how much life is left in online poker?

[Socrates 0]

there are tons of kids, ages 10-17 that are playing the game consitently and are itching to play online the day they turn 18, or 21, or whatever age it is they can get on and start playing. There will be a legion of new, dead money hitting online sites from now until the day the poker craze dies out, if it does. But I think this thing has longevity. Look what Tiger Woods did to golf. Everyone expected that to go away, and the numbers at golf courses worldwide have been higher ever sense he hit the scene. As long as poker has a discernible face to the mass markets, I think online poker will thrive.

While I'll agree that there are kids waiting to play right now, the fad won't be there when they have the money to play so they won't.As for golf going away and Tiger saving it, are you serious? Golf originated in the 1840's and did pretty well before Tiger. I think the golfing population before Tiger would dwarf the poker population now. I know poker has been around for quite some time too, but never like this, never close to this. Its funny how people think that poker is really really big. It is for poker, but its not really that large of a population, its a specified group of people who connect with other people of the same interest and that makes them think "hey everyone plays poker". The truth is, a lot of people who got hooked a couple of years ago are gone now and there are more and more going away as well. Ne peoplea re coming in everyday, but with no skill, no real desire to be good. Eventually they will all lose and they will go away like thousands and thousands of others have over the past couple of years.Also, the government will find a way to regulate if not ban online sites in the next few years and that will be the end as we know it today. As someone elsesaid "companies making that much money won't go away" - yeah, companies making that much money won't be able to avoid the good 'ol US of A government for much longer until they want their piece or take it away so no one can have it.At any rate, none of us have any real hard evidence or numbers so its hard to say, but the fact remains that almost anyone on the street can tell you the basic rules about golf, but more than half don't have a clue as to how to play poker.

[hoosierAKs 0]

Seems like people fail to recognize the power of ADDICTION in holding poker's player base.I'd be optimistic.

[Socrates 0]

from Paul Phillip's blog.

World Series of Poker Robots: I have said many times (search rgp archives) that bots will inevitably and very soon be better than humans. They will be widespread online and completely impossible to spot without taking measures that will annoy the crap out of humans, like popping up occasional windows with multiple-choice questions that a computer couldn't answer. Better get used to it. As for this supposed bot contest, I know nothing of it. At the moment the "public" bot world is primarily composed of scam artists like this guy. The bots you'd want to use are not available to you. Yet.

But a bot can only be as smart as the human who programs it.

[BetItAll33 0]

from Paul Phillip's blog.

World Series of Poker Robots: I have said many times (search rgp archives) that bots will inevitably and very soon be better than humans. They will be widespread online and completely impossible to spot without taking measures that will annoy the crap out of humans, like popping up occasional windows with multiple-choice questions that a computer couldn't answer. Better get used to it. As for this supposed bot contest, I know nothing of it. At the moment the "public" bot world is primarily composed of scam artists like this guy. The bots you'd want to use are not available to you. Yet.

But a bot can only be as smart as the human who programs it.

Not necessarily true. The bot would never make mathematical mistakes or have lapses in judgement, or make questionable impulse plays, or go on tilt. The computer's logic or AI would only be as good as the programmer, but the execution would always be flawless.

[Socrates 0]

Seems like people fail to recognize the power of ADDICTION in holding poker's player base.I'd be optimistic.

You said it best. Poker's BASE. While they'll remain, the thousands and thousands of weekend warriors will go away and we'll be left with poker as we knew it 15 years ago.

[justblaze 0]

You don't have to "solve" poker, you just have to beat the game. Rog isn't stating that he can "solve" the game.No, in order to render online poker obsolete, you need to solve the game. which wont happen. because its impossible, on a mathematical level.Imagine playing a limit game against 9 bots where none of them ever make a mistake with regards to pot odds and continuing draws. How do you think that would affect your win rate?it would affect it negatively, but it would not render a positive winrate impossible. Think of the big game. Those guys are playing perfectly or near perfectly with regard to pot odds, and draws, etc., and yet there are consistent winners and losers. The reason is that some of the players are better at deciphering incomplete information than others. bots will have the same flaws.

