Bots....

DEEP THROAT

.... What would the main reason for decreeing that using them is considered cheating whilst data-mining is considered ok? ( they both after all are a computer aid that could be done manually but would be labour intensive )


Points to take on board

1. They can only be as good at poker as the person who has programmed them.

2. If you know how they are going to play it should not be too hard to come up with a strategy to beat them.

Lazare

DEEP THROAT wrote: »

1. They can only be as good at poker as the person who has programmed them.

Yeah, but the person that programmed them can't play a million tables at once optimally.

Mellor

DEEP THROAT wrote: »

1. They can only be as good at poker as the person who has programmed them.

[ ]Understands programming and game playing robots

phantom_lord

DEEP THROAT wrote: »

.... What would the main reason for decreeing that using them is considered cheating whilst data-mining is considered ok? ( they both after all are a computer aid that could be done manually but would be labour intensive )


Points to take on board

1. They can only be as good at poker as the person who has programmed them.

2. If you know how they are going to play it should not be too hard to come up with a strategy to beat them.

wat. dataming and bots are no where near comparable on an ethical level, or the damage they can do to the game, lumping them together because they both use computers is a bit silly.

DEEP THROAT

Lazare wrote: »

Yeah, but the person that programmed them can't play a million tables at once optimally.

This would be the ethical question I'd have about datamining, but as for a bot playing optimally it would assume that the programmer has programmed it to play optimally

Mellor wrote: »

[ ]Understands programming and game playing robots

The usual attack the poster not the post and nothing of relevance to add ( And if I don't understand maybe you can enlighten me:eek:)

phantom_lord wrote: »

wat. dataming and bots are no where near comparable on an ethical level, or the damage they can do to the game, lumping them together because they both use computers is a bit silly.

so you are admitting they both damage the game, just maybe to a different level

charlesanto

phantom_lord wrote: »

wat. dataming and bots are no where near comparable on an ethical level, or the damage they can do to the game, lumping them together because they both use computers is a bit silly.

Says Mr Bot

phantom_lord

DEEP THROAT wrote: »

so you are admitting they both damage the game, just maybe to a different level

no i just worded that badly, when i said they, i was referring to bots. datamining has very little impact imo.

Mellor

DEEP THROAT wrote: »

The usual attack the poster not the post and nothing of relevance to add ( And if I don't understand maybe you can enlighten me:eek:)

What how did I attack the poster and not attack the post. That comment makes no sense there. I clearly highlight a line in your post that is fundamentally wrong.
To "enlighten" you (as you put it);

Saying that a bot is a good as the person that programmed it is completly wrong. Any logically person should se this. off the top of my head reasons why,
1. A huge amount of online poker ability is restricted by time. Its far easier to disect a hand afterwards in the theory forum to get the best line, taking into account all the varibles. At the table, we can't alwas. An advanced bot would be able to.

2.Secondly, a bot isn't restricted by the info that the programmer inputs. You appears to assume that the bot cannot be better than the programmer, Which is nonsense. Speed aside. A bot can learn over time.
An example off the top of my head, Deep Blue.


Obviously, amny bots are not as advanced as that. But its the principal. Would be redic to allow them in.

DEEP THROAT

phantom_lord wrote: »

no i just worded that badly, when i said they, i was referring to bots. datamining has very little impact imo.

Ok.. but from an ethical point of view I fail to see the difference between opening 27 tables, leave them run in the background for a few hours whilst sleeping / out etc etc coming back playing the 27 tables with a predetermined strategy based on the info the computer has collated for me, because in reality if you are playing 27 tables your input will be minimal or just going the whole hog and leaving the computer do it all for you

zuutroy

DEEP THROAT wrote: »

Ok.. but from an ethical point of view I fail to see the difference between opening 27 tables, leave them run in the background for a few hours whilst sleeping / out etc etc coming back playing the 27 tables with a predetermined strategy based on the info the computer has collated for me, because in reality if you are playing 27 tables your input will be minimal or just going the whole hog and leaving the computer do it all for you

That silly....

cooker3

DEEP THROAT wrote: »

Ok.. but from an ethical point of view I fail to see the difference between opening 27 tables, leave them run in the background for a few hours whilst sleeping / out etc etc coming back playing the 27 tables with a predetermined strategy based on the info the computer has collated for me, because in reality if you are playing 27 tables your input will be minimal or just going the whole hog and leaving the computer do it all for you

Eh cause datamining is not playing

AdMMM

You don't win money during the process of datamining. It only contributes data that you must interpret manually to try and make the correct decision while playing. Bots on the other hand, obviously, automate the decision making process.

