beat the pros, as long as it can beat 60% of the population, it will be profitable. However, my bet is that the bots will be better than the pros eventually (maybe 10 or more years, tho)

Bot detection can be circumvented simply by putting the bot software on another computer, except for the monitor input and the mouse interface -- the bot just has to interpret the monitor signals, then simulate a mouse movement to make the correct clicks. There won't need to be human supervision.

The worst-case scenario: Bots become talented, wide-spread, and undetectable enough to scare off many players. The on-line industry will have to set up local internet cafes, or more likely make agreements with pre-existing ones -- these cafes will be guaranteed bot free. Players who play from a secure cafe will have a special icon next to their avatar indicating they're not a bot. They may also have access to special tables that only other cafe players can play at.
Much business would still be lost, but the industry would survive since playing at a cafe would still be better than going to a casino.

[RIIT]

[ QUOTE ]
Time to suck up our egos: Eventually bots will be better than most, if not all human players. This happened to chess, why not poker, especially seeing how bad most humans are? Even in the case of the game Go (more complex than chess), computers can still beat "casual" players (like myself!).

Bots will be able to make calculations, randomize their actions (yes, good bots can randomize!), and process data from thousands of hand histories more effectively than most humans.

Even if the bots can't beat the pros, as long as it can beat 60% of the population, it will be profitable. However, my bet is that the bots will be better than the pros eventually (maybe 10 or more years, tho)

Bot detection can be circumvented simply by putting the bot software on another computer, except for the monitor input and the mouse interface -- the bot just has to interpret the monitor signals, then simulate a mouse movement to make the correct clicks. There won't need to be human supervision.

The worst-case scenario: Bots become talented, wide-spread, and undetectable enough to scare off many players. The on-line industry will have to set up local internet cafes, or more likely make agreements with pre-existing ones -- these cafes will be guaranteed bot free. Players who play from a secure cafe will have a special icon next to their avatar indicating they're not a bot. They may also have access to special tables that only other cafe players can play at.
Much business would still be lost, but the industry would survive since playing at a cafe would still be better than going to a casino.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is backward thinking to want to play poker in an environment (where computers outnumber humans 2 to 1) and yet expect there to be only non-computer assisted players.

Computer assisted players have been part of the game since poker appeared on the internet 10 years ago - yet we still have people like you hanging around who are possessed by the false notion that internet poker is identical to the live game.

This mindset keeps making statements like:

"bots will someday ruin online poker ... "
"when bots get really good ... blah blah blah"
"in the future bots will rule just like they did in chess"
... etc. etc.

Can somebody please tell me why human beings can latch on to the idea that they and only they should be playing internet poker in an environment where computers outnumber humans 2 to 1? This is not a reasonable expectation within the online game.

RIIT

[imabigdeal]

i don't know a lot about programming, but obv a computer program could be designed to be "perfect" at chess or a game like that. but hold 'em, especially no limit, is just a different breed of game. you can design a bot that might be highly sophisticated, but that really doesn't bother me, it'd just be like playing a good person. it will have flaws, because you cannot play perfect poker. there's just no such thing. obv it's [censored] up that they can bajillion table and make more cash, so it shouldn't be allowed cuz of that. but i don't mind playing one.

[dismalstudent99]

[ QUOTE ]


It is backward thinking to want to play poker in an environment (where computers outnumber humans 2 to 1) and yet expect there to be only non-computer assisted players.

Computer assisted players have been part of the game since poker appeared on the internet 10 years ago - yet we still have people like you hanging around who are possessed by the false notion that internet poker is identical to the live game.

Can somebody please tell me why human beings can latch on to the idea that they and only they should be playing internet poker in an environment where computers outnumber humans 2 to 1? This is not a reasonable expectation within the online game.

RIIT

[/ QUOTE ]


First, we're talking about bots, not computer-assisted players. Something like Poker Tracker assists a player, whereas a bot IS a player.

AI "assistance" is also a bit off topic -- we are considering a situation where the AI is so superior that most players would be better off letting the bot make all the decisions.

In such a situation, humans would no longer be having fun playing if they just followed the bot's instruction. Take out the fun aspect, and people will stop playing.


Second, technology gets better. Yes, bots are already here and aren't very good. However, the point is that they will get better (especially with the boom in poker studies in academia). And once they get better, there will be put into greater use.

Third, once bots are capable of beating the microstakes game, the whole foundation of online poker will be threatened. Bot operators will have an incentive to populate the tables with bots until all profitability is drained out of the game (too many bot-sharks and human sharks, and not enough human fish).

This, in turn, will make it impossible for a moderately-skilled human player to build a bankroll and move up.

