Do you think bots are cheating? - Page 3

Heisenb3rg · #21 09-21-2007, 11:46 AM

[ 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 ]

yep... Fully automated bots are blatently against the rules... because the rules say "no bots allowed".

Although this thread has taken an interesting spinoff into questioning the ethics of software tools aiding decision making.

How useful do those tools have to be in order to cross the line from non-botdom to botdom?

Is it the automated ACTION of a bot that makes it illegal? Or the ability to analyze a situation and spit out an answer...

If you program a bot to RECOMMEND the action that it would take.. Then you manually execute it, or ignore its advice.. Is this considered using a bot?

So, we have on one end of the spectrum tools such as poker tracker and poker stove which are legal..
Then on the other end of the spectrum fully automated bots which are illegal.

What are components of a software that falls smackdab in the grey area?

J.A.Sucker · #22 09-21-2007, 12:07 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Whether it is cheating or not depends only on the rules of the site you are playing at. If the rules of the game required you to be wearing purple underwear, then anyone who didn't would be cheating.

I think what you are really asking is should using bots be considered cheating or is there something inherently wrong with using a bot. . .

[/ QUOTE ]

You are 100% correct. This is really the question I'm asking.

J.A.Sucker · #23 09-21-2007, 12:16 PM

[ 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 ]

I hear what you're saying and have not read the T&C of any online poker sites in awhile, because I haven't played online in quite some time (other reasons).

My question is how far does it go, Joe? I know of people who have written software to do all statistical analysis to make decisions for them. I'm sure this software allows them to beat medium stakes games, at the very least. Even though I'm pushing the buttons, I'm not really playing. However, I did program it and set out the strategies with my poker knowledge in this case. I also acquired the data to be used in making these decisions. However, playing becomes much easier and I could play a bazillion tables at once, especially if I programed some GUI interface that would move the mouse over the correct button to push.

How about software that folds 72 everytime? I think this exists and it got banned. However, are these guys really cheats? Hardly.

How about people who buy huge databases of hands from people or who pool theirs with others? One might argue that this is worse than my bot supposition because in this case, I didn't even acquire all the information myself that I use to help me play.

Suppose the bots were identified to the players, like I think some online backgammon programs do. Would this make you happy?

I could go on and on with this, but I think my point is clear. People didn't have much of an issue with bots when they sucked. I think the issue is they are better than many players and the games are getting too tough now. This is a different issue from the bots themselves.

FWIW, I never did make a bot, but that's because I'm lazy and don't program computers, not because I have ethical quarrels with them.

Guy McSucker · #24 09-21-2007, 01:47 PM

[ 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.

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

Milesdyson says that you're using a bot once you don't have to do the clicking; but I don't agree that the only part of playing poker that must be done by a human is the clicking. If the computer does all the thinking, why is it okay just because a human does the clicking?

IMO the interesting part is selecting the right move, not clicking the button, so I believe that once a machine is recommending the move, you have a bot.

However, I cannot provide a clear cut distinction between that and using PAHUD, for instance. So in practical terms, you only have Milesdyson's criterion to work with.

I would be fairly surprised if you can't see that there are layers of fuzziness here.

Guy.

jstill · #25 09-21-2007, 01:54 PM

wtf how is the issue of bots being able to play way more hours a non issue JA... thats the largest reason WHY bots ARE cheating... they can play mediocre but slightly winning poker forever (sometimes crushing games) and are a drain on the poker economy eating up the fish's money before we can

think about how many pros can only make themselves play 30 or less hrs a week, its cuz its mentally and emotionally draining to play non stop like the bots due, thats why they have an unfair advantage (even if their overall play may not be top notch compared to the better human foes around).

J.A.Sucker · #26 09-21-2007, 02:03 PM

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.

YertleTurtle · #27 09-21-2007, 02:40 PM

I only wish I could play more tables live where the real fish live. As for bots - I'd like to think that I can beat most of them and if I can't its simply a matter of game selection like with any tough player. On-line chess if filled with well-labeled bots and they are even assigned rankings so you know exactly how you rate against them. I think it is unethical in poker only because they aren't labeled as such.

YT

geormiet · #28 09-21-2007, 03:00 PM

In my opinion, any software that is basically a database that displays information about previous hands you have played with a player is ethical. I don't care how that info is manipulated, as long as all it does is show stats gleaned from that info. This is something that could happen in a live poker game, it's just like keeping a notebook on hand.

Once you go anywhere past this point I feel it is cheating and/or unethical. For example, I don't like that people can datamine hands where they aren't at the table.

I am also against software that will use help you make decisions while playing. For instance, software that will take into account an opponent's aggression, the action, the board, and your cards, and then tell you whether it's correct to calldown or not.

And of course I am against software that will play for you.

DeathDonkey · #29 09-21-2007, 03:25 PM

[ 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

Surf · #30 09-21-2007, 03:52 PM

[ 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