|
|
#31
07-02-2007, 08:56 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Article Request: Analysis of Bots
Oh and...
[ QUOTE ] (1) The very high cost of Top Bots will moderate their impact. [/ QUOTE ] 1. Whats high cost today, is mass market cheap tomorrow. 2. Once a bot of a high enough quality is produced its only a matter of time before the code/program is out there. Hell, its even likely that some of hte best bots will be programmed by universities/open-source people and so it'll be freely available. [ QUOTE ] (2) Top Bots MUST be manned by Poker Pros... because today's AI cannot handle the 5-10% most subtle poker decisions. [/ QUOTE ] Maybe not today, but its just a matter of time. Sure poker may have enough human nature type situations that top pros will always beat top poker bots, but to kill online poker you just need to have an environment where average people quickly go broke. 
|
|
#33
07-02-2007, 09:10 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Article Request: Analysis of Bots
These are very interesting, complex issues.
Here is another perspective: From the Casino's point of view... There is NO DIFFERENCE between a human Pro and a Bot. Both scare the average player... And both impose an additional "rake" on the average player... Both hurt the casino. In the long run... there is no reason to try and make distinctions between a human Pro and a Bot. It's only a matter of time before BOTH are "discouraged" from playing... not unlike the way Vegas banned blackjack card counters. That's why the Bot issue is ultimately moot. From the perspective of the a casino Chief Financial Officer... human Pro = Bot.
|
|
#34
07-02-2007, 09:25 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Article Request: Analysis of Bots
[ QUOTE ]
These are very interesting, complex issues. Here is another perspective: From the Casino's point of view... There is NO DIFFERENCE between a human Pro and a Bot. Both scare the average player... And both impose an additional "rake" on the average player... Both hurt the casino. In the long run... there is no reason to try and make distinctions between a human Pro and a Bot. It's only a matter of time before BOTH are "discouraged" from playing... not unlike the way Vegas banned blackjack card counters. That's why the Bot issue is ultimately moot. From the perspective of the a casino Chief Financial Officer... human Pro = Bot. [/ QUOTE ] Its not quite the same though. The ratio of good humans to bad humans form a pretty stable ecology. Good humans don't just materialize. Once a good bot exists, there is an infinite number of them. Thats what kills the online game. The fish/shark analogy exists for a reason. Live, there is also the human element. There are lots of people that know they're losers (even if they convince themselves they're just 'small' losers) who don't care because they enjoy it, and they have fun. That fun atmosphere is harder to generate online. I played 1/2 NL yesterday at a horrible (skillwise) table. I was definitely outclassed (4 or 5 guys regularly played 2/5NL), but it was a blast. It was fun, it was sociable, and they didn't yell at the 2 complete fishes.
|
|
#35
07-07-2007, 11:04 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Article Request: Analysis of Bots
[ QUOTE ]
Wow. 2*X? In order to rig their games to make 2*X, they would have to do such an incredible amount of rigging that, by now, a 2+2er would have ample evidence to turn them in just from the sheer number of hands that people have played to this point. Maybe you mean, “Why make $X in a fair game when you can rig it and make .3*$X?” Something less noticeable at least? Then, the thought is, is it worth risking billions to make just a little extra? I’m not totally discounting your notion, I just don’t think that it would be worth the risk, or to put it more in your terms, the risk is not worth the reward. [/ QUOTE ] yes, 2*X was an example. Maybe I should have said Y*X. My point was greed will always motivate some (not all) to seek out that edge, that extra measure of profit. And I am not talking about just Stars. Stars has a lot more to lose by getting out of line than a smaller site. I agree that stars is much less likely to engage in anything unscrupulous. The newer no name sites are the ones you should watch out for. You make another mistake in your reasoning. you don't think it would be worth the risk. you are not the one running a poker site. You have to step back and ask yourself if they would have motive and opportunity. time and again I see posters on this site say that (it wouldn't be worth the risk) and time and again I point out how that thinking is fallacious. It may not be worth the risk if you were in their shoes. But you're not. and you're making the mistake of assuming that those that run poker sites have the same level of rationality and tolerance for risk that you do. [ QUOTE ] Why? Because, when they’re caught, they pay fines, and penalties, get a little bad press, improve their public image with a few press releases that water down their crimes, and no one really cares. For example, I could care less that Ford would cook their books at all…if I like their trucks, I’m still buying them. [/ QUOTE ] Yea, and you're still buying a Ford truck from the same company but with a different management team. The management team or a large part of it that was in place during the fraud or whatever is probably now in jail or awaiting trial. There are many many laws and regulations in place for corporations now. If you think the Companies and more importantly, the people that run these companies just get a "slap on the wrist", then with all due respect, you aren't that well informed.
|
|
#37
07-19-2007, 10:53 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Article Request: Analysis of Bots
[ QUOTE ]
It would be simple - every X number of rounds require a CAPCHA check - if it fails, log them off and take note. /quote] That would work now (although it would piss people off), but you can't count on that in the future. Around the time bots get good enough to cause a serious problem to online poker, will be the same time they're good enough at image processing to get past the stupid images.
|
|
#38
07-28-2007, 11:41 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Article Request: Analysis of Bots *DELETED*
Post deleted by Ryan Beal
|
|
#39
07-29-2007, 10:27 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Article Request: Analysis of Bots
Conventional AI is nothing like the human brain.
Chess is much easier to program because it is computable. In poker, there is unknown information, therefore it is not computable. No one can truly say what is mathematically correct unless they know what is in everyone's hands...which of course would not be poker. Put another way, a quantum computer with little memory could play grandmaster chess, but would be horrible at poker.
|
|
#40
08-01-2007, 03:34 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Article Request: Analysis of Bots
[ QUOTE ]
Conventional AI is nothing like the human brain. Chess is much easier to program because it is computable. In poker, there is unknown information, therefore it is not computable. No one can truly say what is mathematically correct unless they know what is in everyone's hands...which of course would not be poker. Put another way, a quantum computer with little memory could play grandmaster chess, but would be horrible at poker. [/ QUOTE ] lol.....no
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