I don't think it's fair to lump the two of them together, as they are vastly different to one another. I do think that they're both negative for the game but bots (if widely used) could wipe out the online game.

hotspur

DEEP THROAT wrote: »

.... What would the main reason for decreeing that using them is considered cheating whilst data-mining is considered ok? ( they both after all are a computer aid that could be done manually but would be labour intensive )

I bet what was before the "..." at the beginning was absolute gold. Was it the secret of life? Pleasssse just tell *me*.

strewelpeter

Anyone who believes that there is a quantum moral difference between running a bot, and a grinder plugged in to all the tools is deluding themselves. They are essentially the same thing and you are debating angels on the head of a pin. IMO.

phantom_lord

strewelpeter wrote: »

a grinder plugged in to all the tools

as in a tracker and a hud?

strewelpeter

phantom_lord wrote: »

as in a tracker and a hud?

Yep, Tracker, hud, stove, mined hands whatever your having yourself.


What is the difference between a bot and a bet pot script ?

DEEP THROAT

Mellor wrote: »

What how did I attack the poster and not attack the post. That comment makes no sense there. I clearly highlight a line in your post that is fundamentally wrong.
To "enlighten" you (as you put it);

Saying that a bot is a good as the person that programmed it is completly wrong. Any logically person should se this. off the top of my head reasons why,
1. A huge amount of online poker ability is restricted by time. Its far easier to disect a hand afterwards in the theory forum to get the best line, taking into account all the varibles. At the table, we can't alwas. An advanced bot would be able to.

2.Secondly, a bot isn't restricted by the info that the programmer inputs. You appears to assume that the bot cannot be better than the programmer, Which is nonsense. Speed aside. A bot can learn over time.
An example off the top of my head, Deep Blue.


Obviously, amny bots are not as advanced as that. But its the principal. Would be redic to allow them in.

You seem to be watching too much sci-fi..

Advanced bots better than their creators taking over the poker world aaahhhh :rolleyes::rolleyes:

Pub07

A bot is totally different that a player using datamining and tools like PT.

Differences between bot and player using datamining and PT:

1. A bot has no emotion - lack of control of emotions is the biggest downfall in poker for the vast majority of players.

2. A bot will never tilt, which is basically an extreme case of point 1 - a bot is never going to spew buy-in after buy-in in frustration until it drags itself away.

3. A bot is unconstrained by time limitations when making a decision.

4. A bot can play unlimited hours and never get tired.

5. A bot will always be playing its A game.

6. A person using a bot doesn't even actually need to sit at the game and make decisions, keep their cool, analyse their opponents and make notes....duh


Similarites between bot and player using dataming and PT
1. They both have access to their opponents statistics

2. They both can press either call, raise or fold.

But in the end a bot still can't beat anything higher than micro stakes holdem (last time I checked anyway).

Daithi McGee

strewelpeter wrote: »

Yep, Tracker, hud, stove, mined hands whatever your having yourself.


What is the difference between a bot and a bet pot script ?

Was wondering that myself. A bet pot type script is just a half assed version of a bot. Why have a tool that makes certain decisions when it can make all the decisions?

Icarus152

hotspur wrote: »

Was it the secret of life? Pleasssse just tell *me*.

*Whispers* It's 42.

And another thing,don't be trusting them robots at all at all.Look what happened to Will Smith in I-Robot! He nearly got killed so he did and the poor sod never even played poker.

Robots are not to be trusted I says.

zuutroy

strewelpeter wrote: »

What is the difference between a bot and a bet pot script ?

Daithi McGee wrote: »

Was wondering that myself. A bet pot type script is just a half assed version of a bot. Why have a tool that makes certain decisions when it can make all the decisions?

huh? Bet pot doesn't make any decisions. It just gives single click activation to the user on sites that don't have it.

phantom_lord

strewelpeter wrote: »

Yep, Tracker, hud, stove, mined hands whatever your having yourself.