[GamblinLeaf 0]

When I talk about thousands if not millions of things, I'm talking about causal events, but even if I were talking about the market effects, there's more than just "up, down, sideways". Some sectors go up...some go down. Some currencies go up...some down. Some companies go up...some down. Unless the only thing anyone is interested in are the indices, there's more than 3 outcomes. The makeup of an overall trend is important too.

All true, but this doesn't change the fact that at any given moment, in any given market, THAT particular market can only do one of those three things. The corollary would be to say that in any given hand of poker, the only choices are check/call, bet/raise, or fold.

Since the markets are zero-sum, if you're right then nobody can make money off the markets anymore because nobody has an advantage. Economists, mathematicians and physicists are working for all the world's major financial institutions right now trying to model global markets right now, and you're telling me the problem is already solved?

It was never my contention that markets are "solvable" or have been "solved". My contention is that markets are eminently unsolvable, just like poker, but not because there are too many variables. They are unsolvable because of the human variable ... just like poker. Never underestimate the power of human emotion in its effect on the decision making process.And to reiterate, I am not saying there may not come a time when a bot is invented that can make money playing poker online (given the sheer number of bad players). I am saying that a GOOD player will still OUTPERFORM that bot in the long run.

[speedz99 145]

If you think computers won't be able to at least hold their own and be winning players at all limits you are kidding yourself. Perfect odds calculations, randomized playing styles, and a perfect memory is hard to beat for anyone.They don't have to solve the game. They just have to play it better than you.

[Socrates 0]

there are tons of kids, ages 10-17 that are playing the game consitently and are itching to play online the day they turn 18, or 21, or whatever age it is they can get on and start playing. There will be a legion of new, dead money hitting online sites from now until the day the poker craze dies out, if it does. But I think this thing has longevity. Look what Tiger Woods did to golf. Everyone expected that to go away, and the numbers at golf courses worldwide have been higher ever sense he hit the scene. As long as poker has a discernible face to the mass markets, I think online poker will thrive.

While I'll agree that there are kids waiting to play right now, the fad won't be there when they have the money to play so they won't.As for golf going away and Tiger saving it, are you serious? Golf originated in the 1840's and did pretty well before Tiger. I think the golfing population before Tiger would dwarf the poker population now. I know poker has been around for quite some time too, but never like this, never close to this. Its funny how people think that poker is really really big. It is for poker, but its not really that large of a population, its a specified group of people who connect with other people of the same interest and that makes them think "hey everyone plays poker". The truth is, a lot of people who got hooked a couple of years ago are gone now and there are more and more going away as well.

[speedz99 145]

You don't have to "solve" poker, you just have to beat the game. Rog isn't stating that he can "solve" the game.No, in order to render online poker obsolete, you need to solve the game. which wont happen. because its impossible, on a mathematical level.Imagine playing a limit game against 9 bots where none of them ever make a mistake with regards to pot odds and continuing draws. How do you think that would affect your win rate?it would affect it negatively, but it would not render a positive winrate impossible. Think of the big game. Those guys are playing perfectly or near perfectly with regard to pot odds, and draws, etc., and yet there are consistent winners and losers. The reason is that some of the players are better at deciphering incomplete information than others. bots will have the same flaws.

Read The Professor, The Banker, and the Suicide King. Not all of the players in the big game have a strong grasp of the EXACT mathematics behind the game. That's how Beal got a slight advantage over them, or at least was able to close the gap.

[speedz99 145]

there are tons of kids, ages 10-17 that are playing the game consitently and are itching to play online the day they turn 18, or 21, or whatever age it is they can get on and start playing. There will be a legion of new, dead money hitting online sites from now until the day the poker craze dies out, if it does. But I think this thing has longevity. Look what Tiger Woods did to golf. Everyone expected that to go away, and the numbers at golf courses worldwide have been higher ever sense he hit the scene. As long as poker has a discernible face to the mass markets, I think online poker will thrive.

