Bots At Ftp

[Jadaki 0]

But a bot is only as good as the person who programs it and, realistically, may not even be as good as them e.g - cannot pick up specific reads (as far as I know).

Sure it could, it would just take some extensive programming. Rough example, the bot could base plays on the player it is in a hand with by making preprogrammed judgments against stats from a PT database. This would be harder to program, and much more high risk than I think you would want a bot trying to pull but very possible.

[goferdug 0]

I FOUND AOTHER BOT!!!

[Abbaddabba 0]

When i play at a friends house, i use my laptop and we experience something similar. Most poker clients will not allow two people from the same ISP to log on to the same table (as it is on AP).If they are room mates, or friends who share the same connection, that would be one possible reason as to why they never log on to the same computer.I generally play higher stakes than him, so there isnt much overlap, but it could easily give off the same impression since i basically taught him to play and our stats would be very similar (and looking at PT databases, they are).

[psujohn 0]

More importantly while a bot is only as good as it's programmer the "user" of the bot need not be the programmer. Say a talented programmer could work with Jen Harman to program everything she knows about LHE into a bot. They could then sell that bot to 1000 people whose only computer knowledge is how to press the "install" button and who could barely spell poker and yet these new bot owners would likely be beating the pants off any game they sat in.

[Chicago99 0]

One of the sites used to have a full discussion of this. I think it was Party. Their conclusion was that there is a lot of gray area, but if it feels like cheating, it is cheating. They basically said "we'll limit automated programs to what our users think is fair." The *overwhelming* consensus in this case is that this one is cheating. What if you had a very specific set of starting hands based on position and previous action. You knew exactly what you were going to do PF every time. So instead of mindlessly clicking, which you could do easily, you wrote a program that did the PF clicking then turned it over to you? Is that cheating? My answer is, if you only use it as a replacement for your normal playing so you can use that saved time to search porn, then no, it's not really cheating. If you use it to play more tables for more hours than are humanly possible, then yes, it is cheating. Same program, different use, different intent.I don't see how this case, with 4 players playing multiple bots (or more likely, one player playing as 4 players) can be considered anything other than cheating.

Sorry if my post was confusing. I agree that using bots is cheating. And, I understand that the sites have deemed PT to be acceptable (that is a good explanation above).My point was more that cheating seems to be defined by what people have access to than by common sense. So, a previous poster responded to me that he thinks that PT is definitely acceptable in his opinion. I wonder if he would feel that way if he DIDN'T have it and couldn't get it. What if PT wasn't available and people realized that 1% of online poker players had this tool that gave them all sorts of info on their opponents? Most of you would be equally outraged.

[No_Neck 0]

Sorry if my post was confusing. I agree that using bots is cheating. And, I understand that the sites have deemed PT to be acceptable (that is a good explanation above).My point was more that cheating seems to be defined by what people have access to than by common sense. So, a previous poster responded to me that he thinks that PT is definitely acceptable in his opinion. I wonder if he would feel that way if he DIDN'T have it and couldn't get it. What if PT wasn't available and people realized that 1% of online poker players had this tool that gave them all sorts of info on their opponents? Most of you would be equally outraged.

I think part of the difference lies in that poker tracker just uses hand histories which are freely available. The other thing is part of poker is emotional control. With a bot you don't ever have to worry about steaming. Poker tracker sure doesn't help with that trust me....

[socalpoker_j 1]

Let me be the first to say this.....so what?

I don't think there's necessarily anything inherently wrong with poker bots. It's cheating only because the site has declared itself offlimit to bots. People who want to avoid playing bots demand that sites be free of bots and have an expectation that the sites will endeavor to keep themselves free of bots.I'd personally see nothing wrong with a site announcing itself as bot friendly and explicitly allowing bots. Either against other bots or against humans. I imagine that someday you'll see a "bots only" site getting upset because some human has managed to sneak onto the network.

You two should get a room. How there is any gray area to this issue is hilarious. Profit or not (which I assure you there is from his rakeback for over 300k hands), his use of bots is wrong.

[conor_mw 0]

did anyone read his bio on pocket fives...... seems like he has a personal vendetta agaisnt poker after losing 10K and is preparing an army of bots or other humans that play just like him?

[rgold79 0]

That just exploded my brain.

Don't worry, this will be long after Skynet has taken over.

[conor_mw 0]

Duckslayer2K = bot? maybe.. maybe not.. i know this is turning into a witch hunt but hes at every table with 0_drunkenboxer and is playing strange.. anyone with PT maybe wanna compare stats.....eeeeee nvm they just played a hand together

[DCJ001 0]

did anyone read his bio on pocket fives...... seems like he has a personal vendetta agaisnt poker after losing 10K and is preparing an army of bots or other humans that play just like him?

[Startled 0]

I'm continually reinforced that my decision to stop playing online is a good one. I always worried about collusion/team play and now a person has to worry (realistically worry) about bots. Pokertracker and other crutches aren't my thing. That's a lot of risk vectors, and a lot of "edge" to overcome. I don't want to join the arms race, so I'm staying at the local cardrooms for my "fix".