What is the difference between a bot and a bet pot script ?

a bet pot script is just a tool for making bets w/ your mouse?

i think u guys are way overestimating the benefit of huds and pt, comparing their use to bots is an extreme stretch.

Imposter

phantom_lord wrote: »

a bet pot script is just a tool for making bets w/ your mouse?

i think u guys are way overestimating the benefit of huds and pt, comparing their use to bots is an extreme stretch.

I also personnally think most of the regs (we're talking 8+ tables every day types) are as near to bots as you'll get.

Datamining, huds and PT allow people who play nearly robotic poker, to play 8+ tables thereby filling all tables with 1+ of such people. Now to someone who plays casually without datamining, even if PT and a HUD is used, they have a major disadvantage. Of course the multitabler may tilt occasionally but he/she/it is still nearer to a bot than what could be considered a normal poker player.

Take Lee Jones suggestion from about 2 years back. Allow a user to change their screenname daily - then these multitablers will have to play less tables and concentrate a bit more and perhaps try and play poker. The simple fact that they would have to change what they do means that datamining and the huge databases that come from that are an unfair tool against the casual player.

strewelpeter

phantom_lord wrote:

dataming and bots are no where near comparable on an ethical level

phantom_lord wrote: »

a bet pot script is just a tool for making bets w/ your mouse?

i think u guys are way overestimating the benefit of huds and pt, comparing their use to bots is an extreme stretch.

And a bot is just a tool for making bets without your mouse.

I'm not making any comment or assertion on the benefit of all these different tools.
What I'm trying to get across is that there is, IMO, no great moral or ethical difference between using a suite of tools that are in fact most of the parts of a bot but with a person in the middle pressing the buttons and making what are, because of all the tools they have, trivial algorithmic decisions and adding another piece of software that actually presses the buttons, and takes the decisions that you have pre programmed it to take for you.

Pub07

I had a detailed reply wrote out but I lost it somehow. So I'll just give a summary.

Now you are saying a bet pot script is the same as a bot...a script that is limited to simply saving you having to type in a bet size is the same as a bot that decides to fold, call, raise/bet and decides the size of the raise/bet? Do you realise how dumb that sounds?

And their is a huge ethical and practial difference between a bot and datamining as I've outlined in my post above. These days every donkey is uing PT, I reckon 90%+ of players are using it these days. The general consensus is that dataming is completely ok while using a bot is totally unacceptable, if datamining was as ethically wrong as botting the general consensus would reflect that.

phantom_lord

strewelpeter wrote: »

What I'm trying to get across is that there is, IMO, no great moral or ethical difference between using a suite of tools that are in fact most of the parts of a bot but with a person in the middle pressing the buttons and making what are, because of all the tools they have, trivial algorithmic decisions and adding another piece of software that actually presses the buttons, and takes the decisions that you have pre programmed it to take for you.

and what i'm saying is that those tools don't come close to what makes up a bot, they merely give u info that you can easily pick up yourself at the table, they don't give advice or break down playing poker to trivial decisions, and relegate the players role to simply clicking buttons. Something like a icm calculator in sngs would do something like that, but that's why they're banned and considered cheating while trackers and huds aren't.

zuutroy

strewelpeter wrote: »

And a bot is just a tool for making bets without your mouse.

I'm not making any comment or assertion on the benefit of all these different tools.
What I'm trying to get across is that there is, IMO, no great moral or ethical difference between using a suite of tools that are in fact most of the parts of a bot but with a person in the middle pressing the buttons and making what are, because of all the tools they have, trivial algorithmic decisions and adding another piece of software that actually presses the buttons, and takes the decisions that you have pre programmed it to take for you.

You're basically equating a car with cruise control to a fully automated self driving car.

strewelpeter

phantom_lord wrote: »

... they merely give u info that you can easily pick up yourself at the table...

If that was completely true there would be no cost attached to them.

But I'm not trying to debate the practicality or benefit of any particular tool, what I'm saying is that the morality of stretching the capabilities of a poker client does not rest simply with whether you or a script you wrote (or bought) clicks the buttons.
I'm sure that you apply huge levels of talent and skill to the decisions you make and the data analysis of betting patterns from the mined hands that your HUD only serve to enhance your undoubted talent. But that does not necessarily apply to everyone.

zuutroy wrote: »

You're basically equating a car with cruise control to a fully automated self driving car.