While I'll agree that there are kids waiting to play right now, the fad won't be there when they have the money to play so they won't.As for golf going away and Tiger saving it, are you serious? Golf originated in the 1840's and did pretty well before Tiger. I think the golfing population before Tiger would dwarf the poker population now. I know poker has been around for quite some time too, but never like this, never close to this. Its funny how people think that poker is really really big. It is for poker, but its not really that large of a population, its a specified group of people who connect with other people of the same interest and that makes them think "hey everyone plays poker". The truth is, a lot of people who got hooked a couple of years ago are gone now and there are more and more going away as well.

So you are saying the popularity of poker is going down? That's way off by any measure. Maybe in a few years it will fade, but for now it is still on it's way up (maybe almost at the peak).

[Socrates 0]

there are tons of kids, ages 10-17 that are playing the game consitently and are itching to play online the day they turn 18, or 21, or whatever age it is they can get on and start playing. There will be a legion of new, dead money hitting online sites from now until the day the poker craze dies out, if it does. But I think this thing has longevity. Look what Tiger Woods did to golf. Everyone expected that to go away, and the numbers at golf courses worldwide have been higher ever sense he hit the scene. As long as poker has a discernible face to the mass markets, I think online poker will thrive.

While I'll agree that there are kids waiting to play right now, the fad won't be there when they have the money to play so they won't.As for golf going away and Tiger saving it, are you serious? Golf originated in the 1840's and did pretty well before Tiger. I think the golfing population before Tiger would dwarf the poker population now. I know poker has been around for quite some time too, but never like this, never close to this. Its funny how people think that poker is really really big. It is for poker, but its not really that large of a population, its a specified group of people who connect with other people of the same interest and that makes them think "hey everyone plays poker". The truth is, a lot of people who got hooked a couple of years ago are gone now and there are more and more going away as well.

So you are saying the popularity of poker is going down? That's way off by any measure. Maybe in a few years it will fade, but for now it is still on it's way up (maybe almost at the peak).

Exactly, those people are already gone, new people are coming in, but they'll do the same. I live in a town where the are 40-50 seperate games that run multiple days of the week and even those places are evidence of the withdraw. The people there are the same that were there in the beginning. We've had heards of new players, yet they all go broke and never return or some admittedly lost interest and had better things to do. The influx of new players has picked up again because of the WSOP, but when they talk, you know thery're not going to last long. PLaying 1/2NL and putting their whole roll on the table and playing tourneys way out of their bankroll.

[justblaze 0]

You don't have to "solve" poker, you just have to beat the game. Rog isn't stating that he can "solve" the game.No, in order to render online poker obsolete, you need to solve the game. which wont happen. because its impossible, on a mathematical level.Imagine playing a limit game against 9 bots where none of them ever make a mistake with regards to pot odds and continuing draws. How do you think that would affect your win rate?it would affect it negatively, but it would not render a positive winrate impossible. Think of the big game. Those guys are playing perfectly or near perfectly with regard to pot odds, and draws, etc., and yet there are consistent winners and losers. The reason is that some of the players are better at deciphering incomplete information than others. bots will have the same flaws.

Read The Professor, The Banker, and the Suicide King. Not all of the players in the big game have a strong grasp of the EXACT mathematics behind the game. That's how Beal got a slight advantage over them, or at least was able to close the gap.

no, beal got an edge by taking them out of theyre comfort zone. i dont care what the book says. the book is written to give a specific impression, my analysis comes from those involved in the game.

[lboarts 0]

When Casinos and Card Rooms open up in every city...Online poker WILL die very quickly.

We have that much time?Seriously, though, do you see this happening, alf? It does seem more and more states are allowing more forms of gambling. Currently PA is issuing several gambling licenses for slot casinos, but still haven't allowed cardrooms, yet. I have to drive to the nearest Indian reservation in NY, about a 90 min drive, just to play in a casino. And every time I've went, they were only running 4 or 5 games. Of course, I usually only drive up when they're running a trny and then I'll jump in a cash game if I bust out early.