[Jordan 1]

I'm continually reinforced that my decision to stop playing online is a good one. I always worried about collusion/team play and now a person has to worry (realistically worry) about bots. Pokertracker and other crutches aren't my thing. That's a lot of risk vectors, and a lot of "edge" to overcome. I don't want to join the arms race, so I'm staying at the local cardrooms for my "fix".

Yea, and when you play online poker you actually have to realize you are a losing player.It kinda sux when your account reads $0.00---Seriously though, bots are bad for obvious reasons...but to say that all of online poker is "bad" is silly. This sort of thing is fixable, the thing that really sux about this is if FTP has known about it, yet do nothing...well what's that say about FTP? Collusion/team play happens in brick and mortar play as well...you just have to be careful in both theatres.- Jordan

[Czech Razor 0]

Any chance these are bots controlled by FTP to make sure games are always going during lower traffic hours? Since we're speculating...

[Startled 0]

Yea, and when you play online poker you actually have to realize you are a losing player.It kinda sux when your account reads $0.00---Seriously though, bots are bad for obvious reasons...but to say that all of online poker is "bad" is silly. This sort of thing is fixable, the thing that really sux about this is if FTP has known about it, yet do nothing...well what's that say about FTP? Collusion/team play happens in brick and mortar play as well...you just have to be careful in both theatres.- Jordan

Agreed, and I've backed off tables where teamplay was happening. I didn't say online poker was bad, I stated I'd stopped playing and iddn't want to join the arms race. I can't argue the losing player bit. Buyins-cashouts is a negative number in my case, no question. I'm down around $500 cash (~900 if you count bonuses). Not much of a hit on my BR, and not nearly enough to make me a losing player overall, but it clearly isn't my game.

[James D 0]

Any chance these are bots controlled by FTP to make sure games are always going during lower traffic hours? Since we're speculating...

Lolz.. funny avatar!

[Kuge 0]

I thought this post would be relevant to people who play 1/2nl and lower, and basically anyone that plays at FTP in general. I personally don't think bots would have much success at higher limits, but for those of you who play low limits this might be a serious issue. I was browsing 2+2 and ran into this post:http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat...part=1&vc=1I encourage everyone to e-mail FTP regarding this matter.

holy ****! That is insane. That really pisses me off.I wonder if FTP actually owned those accounts and it wasn't just some other person (lol jk?...half serious). Unless someone already mentioned that.

[illgottendollars 0]

I do not see any moral issue with players using bots, provided that the player is independent of the online poker room and there is no collusion. Besides the irrelevant objection one hears that bots bust losing players, drying up the fish pond that above average players live off of, what is the issue? I do not recall Gary Kasparov complaining about Deep Blue, as he probably realized that algorithmic thinking does not necessarily translate into successful chess play. As some have already noted, it would be exceedingly difficult to design a NL bot to engage in the multi-layered levels necessary for high stakes success.Regarding why bots are not morally objectionable, let me offer a few reasons. First, if online poker rooms have random number generators with a high degree of integrity, bots will not have any advantage in forecasting future community cards as there will be no discernible pattern in them. Second, bots use the same mathematical tools players do, such as Baye's rule for calculating the probability of making a hand, and changing bet sizes based upon board texture - I doubt the bots deployed on FullTilt are that sophisticated, but in principle anybody with a solid foundation in statistics and some computer programming sophistication could do this. One might argue that the bots are too efficient at this, but is that different than what pokerstove does, or what you read in any poker book about betting 3-4x blind when opening with AK?Bots are just implementations of a systematic strategy that is easily exploitable by a good player, such as the 2+2 poster. I do not see any moral hazard, but if somebody thinks there is one, I would appreciate hearing your argument.

[socalpoker_j 1]

I like bots

BrandonJoseph47 from 2+2?

[illgottendollars 0]

BrandonJoseph47 from 2+2?

No, that's not who I am - I just found the topic an intriguing one to post in. I think bots are an interesting intellectual exercise - if I had the computer knowledge, I would try to build one. If you think about it, a bot built on a sound strategy that is successful is actually a good argument for poker as a game of skill.

[Czech Razor 0]

No, that's not who I am - I just found the topic an intriguing one to post in. I think bots are an interesting intellectual exercise - if I had the computer knowledge, I would try to build one. If you think about it, a bot built on a sound strategy that is successful is actually a good argument for poker as a game of skill.

But still clearly cheating.

[illgottendollars 0]

But still clearly cheating.

I do not see how bots are cheating? Please explain.

[DCJ001 0]

I do not see any moral hazard, but if somebody thinks there is one, I would appreciate hearing your argument.

What if bots were allowed in sports:

[illgottendollars 0]

What if bots were allowed in sports:

Nice. However I don't think poker bots whither one's testicles or cause organ failure.

[NoSup4U 0]

What if bots were allowed in sports:

Winner./thread.Mark