Also, newbies would be deterred from entering the online poker world in the first place because they hear news about how it's almost impossible to beat the game.

Since money flows up the poker pyramid, the depletion of winning microstakes humans would cause the higher stakes game to dry up -- no fresh meat.


In short, the online poker economy is built on entertainment value and players' belief in upwards mobility. Bots take away these two foundations.


The economics of botting must take precedence over the ethics of botting. Super bots will vastly shrink the online poker economy. Because of this negative effect, we should consider bots unethical.

Therefore, I hope the powers that be start thinking up better anti-bot measures.

The best measure would be to make it a crime (fraud). After that, I think we would have to resort to bot-proof Internet cafes.

[RIIT]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


It is backward thinking to want to play poker in an environment (where computers outnumber humans 2 to 1) and yet expect there to be only non-computer assisted players.

Computer assisted players have been part of the game since poker appeared on the internet 10 years ago - yet we still have people like you hanging around who are possessed by the false notion that internet poker is identical to the live game.

Can somebody please tell me why human beings can latch on to the idea that they and only they should be playing internet poker in an environment where computers outnumber humans 2 to 1? This is not a reasonable expectation within the online game.

RIIT

[/ QUOTE ]


[ QUOTE ]
First, we're talking about bots, not computer-assisted players. Something like Poker Tracker assists a player, whereas a bot IS a player.

[/ QUOTE ]

No. We're talking about all CA players which include analysis programs that happen to have the ability to click buttons for the player. Using an autoplayer actually prolongs ones desire to continue playing poker; autoplayers actually extend the shelf life of a player; and from a purely "economic" point of view it should be against the rules to play as human because your need to "sleepy and tinky" is a liability and not an asset in that arena. Take your entire argument to a Wall Street scenario and see what kind of reaction you get when you suggest that all computer trading be removed from the game. Your thinking is backward within the context of the internet.

[ QUOTE ]
AI "assistance" is also a bit off topic -- we are considering a situation where the AI is so superior that most players would be better off letting the bot make all the decisions.

[/ QUOTE ]

No. We're considering a situation where the end-user decides for themselves for whatever reason they want - regardless of how good their AI is or is not. I can tell you from personal experience that it is very entertaining to watch your own bot play even when it's only a few days old (baby bot); it's kind of like watching a child learn to walk or talk. At first the kid stumbles and falls and mangles sentences (i.e. a baby bot makes a lot of losing mistakes - so is this good or bad for the poker economy? think about it dude). The reasons why your opponent has decided to use an autoplayer are not your concern; they have the freedom to do it and so do you. Stop worrying about what your opponents are doing or not doing and focus on your own game. Please go to your fireplace and get a hot poker and find the part of your mind that wants/needs to control the behavior of your online opponents and then cauterize it - then please find everyone who thinks they way you do and encourage them to do the same. Your mindset goes against the very natural grain of the internet environment.

[ QUOTE ]
In such a situation, humans would no longer be having fun playing if they just followed the bot's instruction. Take out the fun aspect, and people will stop playing.

[/ QUOTE ]

You do not get to decide who is having fun and who is not having fun. I've used bots for years and I can assure you that I have a lot of fun dude. So who the hell are you to tell me if I'm having fun or not. If you're not having fun then I once again ask you to examine your soul and consider why you decided to play online poker where computers outnumber humans 2 to 1. If you want all human opponents then why the hell are you playing online poker? I want to bot but cannot do so in a live b&m environment (and I am ok with that because I still sincerely love the live game). And so I turn to the internet to satisfy my desire to explore the world of real money poker AI and I am immediately confronted with people like you who do not have the capicity to properly understand the environment in which they've chosen to play. The internet is a place built upon a foundation of computers and yet there are those from my human species who think it normal to enter that environment and encounter only human players - have you ever stopped to consider what that mindset indicates about yourself?

[ QUOTE ]
Second, technology gets better. Yes, bots are already here and aren't very good. However, the point is that they will get better (especially with the boom in poker studies in academia). And once they get better, there will be put into greater use.

[/ QUOTE ]

They are already as close to as good as they're going to get. There is no magic day coming when computer analysis will make fool proof decisions. As long as any player can get the nuts on the next hand, poker is safe (that is unless you're suggesting that AI becomes so good that it magically/mystically gains knowledge of opponent cards).

[ QUOTE ]
Third, once bots are capable of beating the microstakes game, the whole foundation of online poker will be threatened. Bot operators will have an incentive to populate the tables with bots until all profitability is drained out of the game (too many bot-sharks and human sharks, and not enough human fish).

