Bots At Ftp

[James D 0]

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

If the definition of cheating is 'gaining an unfair advantage', then clearly there are advantages in terms of not tilting, ability to play as many tables as possible, never getting tired.There are disadvantages too imo, but especially at lower levels, the use of a bot could be +ev.Also, if sites decided to take the view that bots were not cheating, this would set a precedent of allowing/encouraging much more sophisticated bots to appear. I don't know much about programming etc, but if they were able to develop to respond to individual players' actions in a specific read-based manner, this would be terrible for online poker.As I said before, the sites need to clamp down hard on bots now, for their own good.

[Balloon guy 158]

I learned this from Star Trek.In orde to defeat a bot, you just type in the chat two things:1st: This statement is True:2nd: I am lying.This will cause a logical loop that willfault the CPU of most bots, thereby insuring you the pot.You are Welcome

[cubsfan44 0]

I learned this from Star Trek.In orde to defeat a bot, you just type in the chat two things:1st: This statement is True:2nd: I am lying.This will cause a logical loop that willfault the CPU of most bots, thereby insuring you the pot.You are Welcome

Dammit those lines messed me up. (apparently it works on very smart humans too)

[illgottendollars 0]

If the definition of cheating is 'gaining an unfair advantage', then clearly there are advantages in terms of not tilting, ability to play as many tables as possible, never getting tired.There are disadvantages too imo, but especially at lower levels, the use of a bot could be +ev.Also, if sites decided to take the view that bots were not cheating, this would set a precedent of allowing/encouraging much more sophisticated bots to appear. I don't know much about programming etc, but if they were able to develop to respond to individual players' actions in a specific read-based manner, this would be terrible for online poker.As I said before, the sites need to clamp down hard on bots now, for their own good.

The emotional control issue is an interesting argument, but I am not sure this is an 'unfair' advantage. It is certainly an asset, but I do not see how it makes the game unfair. In regards to the number of tables played, again, this has no impact on how a hand is played between the bot and the other people at any one table. Finally, saying online poker rooms should crack down on them is just another case of the argument that bots bust the bad players. Well, so do the good players that execute a sound strategy. In fact, if you are a good player, I would think you would want bots in the game as they can be exploited. Even if sophisticated bots come out, I guarantee you one could find ways to exploit them.

[Rodney21a 1]

I learned this from Star Trek.In orde to defeat a bot, you just type in the chat two things:1st: This statement is True:2nd: I am lying.This will cause a logical loop that willfault the CPU of most bots, thereby insuring you the pot.You are Welcome

Why didn't this ever work against DATA?

[GetSprung 0]

Of course Balloon Guy wins again, great stuff.Bots bad, Full Tilt is obviously turning a blind eye in NOT shutting these bots down. Pretty bad job at covering their tracks if the only thing they said was "don't post this information on 2+2 til we're done." Well, you;re done and getting slammed either way, way to go FTP.

[handsfactor 0]

I learned this from Star Trek.In orde to defeat a bot, you just type in the chat two things:1st: This statement is True:2nd: I am lying.This will cause a logical loop that willfault the CPU of most bots, thereby insuring you the pot.You are Welcome

Of Course Balloon Guy can beat Bots. The 1st thing any half decent programmer would do is put in the command "Must respect Balloon Guy's raises"

[Czech Razor 0]

The emotional control issue is an interesting argument, but I am not sure this is an 'unfair' advantage. It is certainly an asset, but I do not see how it makes the game unfair. In regards to the number of tables played, again, this has no impact on how a hand is played between the bot and the other people at any one table. Finally, saying online poker rooms should crack down on them is just another case of the argument that bots bust the bad players. Well, so do the good players that execute a sound strategy. In fact, if you are a good player, I would think you would want bots in the game as they can be exploited. Even if sophisticated bots come out, I guarantee you one could find ways to exploit them.

Bots are cheating because the rest of us have to maintain concentration and put in a real work while a team of people could have written a program that allows them to play profitable at 1/2 NL while collecting thousands in rakeback and playing exponentially more hands per week/month/year.Your only argument seems to be that the people who wrote a program to cheat had to know something about poker. Well... duh. People who make counterfeit money have to know something about making money. People who make Fake ID's need to know a thing or two about ID's. So on and so forth.

[zimmer4141 0]

Bots are illegal and should be illegal. They go against the integrity of the game because the human element is something that makes poker unique. A bot's play is never affected by going on tilt, outside emotional distress, getting tired, etc... They are definitely beatable for a competent player at 1/2NL, but a bot is never going to tilt off a buyin on a stupid bluff because they're tilting.Having one bot in a game doesn't hurt anything. Having multiple bots running on a site would kill most action on a site.

[Czech Razor 0]

Bots are illegal and should be illegal. They go against the integrity of the game because the human element is something that makes poker unique. A bot's play is never affected by going on tilt, outside emotional distress, getting tired, etc... They are definitely beatable for a competent player at 1/2NL, but a bot is never going to tilt off a buyin on a stupid bluff because they're tilting.Having one bot in a game doesn't hurt anything. Having multiple bots running on a site would kill most action on a site.

Wow, man. That part reminds me of the speech Kyle makes in Terminator.

[Royal_Tour 0]

wouldnt Bots at limit be much more profitable than bots at NL?notice the the part of the story, when he caught on, and made a few plays, even though the bets were ridiculous the bots couldnt catch on.but in limit, u can make it perfectly set up from sshe

[a__thekevlar__2 0]

WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO THIS IS SICK GOOD!!!!im making popcorn and staying in for the night!

