Do you think bots are cheating?

[mute]

[ QUOTE ]

Exactly how did you arrive at the mindset where you think it is normal to not encounter an autoplayer within an environment where computers outnumber humans 2 to 1?

RIIT

[/ QUOTE ]

Please go troll somewhere else.

[RIIT]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Exactly how did you arrive at the mindset where you think it is normal to not encounter an autoplayer within an environment where computers outnumber humans 2 to 1?

RIIT

[/ QUOTE ]

Please go troll somewhere else.

[/ QUOTE ]

On the contrary. I really do want to understand why he thinks that what he wants is normal.

RIIT.

[soda]

The ethical question is interesting for a discussion, but the answer is quite simple and many people have already touched on it.

The line should be drawn at the point in which the poker decisions are made. Poker decisions defined as "Should I call, fold or raise." Neither PAHUD, nor PT tell you what to do here.

If the decision is reduced to "Should I click on the button that this program I just paid $99.95 for told me is the best EV decision in this situation or not?" then we've turned our beloved game of poker into nothing more than expensive tic tac toe with no skill element.

The legal question is simply answered by the sites themselves and has no basis for discussion.

soda

[RIIT]

[ QUOTE ]
The ethical question is interesting for a discussion, but the answer is quite simple and many people have already touched on it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes the answer is simple.

[ QUOTE ]
The line should be drawn at the point in which the poker decisions are made. Poker decisions defined as "Should I call, fold or raise." Neither PAHUD, nor PT tell you what to do here.

[/ QUOTE ]

Incorrect. The line should be drawn such that it agrees with the natural internet environment; it is the point that demands the least amount of time and effort from human beings at the poker site. If you can't police the rule from within software then it is not a natural rule - I'm talking about the general mechanics of single poker hands here (and not things that do require human support assistance).

[ QUOTE ]
If the decision is reduced to "Should I click on the button that this program I just paid $99.95 for told me is the best EV decision in this situation or not?" then we've turned our beloved game of poker into nothing more than expensive tic tac toe with no skill element.

[/ QUOTE ]

Trying to know if an end user is accessing poker analysis that does exactly what you're suggesting is not something that can be policed within the natural environment of the internet and thus it is meaningless to construct the text of this rule in the first place because of how easy it is to simply ignore the rule.

Secondly, there is something wrong with the way you think as evidenced by your need/want to demand that all of your opponents to agree to the same restrictions that you favor. You play the way you want; I'll play the way I want; May the best player win.

[ QUOTE ]
The legal question is simply answered by the sites themselves and has no basis for discussion.

[/ QUOTE ]

No not the "legal" question - only a governmental law making body can do this; sites have policy statements, terms and conditions, terms of service, etc. Some of those policies go against the natural internet environment and some are quite bigoted against computer assistance - even though their game is implemented in an environment where computers outnumber humans 2 to 1.

[ QUOTE ]
soda

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you also a bigot when it comes to computer assisted players in online poker?

RIIT

[soda]

[ QUOTE ]


Are you also a bigot when it comes to computer assisted players in online poker?

RIIT

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess I'm not used to being called names on two plus two, but whatever makes you feel big I guess.

fwiw, I was just putting in my own opinion and if I could understand what it is you wrote, perhaps I'd have a response. Alas, I do not understand any of it except the last unfortunate remark.

soda

[RIIT]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


Are you also a bigot when it comes to computer assisted players in online poker?

RIIT

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess I'm not used to being called names on two plus two, but whatever makes you feel big I guess.

fwiw, I was just putting in my own opinion and if I could understand what it is you wrote, perhaps I'd have a response. Alas, I do not understand any of it except the last unfortunate remark.

soda

[/ QUOTE ]

Soda,

I wasn't trying insult you. I was trying to get you to rethink the mindset that sees computer assisted players as abnormal and unaccepted.

Botters get insulted constantly with the "c"heater word. very much like dark skinned people were insulted in times past with the "n"ig.. word.

If you're dark skinned then there's really not much of a comeback when somebody points at your dark skin with the "n" word other than to retaliate with the "b"igot word.

The lessons of the civil rights movement are that people began challenging the mindset that viewed dark skinned people as abnormal.

RIIT

[soda]

Well, the analogy between civil rights and poker botters is a horrific one. I'm disgusted by it.

You make assumptions about me and then try to attribute those to my personality. For instance, I never said computer assisted players are abnormal or unaccepted. Yet you state that this is my mindset.

My main point is that if we continue to develop our technology in a way that everyone can simply buy an effective program to play for them online, then the game is lost. The point of loss occurs, imo, once the poker decision is taken out of the players control. Most people, myself included, will use whatever computer assistance is allowed by the poker sites to garner every "legal" advantage possible. This is neither abnormal nor unaccepted, but competitively intelligent.

To compare calling a person the "n" word to calling someone who uses a bot to play poker for them a cheater is looking for shock value I guess.

soda

[jfk]

[ QUOTE ]
More specifically, if I programmed a bot to play poker according to my style/poker tracker, etc, is this cheating?

[/ QUOTE ]

I've spent a lot of years learning how to be a winning poker player. I haven't much time at all learning computer science or mathematical modeling.

If I run into you in a game at Garden City I feel as if we're competing in a fair environment, meaning that we both must rely solely on poker skills to play well.

If I run into you at Stars, where botting is expressing against the user agreement, but you elect to run a bot, I am not just competing against your poker ability, I also must contend with your skills in areas where I'm not able to fairly compete and where I would not choose to compete were all the information about the conditions of our contest available to me.