[BetItAll33 0]

No, in order to render online poker obsolete, you need to solve the game. Why? If the Poki engine (AI behind STACKED) were made commercially available with an automation system, you don't think it would have a serious impact on online poker? Why do you think it would need to be "solved"? Imagine playing a limit game against 9 bots where none of them ever make a mistake with regards to pot odds and continuing draws. How do you think that would affect your win rate?it would affect it negatively, but it would not render a positive winrate impossible. Think of the big game. Those guys are playing perfectly or near perfectly with regard to pot odds, and draws, etc., and yet there are consistent winners and losers. The reason is that some of the players are better at deciphering incomplete information than others. bots will have the same flaws.I think this is apples and oranges. The big game is contested primarily on a psychological level. I would even go so far as to say that these players frequently make plays with no regard for pot odds or the "correct" play. Jen Harman even said that the actual cards mean very little at the big game. This sort of game would be far more difficult to beat with a bot. Fortunately, online poker is nothing like this. As for win rate, if your opponents made no mistakes, your EV would be exactly zero assuming that you also made no mistakes. You'd be hard pressed to maintain a postive win rate. (We are also assuming there are no inherent exploitable flaws in the bot such as - "If I 3 bet the turn, I can always get the bot to lay down 2 pair." ) Maybe I'm oversimplifying things, but as a programmer myself, I don't think it would be difficult to write a bot to beat limit games up to 2/4. After that, it gets trickier.

[justblaze 0]

No, in order to render online poker obsolete, you need to solve the game. Why? If the Poki engine (AI behind STACKED) were made commercially available with an automation system, you don't think it would have a serious impact on online poker? Why do you think it would need to be "solved"? I would love to play a room full of bots, given the level of technology that exists right now. let me know if you find one. Imagine playing a limit game against 9 bots where none of them ever make a mistake with regards to pot odds and continuing draws. How do you think that would affect your win rate?it would affect it negatively, but it would not render a positive winrate impossible. Think of the big game. Those guys are playing perfectly or near perfectly with regard to pot odds, and draws, etc., and yet there are consistent winners and losers. The reason is that some of the players are better at deciphering incomplete information than others. bots will have the same flaws.

I think this is apples and oranges. The big game is contested primarily on a psychological level. I would even go so far as to say that these players frequently make plays with no regard for pot odds or the "correct" play. Jen Harman even said that the actual cards mean very little at the big game. This sort of game would be far more difficult to beat with a bot. Fortunately, online poker is nothing like this. thats a pretty big generalization. I think you'd be hard-pressed to support that with facts. Bots will always have a tough time making reads. As for win rate, if your opponents made no mistakes, your EV would be exactly zero assuming that you also made no mistakes. You'd be hard pressed to maintain a postive win rate. (We are also assuming there are no inherent exploitable flaws in the bot such as - "If I 3 bet the turn, I can always get the bot to lay down 2 pair." ) Maybe I'm oversimplifying things, but as a programmer myself, I don't think it would be difficult to write a bot to beat limit games up to 2/4. After that, it gets trickier. wow, where to begin? your first statement is inherently fallacious: You cant make 'no mistakes' in a poker game, unless you can see your opponents cards (incomplete information, remember?). your EV will not be 0, ever. one opponent will be better at predicting your hand ranges, and your betting patterns with those hand ranges. i submit to you that computers will never be best at this. your assumption that there will be no inherently exploitable flaws in a bot is also absurd. EVERY style has exploitable flaws. the only question is who will be better at finding and exploiting said flaws. Ever heard of a program called winholdem? it was a commercially available bot with automation features, and custom programmable algorithyms. It beat 1-2 marginally at best, many clients were consistent losers, and almost all of them got caught. If you could write a bot to beat 2-4 consistently, that would be one of the most amazing feats of programming in the history of online poker. its been tried many times, and failed every time. Ive played bots (on interpoker), and made more money from them than humans. The reason is that the flaws were easy to spot (what hand ranges theyd bet, what pressure theyd fold to, how theyd react to blind steals) and since no one was monitoring them, they were left alone with me for hours on end.