[illgottendollars 0]

Bots are illegal and should be illegal. They go against the integrity of the game because the human element is something that makes poker unique. A bot's play is never affected by going on tilt, outside emotional distress, getting tired, etc... They are definitely beatable for a competent player at 1/2NL, but a bot is never going to tilt off a buyin on a stupid bluff because they're tilting.Having one bot in a game doesn't hurt anything. Having multiple bots running on a site would kill most action on a site.

I have no problem with human poker players wanting to play against other humans, and if online poker rooms want to keep it that way, so be it as it is their right. I certainly think you are correct in that it would kill most action, which is most certainly the primary concern for the poker room.However, I am not entirely sure tilt control comes under the category of unfair advantage, at least for a small sample size. Perhaps if one were to play the bot heads up for a significant number of hands, but in this case the algorithmic strategy of the bot would probably be easily exploited as patterns would emerge. Maybe a highly sophisticated bot at the level of Deep Blue could effectively randomize its bets, but I do not think anybody is going to deploy multi-million dollar supercomputers at online poker anytime soon.Do you think tilt control is the only reason that bots should be banned?

[Miguel McHarris 0]

From 2+2

[rgold79 0]

One of the suspected botters is now posting and answering questions in the original thread. Or sort of trying to, to be more accurate.

[GWCGWC 83]

Why didn't this ever work against DATA?

said bot in question didn't posses a positronic brain.DUH!

[MoChipsPlese 0]

An eye opener to say the least esp. since I play 1/2 NL most of the time. I wish I could say I'm surprised by the news but I'm not. This makes me wonder which is worse;1. the fact that it is happening or, 2. that I'm not surprised and still keep playing.Glad I play at FCP! Bob is on guard there!!!

[Cadam11 0]

That thread on there took a different turn. Now the suspects in the thing are saying they cooperate on each hand that they play on the different tables. Which is fine under T&C of Full Tilt.

[mrdannyg 274]

wouldnt Bots at limit be much more profitable than bots at NL?notice the the part of the story, when he caught on, and made a few plays, even though the bets were ridiculous the bots couldnt catch on.but in limit, u can make it perfectly set up from sshe

not really, since smash proved beyond a doubt that NL is beatable with bot-like play more obviously though, in NL, you could set up a bot much easier, like in the hand suggested. call big bets, then donk a street, and he'll fold 90% of his hands (or something like that). in limit, you're only able to pick off smaller pieces at a time, and most players play is bot-like anyways, so you don't gain much.

[rawkodd 0]

if there truely are bots running i think it's a little naive to believe that only ftp has this problem

[DCJ001 0]

From 2+2

I won't play R2-D2, but that HoverRound is a real sucker!

[hblask 1]

OK, I've read about as much of that thread as I can stand, including many of the suspect's replies. And I've come to the conclusion that.... it's a close call, but in the end probably doesn't matter much.The reason I say it is a close call is that if they can write a program so simple that their statistics are consistent over 100K hands, they could just as easily write a script. Too complicated? Not really. Look at Rubik's Cube. Many people said it couldn't be solved, but I was one of those losers people who could consistently solve it in under 30 seconds. 95% of the decisions were routine, only a few were complicated. You learn the routine ones in no time, the others in a month or so. When I multi-table low-level NL, it's about the same. 95% of the decisions are routine, the remaining ones would be easy enough to write a rule for: "when in doubt, fold". And based on their win rate, a sub-optimal rule appears likely. The tough cases would probably average out over 100K hands.So that's why I say it doesn't matter. If their program is so simple that it can be written down as an algorithm that can be memorized, then what's the difference if they click it or have a program click it? The only way it would be cheating is if they were running more tables or more hours than humanly possible. So far, nobody seems to be claiming that is the case. Either way, what's the difference between that and a beginner who writes down simple rules for himself based on reading Sklansky?There is one item that could make or break the case -- the timing data. If the timing was always exactly the same on every table that would absolutely prove that it was bots. Multi-tabling, there is no way to react anywhere near the same quickly all the time. So unless their unsophisticated program added a "random wait" element, wich seems unlikely, the timing data alone would be definitive proof one way or the other. And we'll never see that.

[Royal_Tour 0]

I won't play R2-D2, but that HoverRound is a real sucker!

ohh, u went there.lol, so lame

[qyayqi 11]

a bot is a set of rules governing actions/reactions. the early ones have obvious, exploitable flaws. each successive generation of bots will be significantly better than the previous.the chess analogy is satisfactory. yes, an elite grandmaster chess player is able to outplay the best of the chess bots. most players are not at that level, and the program would always be 5 steps ahead of them. do we all want an elite poker player hammering us on table after table?consider the current crop of bots as equivalent to the vic-20 chess cartridge. set on easy. minimal rule set, easily defeatable. the ones next year will be lightyears beyond these. they will include poker tracker functionality-- or just access the poker tracker db directly-- and make informed decisions based off player histories."only a couple people use them, they won't affect me."they most certainly will affect everyone. a few savvy programmers will have the first batch, and share the work & the rewards. they'll get it polished enough to sell, and start selling copies. no matter how much they charge for it, someone will get a copy to a hacker friend and the program will appear on torrents or irc. then everyone will be running one & the honest players will be seriously squeezed.

[finztotheleft 0]

I thought Fulltilt didn't allow datamining. Have they changed their policy ? How did the OP of the 2+2 thread sneak that by FT ?I'm struggling with the whole "is using a bot really cheating ?" issues that have already been brought up here. At the micro limit levels (where I dwell), "robotic" play is ideal. Does it matter if I am methodically implementing Sklansky (not that I've mastered doing that) or if a bot does it for me ? I'm really not sure. That being said, it's against the rules at FT, you'd think they would want to enforce their own rules.How are the offenders explaining how their group of friends all always sit and leave the games at the same times ? Do they all share a urinal too ?