In theory, bots playing other bots or bots playing humans who knew they were competing against bots would not be cheating. The issue is not the bot, its the lack of disclosure and daylight about the nature of the competition.

Running bots against uninformed opponents is clearly cheating. I've always found it interesting that those who come from a strictly poker background see this line as bright and clear while those who came to the game with a technically oriented background commonly have no issue in using all available technical avenues to gain their edge (like Ray Bornert's promotion of collusion).

[RIIT]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, the analogy between civil rights and poker botters is a horrific one. I'm disgusted by it.

You make assumptions about me and then try to attribute those to my personality. For instance, I never said computer assisted players are abnormal or unaccepted. Yet you state that this is my mindset.

My main point is that if we continue to develop our technology in a way that everyone can simply buy an effective program to play for them online, then the game is lost. The point of loss occurs, imo, once the poker decision is taken out of the players control. Most people, myself included, will use whatever computer assistance is allowed by the poker sites to garner every "legal" advantage possible. This is neither abnormal nor unaccepted, but competitively intelligent.

To compare calling a person the "n" word to calling someone who uses a bot to play poker for them a cheater is looking for shock value I guess.

soda

[/ QUOTE ]

Soda,

You said this: "The legal question is simply answered by the sites themselves and has no basis for discussion."

Which means you buy into the idea that any rule that a site makes is "ok" and should be obeyed without question.

I am intentionally challenging that mindset (if I have misunderstood your mindset then please clarify).

I then referred to the historic civil rights era to draw an example of the majority making rules that were not "ok".

If it had "shock" value for you then that is a good thing.

We can all choose to play poker in live conditions where there are "ZERO" computers (I REPEAT: "ZERO" computers). And I want there to be "ZERO" computers when I go to a b&m. And I think probably everybody else does as well.

But when we play online, we are in an environment where computers outnumber humans 2 to 1 (or more). And yet there are still people who think there's nothing wrong with a site that prohibits computer assistance. My grandparents generation didn't see anything wrong with "whites only" signs in their day either - they were wrong.

Are sites wrong for prohibiting computer assistance in the online game? yes they are.

Are you wrong for thinking what they're doing is just fine? yes you are.

Just because I'm drawing attention to this mindset doesn't mean I am trying to pick a fight with you. I'm not trying to insult you.

RIIT

[RIIT]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
More specifically, if I programmed a bot to play poker according to my style/poker tracker, etc, is this cheating?

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
I've spent a lot of years learning how to be a winning poker player.

[/ QUOTE ]

I salute you.

[ QUOTE ]
I haven't much time at all learning computer science or mathematical modeling.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nothing wrong with this. It's a personal choice.

[ QUOTE ]
If I run into you in a game at Garden City I feel as if we're competing in a fair environment, meaning that we both must rely solely on poker skills to play well.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes agreed and I accept those conditions at the outset. It's fair - nobody has a computer and I can visually verify that.

[ QUOTE ]
If I run into you at Stars, where botting is expressing against the user agreement,

[/ QUOTE ]

That is the perversion right there. It should never have been expressly forbidden in the first place in an environment where computers outnumber humans 2 to 1. But that user agreement has a psychological effect on your expectations doesn't it?

[ QUOTE ]
but you elect to run a bot,

[/ QUOTE ]

A very natural and normal thing to do on the internet.

[ QUOTE ]
I am not just competing against your poker ability,

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes you are. Bots don't program themselves. They play the way I tell them to.

[ QUOTE ]
I also must contend with your skills in areas where I'm not able to fairly compete

[/ QUOTE ]

This would be true if we were in a programming contest but we're not; the bot must play poker with you. I get zero extra consideration in an online poker game for any computer science knowledge I have that you don't; online poker is pure poker contest between decision makers.

[ QUOTE ]
and where I would not choose to compete were all the information about the conditions of our contest available to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a best guess about yourself. But the real truth of this will never be known until a major site offers you the opportunity to observe and play against botters. There are bots out there that you can easily beat and you'd be foolish not to want to play them.

[ QUOTE ]
In theory, bots playing other bots or bots playing humans who knew they were competing against bots would not be cheating.

[/ QUOTE ]

Totally agree.

[ QUOTE ]
The issue is not the bot, its the lack of disclosure and daylight about the nature of the competition.

[/ QUOTE ]

The major sites have been petitioned regularly for several years to offer tables where bots can freely play without fear of having their balances stolen by the site. So far everyone refuses. I blame people like you for this.

[ QUOTE ]
Running bots against uninformed opponents is clearly cheating.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is immoral to implement poker on the internet and then not offer tables to those who'd like to test their botting skill. Again, I blame people like you for these conditions.

[ QUOTE ]
I've always found it interesting that those who come from a strictly poker background see this line as bright and clear

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes and this makes sense seeing as poker began in a live environment. But it's wrong if people like you demand that internet poker cater to people like yourself who demand that there be no computer assisted players on the internet. Excactly how did you arrive at such a bigoted mindset? What can all of the people (who share my views) do to get you to either leave online poker or change your bigoted mindset?

[ QUOTE ]
while those who came to the game with a technically oriented background commonly have no issue in using all available technical avenues to gain their edge

[/ QUOTE ]

Makes sense seeing as the internet favors the computer literate. I don't mind if you play poker on my turf (you might in fact be a better player than both myself and my bot). What I do mind is if you pretend the internet is your turf. The live players have their turf. The computer assisted players have their turf. Deal with it.

[ QUOTE ]
(like Ray Bornert's promotion of collusion).

[/ QUOTE ]

The issue of collusion has nothing whatsoever to do with botting; it is an issue with any multiplayer game (live or online).

RIIT