[speedz99 145]

You don't have to "solve" poker, you just have to beat the game. Rog isn't stating that he can "solve" the game.No, in order to render online poker obsolete, you need to solve the game. which wont happen. because its impossible, on a mathematical level.Imagine playing a limit game against 9 bots where none of them ever make a mistake with regards to pot odds and continuing draws. How do you think that would affect your win rate?it would affect it negatively, but it would not render a positive winrate impossible. Think of the big game. Those guys are playing perfectly or near perfectly with regard to pot odds, and draws, etc., and yet there are consistent winners and losers. The reason is that some of the players are better at deciphering incomplete information than others. bots will have the same flaws.

Read The Professor, The Banker, and the Suicide King. Not all of the players in the big game have a strong grasp of the EXACT mathematics behind the game. That's how Beal got a slight advantage over them, or at least was able to close the gap.

no, beal got an edge by taking them out of theyre comfort zone. i dont care what the book says. the book is written to give a specific impression, my analysis comes from those involved in the game.

Did you read the book? It is very clear that while he did try to take them out of their comfort zone, he also tried to take advantage of the fact that the pros played on feel and experience, not math. The book is not written to give a specific impression. It is extremely fair to both sides (IMO). Let me see if I understand your last sentence...your analysis is based on your knowledge of those in the game. Let's be honest. You know absolutely nothing about those in the game. Do you really know if Chip Reese calculates implied odds every hand? Look at Jennifer Harmon who plays on mostly feel and a general knowledge of the math.

[justblaze 0]

You don't have to "solve" poker, you just have to beat the game. Rog isn't stating that he can "solve" the game.No, in order to render online poker obsolete, you need to solve the game. which wont happen. because its impossible, on a mathematical level.Imagine playing a limit game against 9 bots where none of them ever make a mistake with regards to pot odds and continuing draws. How do you think that would affect your win rate?it would affect it negatively, but it would not render a positive winrate impossible. Think of the big game. Those guys are playing perfectly or near perfectly with regard to pot odds, and draws, etc., and yet there are consistent winners and losers. The reason is that some of the players are better at deciphering incomplete information than others. bots will have the same flaws.

Read The Professor, The Banker, and the Suicide King. Not all of the players in the big game have a strong grasp of the EXACT mathematics behind the game. That's how Beal got a slight advantage over them, or at least was able to close the gap.

no, beal got an edge by taking them out of theyre comfort zone. i dont care what the book says. the book is written to give a specific impression, my analysis comes from those involved in the game.

Did you read the book? It is very clear that while he did try to take them out of their comfort zone, he also tried to take advantage of the fact that the pros played on feel and experience, not math. The book is not written to give a specific impression. It is extremely fair to both sides (IMO). Let me see if I understand your last sentence...your analysis is based on your knowledge of those in the game. Let's be honest. You know absolutely nothing about those in the game. Do you really know if Chip Reese calculates implied odds every hand? Look at Jennifer Harmon who plays on mostly feel and a general knowledge of the math.

im talking about RGP and blog posts by several of the corporation players, players in the same circle as the corp players, beal himself, the dealers involved with the game, and those knowledgeable about ultra high limit games.

[psujohn 0]

When Casinos and Card Rooms open up in every city...Online poker WILL die very quickly.