[/ QUOTE ]

Some bots have already done this and it has the identical effect as that of any human player learning how to beat the micro-stakes. In other words it is a non-issue. If it's bad for the poker economy for a bot to learn how to beat micro-stakes then it's bad for a human to do it too and vice versa. Your argument effectively indicts anybody that learns how to beat any level. This is backward thinking. The ultimate end to this argument is: "poker dies if too many people learn how to play the game."; If this statement is true then poker deserves to die for failing to achieve a structure necessary for life. However, I do not believe poker will die because people are learning how to play better each day.

[ QUOTE ]
This, in turn, will make it impossible for a moderately-skilled human player to build a bankroll and move up.

[/ QUOTE ]

So what. The nature of poker is that it creates losers (and some winners). Nobody has a divine right to "move up". Move your entire argument here to the live game and consider that it's not possible for all moderate players to "move up"; most don't but some do. What you need to change within your mindset is the idea that bots are going to have some "future" effect on the online game. And my point is that whatever effect you "think" they will have is already here and has been here for years. This imagined "future" impact is a figment of your imagination. Bots have already had all the impact on the online game they're going to have. The price of the stock already includes their influence.

[ QUOTE ]
Also, newbies would be deterred from entering the online poker world in the first place because they hear news about how it's almost impossible to beat the game.

[/ QUOTE ]

More "future" myth here. This is the "mythical" idiot newb line that's been said over and over. This stereotype might be appropriate for my dead grandmother but not for a kid who's had a cell phone since junior high and has a desktop and a laptop and a website and etc. I'm talking about a generation of kids who in a few years will not be able to remember when there was not an internet - who grew up in a home with more than 1 computer. So my point is that you're facing an entire planetary wide generation of kids who will arrive at the gates of online poker expecting to use computer assistance and they are going to laugh and call you "gay" for suggesting that only humans should be playing online poker. Bottom line: your mindset will look and feel like that of their grandparents.

[ QUOTE ]
Since money flows up the poker pyramid, the depletion of winning microstakes humans would cause the higher stakes game to dry up -- no fresh meat.

[/ QUOTE ]

If this were true then the live game would have died years ago.

[ QUOTE ]
In short, the online poker economy is built on entertainment value and players' belief in upwards mobility. Bots take away these two foundations.

[/ QUOTE ]

Apply this same argument to the live game and you can indict all 2+2 poker books for teaching players how to get better; your argument essentially says that too much knowledge about how to play the game well can destroy the game itself; and again, if that's true then poker deserves to die as fast as we can kill it. I've been botting for years and I still believe in upward mobility and I'm still very much entertained.

[ QUOTE ]
The economics of botting must take precedence over the ethics of botting. Super bots will vastly shrink the online poker economy. Because of this negative effect, we should consider bots unethical.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again more "future" hype and myth. There are no super bots and never will be. The best bots are already here and have been here for years. Your argument essentially embraces online poker but then indicts the very foundation upon which it is built; computers are a very natural part of the internet environment; they are here to stay. Please get your mind right.

[ QUOTE ]
Therefore, I hope the powers that be start thinking up better anti-bot measures.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why should they? FYI, your mindset is not desirable from their POV. The #1 obstacle facing any online poker site is what is known as "apparent population"; any player arriving at the site willing to sit and play many chairs at once for many hours is a highly desirable player. You (who want to play one or two chairs for only an hour or two) are an inferior customer. Computer assisted players are the greatest possible assest to site obstacle #1. Your mindset is the #1 problem from the site POV.

[ QUOTE ]
The best measure would be to make it a crime (fraud). After that, I think we would have to resort to bot-proof Internet cafes.

[/ QUOTE ]

So if I understand you correctly, you want poker to exist in an environment where computers outnumber humans 2 to 1 and then you want to make it a crime to use computer assistance while playing online. This mindset is grotesque. This would be like placing a teenage boy in the middle of a cheerleader camp and threatening to beat him if he gets a hardon. What you want is not "natural" and not "normal" in an internet environment.

What can we do to help you get your mind right?

RIIT

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
because you cannot play perfect poker. there's just no such thing.

[/ QUOTE ]

most people dont actually think this, right?

[RIIT]

[ QUOTE ]
i don't know a lot about programming, but obv a computer program could be designed to be "perfect" at chess or a game like that. but hold 'em, especially no limit, is just a different breed of game. you can design a bot that might be highly sophisticated, but that really doesn't bother me, it'd just be like playing a good person. it will have flaws, because you cannot play perfect poker. there's just no such thing. obv it's [censored] up that they can bajillion table and make more cash, so it shouldn't be allowed cuz of that. but i don't mind playing one.

[/ QUOTE ]

As long as everyone at the table has equal chances for a nut hand on the next deal then poker is safe.

All online sites have the power to guarantee this.

RIIT