Serious Discussion about Poker Bots, PokerTracker, HUDs, etc.

[steamboatin]

People tilt, people make mistakes, the vast majority of poker players are losers regardless of the amount of information available.

Bots don't tilt, bots don't get tired, bots don't make mistakes.

If you are playing against a human, you have an equal opportunity to gain the same information, software and you have to develop the skills nessecery to win.

What if they could build an ultimate basketball bot, would it be fair for humans to be forced to compete against these perfect players that never get tired, never choke at the free throw line? I don't think so.

[Artsemis]

[ QUOTE ]
People tilt, people make mistakes, the vast majority of poker players are losers regardless of the amount of information available.

Bots don't tilt, bots don't get tired, bots don't make mistakes.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is just more differences between people and bots. I could do the same thing about PT, no? For example, people don't memorize the VPIP, PFR%, how often someone steals the blind, etc. on thousands of players. If they did, why use PT at all?

I get what you're saying about bots and I agree, but the same applies to PT for very similar reasons.


[ QUOTE ]
If you are playing against a human, you have an equal opportunity to gain the same information, software and you have to develop the skills nessecery to win.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a big part of the problem... the software isn't equally available to everyone. For this to be true it would either need to be integrated into the software or at least listed on the web pages to download by the poker sites themselves if they allow it. I know many, many players (not just once a week players) that have no idea PT exists.


[ QUOTE ]
What if they could build an ultimate basketball bot, would it be fair for humans to be forced to compete against these perfect players that never get tired, never choke at the free throw line? I don't think so.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. The relevant question though is would it be fair to have parsed calculations and data on every single play that coach makes in every situation over the past 30 years he's been coaching?

[steamboatin]

[ QUOTE ]
This is a big part of the problem... the software isn't equally available to everyone. For this to be true it would either need to be integrated into the software or at least listed on the web pages to download by the poker sites themselves if they allow it. I know many, many players (not just once a week players) that have no idea PT exists.


[/ QUOTE ]
Ignorance is no excuse, because they haven't educated themselves about the available programs doesn't make the smarter shopper a cheat.

Lots of people have never bought a poker book, am I cheating because I own every poker book Dave has written?

The software is equally available, all they have to do is Google, show up here in the software forum and BOOM there it is!

PS. I am really enjoying our discussion.

[Artsemis]

[ QUOTE ]
Ignorance is no excuse, because they haven't educated themselves about the available programs doesn't make the smarter shopper a cheat.

[/ QUOTE ]

So if a bot was a google search away and readily available, its ok? I understand your points but the problem is they aren't differentiating PT from bots which is what I'm looking for.


[ QUOTE ]
PS. I am really enjoying our discussion.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am as well [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] I love debates when they stay civil.

[steamboatin]

I thought I did that in my first reply.

[ QUOTE ]
The difference between bots and PT is, you still make the decision using PT. PT doesn't tell you what to play, it tells what has been played in the past.

A Bot makes the decision.


[/ QUOTE ]

[Artsemis]

And as my reply stated, that simply says the difference between them, not the difference between the morality of them. Take away the specifics, what each one does and the other doesn't -- it's still accomplishing things that you wouldn't be able to do without the aid of a program.

Compare them to live poker for example... you wouldn't be allowed to use either. What I'm trying to say is I know the difference between what each is capable of but I'm still not hearing the difference between them that makes them on different moral levels.

[embermage1]

Most of you are assuming that if a bot is created, it spreads around and everyone starts to use it. I think if someone truly took the time to make a very good poker bot, they would not sell it. They would make much more money keeping it for themselves and running it on all the poker sites they can.

Imagine you are a computer programmer who has spent years learning the skills to not only program a poker bot (this is NOT a trivial task if you want it to beat people at a level that will make you any sort of decent money) but also to master the game of poker. If I used my poker and programming skills to make a bot and then used my bot to make money for me, is this really wrong? Technically you programmed the bot, so you have given it the process to decide how to play the hand... you could view the bot as an extension of you playing poker. Assuming the bot doesn't become widespread, what do you all think of this?

[Voltaire]

An interesting, related phenomenon is computer software that plays chess. No one in their right mind would play chess online for money without the assistance of Fritz or Chessmaster. Consequently few people play serious chess online, and postal chess has become something entirely different than it once was because everybody uses software programs to make sure they haven't made some kind of tactical blunder.

Initially software chess programs were wonderful for chess because (1) they allowed players to practice at home, and (2) the software companies funneled money into chess so that the prizes at tournaments were larger. Now chess is dying. It is pretty much conceded that the best computers can beat the best humans. (Kasparov was probably the last man standing.) In tournaments there is always the danger that your opponent is using a computer somewhere and is signaling to it and getting signals back. Speed chess will survive at least for awhile because it is impractical to play at that speed while getting information from a computer.

I have long been interested in why there is no computer program available that can beat the best poker players (or perhaps why I have missed it). Years ago Mike Caro spent some serious time trying to write such a program. I don't know if he was successful, but if he was I haven't heard anything about it. Saddle point strategy combined with a perfect memory of the past play of your opponents, combined with perfect knowledge pot and implied odds, etc., would seem to be a match for any human.

Consequently, my belief is that such bots do exist and are being used. Whether they will kill the game is anybody's guess. It would seem that bots would be detectable by software created by the online poker sites, but the sites would be in a constant battle to bar them. Ultimately, bots would constitute a drain on the resources of the game--an additional "rake" if you like.

[Mr.JR]

Bots play perfect if they are programmed correctly, and don't tilt. None can be said for a player that uses PT or HUD.

[fraac]

I was interested in poker bots as part of AI before I was interested in poker. If you don't want to lose to them, play variants of the game with sharp edges (edge meaning both advantage and an abstract notion describing the shape of the data). Bots can only turn corners quickly if they've explicitly been told to look for them (evolutionary algorithms can learn to learn to ... learn to find such sharp corners but the processing space and time required is in the order of pain^n). Full ring limit holdem is easily beatable with averages from pokertracker, whereas heads-up nl holdem twists and turns, and with deep enough stacks there is no 'optimal' strategy. Other games are in between. I wouldn't bother honing a bot for any form of 6-max unless I knew the game was fishy.

One thing for sure, if you don't use a HUD on games amenable to one, you're selling yourself out.