No they won't. I think I'm a typical recreational player. I have a job, a wife and kids. I play 1 hour "sessions" when I get a few free minutes. Even if there were a card room 10 minutes from my house, and no wait to get a seat and 1 seat at an otherwise full table waiting for me it makes more sense for me to play online for an hour and see 100 hands than it does to drive, park, buy chips, get seated and see 20 hands in the 30 minutes I have available.As for bots making online obsolete - it is an issue. The bots don't need to be anywhere near perfect to make it much harder to win at the low levels. And ultimately I can't see how you'd stop them. At the very worst you make a bot that monitors the table and gives a human operator the "correct" play. The human operator can respond to any queries to test if it's a bot player (it technically isn't). Hell if you programmed a bot to watch the table and give people the SSHE pre-flop recommendations you'd find that low limits would get much harder to beat.

[speedz99 145]

You don't have to "solve" poker, you just have to beat the game. Rog isn't stating that he can "solve" the game.No, in order to render online poker obsolete, you need to solve the game. which wont happen. because its impossible, on a mathematical level.Imagine playing a limit game against 9 bots where none of them ever make a mistake with regards to pot odds and continuing draws. How do you think that would affect your win rate?it would affect it negatively, but it would not render a positive winrate impossible. Think of the big game. Those guys are playing perfectly or near perfectly with regard to pot odds, and draws, etc., and yet there are consistent winners and losers. The reason is that some of the players are better at deciphering incomplete information than others. bots will have the same flaws.

Read The Professor, The Banker, and the Suicide King. Not all of the players in the big game have a strong grasp of the EXACT mathematics behind the game. That's how Beal got a slight advantage over them, or at least was able to close the gap.

no, beal got an edge by taking them out of theyre comfort zone. i dont care what the book says. the book is written to give a specific impression, my analysis comes from those involved in the game.

Did you read the book? It is very clear that while he did try to take them out of their comfort zone, he also tried to take advantage of the fact that the pros played on feel and experience, not math. The book is not written to give a specific impression. It is extremely fair to both sides (IMO). Let me see if I understand your last sentence...your analysis is based on your knowledge of those in the game. Let's be honest. You know absolutely nothing about those in the game. Do you really know if Chip Reese calculates implied odds every hand? Look at Jennifer Harmon who plays on mostly feel and a general knowledge of the math.

im talking about RGP and blog posts by several of the corporation players, players in the same circle as the corp players, beal himself, the dealers involved with the game, and those knowledgeable about ultra high limit games.

Obviously you have no idea what you're talking about.

[GamblinLeaf 0]

As for bots making online obsolete - it is an issue. The bots don't need to be anywhere near perfect to make it much harder to win at the low levels. And ultimately I can't see how you'd stop them. At the very worst you make a bot that monitors the table and gives a human operator the "correct" play. The human operator can respond to any queries to test if it's a bot player (it technically isn't). Hell if you programmed a bot to watch the table and give people the SSHE pre-flop recommendations you'd find that low limits would get much harder to beat.

This is an interesting point, and I don't disagree, but it made me realize that there's a huge assumption that we're all making, that is being overlooked. We're all assuming that most online players CARE. WE all care but, then again, we're all online all day talking about poker with other poker nuts. I don't believe that most people who play online poker care this much.Furthermore, even IF an SSHE-based bot ever became readily available and affordable, and even IF it consistently beat the low limit games on your typical site, and even IF the average online player did care enough to go out and buy it, even IF that were to all happen, there's still the issue of variance. The human being who purchased the bot would still have to deal with the kinds of swings inherent to the game. Most people cannot, and would not be able to handle this. If anything, the only consistent winners in this situation would be the people selling the bot.

[lboarts 0]

I've read some articles on bots in the online poker industry, but have yet to hear how they may affect PL and NL games. All the talk seems to be centered around limit games. Any thoughts?

[BetItAll33 0]

wow, where to begin? your first statement is inherently fallacious: You cant make 'no mistakes' in a poker game, unless you can see your opponents cards (incomplete information, remember?).This is a matter of semantics. By making no mistakes, I mean making correct decisions with regards to the available information. Of course, no person or bot could ever make absolutely correct decisions per Sklansky's fundamental theorom of poker. But the bot would not make mistakes with regards to pot odds and continuing draws. your EV will not be 0, ever. one opponent will be better at predicting your hand ranges, and your betting patterns with those hand ranges. i submit to you that computers will never be best at this. I don't agree. Let's just say that your bot was programmed to play exactly as Ed Miller would advocate in SSHE. It would be a complicated bot, no doubt, but it is possible. There is no logic in that book that can't be converted directly to logical or mathematical operators, or derived from statistical data on your opponents. If you think that you can exploit a tiny advantage gained from predicting hand ranges and general human intuition and consistently win against many of these Miller bots, have fun. It will not be easy.your assumption that there will be no inherently exploitable flaws in a bot is also absurd. EVERY style has exploitable flaws. the only question is who will be better at finding and exploiting said flaws. I should've added the word "obvious". As long as the bot has no obvious deal breaking bugs, it would beat most players.Ever heard of a program called winholdem? it was a commercially available bot with automation features, and custom programmable algorithyms.I've seen the program. It's terrible. The entire premise of the program is flawed. It captures your hole cards and performs simulations based on the number of opponents to determine your chance of winning. To my knowledge it doesn't take into account the pot size, the texture of the board, and certainly not the behavior of your opponents. This program is in no way representative of the bots I'm defending.Even the system it uses for customization is terrible. It allows you to set the poker action for a fixed number of situations, with very limited information. (disclaimer: I've never used Winholdem) It beat 1-2 marginally at best, many clients were consistent losers, and almost all of them got caught. Party poker scans your computer for instances of Winholdem. A successful bot wouldn't need to be commercialized, you'd just make your money off of the bot. There are plenty of ways to hide said bot from the online poker site. If you could write a bot to beat 2-4 consistently, that would be one of the most amazing feats of programming in the history of online poker. Although online poker hasn't been around for very long this is an overstatement. Let me retract my claim... I think that I could write a bot to beat $.50/$1 Party poker. I also think that it would be possible to write a bot to beat higher limits, but it is probably beyond my capacity due to time constraints, having a life, etc.its been tried many times, and failed every time. Ive played bots (on interpoker), and made more money from them than humans. The reason is that the flaws were easy to spot (what hand ranges theyd bet, what pressure theyd fold to, how theyd react to blind steals) and since no one was monitoring them, they were left alone with me for hours on end. I've seen the dialogue from a lot of these commercial bot users. I can assure you, these are not the programming elite of the world. In fact, most of them probably aren't winning poker players to begin with.

[BetItAll33 0]

I've read some articles on bots in the online poker industry, but have yet to hear how they may affect PL and NL games. All the talk seems to be centered around limit games. Any thoughts?

There was a lengthy discussion about this in a previous thread. The two camps were about evenly split with Smash maintaining that a No limit bot would be easier to construct as no limit is more mechanical. It sounds counter-intuitive, and I happen to disagree. I'd be much more apt to write a limit bot. I'd say you're generally a lot "safer" from bots in a NL game.

[alf13 0]

When Casinos and Card Rooms open up in every city...Online poker WILL die very quickly.

No they won't. I think I'm a typical recreational player. I have a job, a wife and kids. I play 1 hour "sessions" when I get a few free minutes. Even if there were a card room 10 minutes from my house, and no wait to get a seat and 1 seat at an otherwise full table waiting for me it makes more sense for me to play online for an hour and see 100 hands than it does to drive, park, buy chips, get seated and see 20 hands in the 30 minutes I have available.As for bots making online obsolete - it is an issue. The bots don't need to be anywhere near perfect to make it much harder to win at the low levels. And ultimately I can't see how you'd stop them. At the very worst you make a bot that monitors the table and gives a human operator the "correct" play. The human operator can respond to any queries to test if it's a bot player (it technically isn't). Hell if you programmed a bot to watch the table and give people the SSHE pre-flop recommendations you'd find that low limits would get much harder to beat.

You are talking like online poker is the same thing as live poker...it isn't.Go play live for a while and you will see the difference...to the point where online poker starts to seem like it's not poker at all.