Maybe I am. Thats not a completely ridiculous analogy.
but as it applies to poker clients I would assert that the tools that are being used now are much closer to auto drive than people like to admit.

LARDO

AdMMM wrote: »

You don't win money during the process of datamining. It only contributes data that you must interpret manually to try and make the correct decision while playing. Bots on the other hand, obviously, automate the decision making process.

I don't think it's fair to lump the two of them together, as they are vastly different to one another. I do think that they're both negative for the game but bots (if widely used) could wipe out the online game.

Wake up and small the coffee! The bots are here!

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/28/internet-gambling/nl-bots-full-tilt-1259/

and youll notice the date of this post 2006. I recently found a bot , I posted a link to it here and the thread was locked and the link removed, I asked the moderator why and he explained, he said "in our opionion bots are not in the spirit of the game", I think thats correct tbh and I respect his/their stance on the matter.

I do believe bots are not in the spirit of the game but neither is the host of software out there.

hotspur

None of our current software automates the decisions we make about how to play our hands. Bet pot scripts don't automate our decisions, they are a variation of the slider or the min raise button in that they facilitate the actions we have already decided upon. Dataming and HUD's help inform our profiling of other players but they don't make our decisions for us. Every decision we make on a poker table is 100% our decision about how to play the specific hand at that particular time based on our own poker ability and thought processes. This makes it categorically different from a bot.

Having technical aides which a bot would have too doesn't equate to almost being a bot anymore more than having an ipod on and a mobile phone makes one a robot. The key issue is whether the software in your head or the software on your computer is making the decisions, that is what separates a bot from the aides.

The original question was why consider bots cheating while datamining is okay. Firstly datamining is not considered okay by all of the poker sites e.g. stars. Secondly on your points to keep in mind - the best limit poker players in the world could design the bot and the best limit bots are better at HU than most players are so it would clearly be a disadvantage playing HU versus a great limit bot. So it is not the case in every game that bots are bad and wouldn't be a problem to play against, and we will get better and better bots as time goes on.

But the answer is that the poker sites are the ones who decide what constitutes cheating and what doesn't, they have decided that bots constitute cheating. Why have they done it? Because people would have been afraid to play online poker if everyone knew that bots are allowed. You get trashy stories in the media about them even though there have been very few cases and sites allowing them. Most people wouldn't try online poker if they thought bots were going to take their money, so it was necessary for the sites to declare bots against the rules.

Pokertracker and HUDs don't scare people away from online poker, and they facilitate rake generating multitabling so they are permitted.

Should we as poker players consider that using bots is bad for poker irrespective of scaring players away? Yes I think so because it replaces people rather than aiding them. It's the same reason that it would be bad if you could just type answers to likely questions on the Leaving Cert and mail them a CD of it instead of doing the exam yourself. It is no longer a test of human ability then.

It can never be said that a bot is merely an automated version of you doing what you would do anyway. For one bots can be programmed by others than those using them. But more importantly people play differently because of human frailties, poker is a game of people not an exercise in game theory. When it isn't a human sitting there making the decisions then it isn't real poker anymore imo. If you can't scare a player with a huge bluff because it's a piece of software then that's the end of poker as the human contest we know it.

There's a whole lot more that could be said about it, particularly the ethical issue. Also notwithstanding most of what I have written above I am willing to at least consider not differentiating as starkly between human neuronal "computers" and artificial computers. Living tissue bots FTW. Is it fair that some of us have superior brain software when our opponents aren't aware of it and risk their money in ignorance? Should I just go to bloody bed, it's 4am, and stop talking crap?

edit: didn't see Lardo's post, he said it much better than me.

LARDO

Pub07 wrote: »

I had a detailed reply wrote out but I lost it somehow. So I'll just give a summary.

Now you are saying a bet pot script is the same as a bot...a script that is limited to simply saving you having to type in a bet size is the same as a bot that decides to fold, call, raise/bet and decides the size of the raise/bet? Do you realise how dumb that sounds?

And their is a huge ethical and practial difference between a bot and datamining as I've outlined in my post above. These days every donkey is uing PT, I reckon 90%+ of players are using it these days. The general consensus is that dataming is completely ok while using a bot is totally unacceptable, if datamining was as ethically wrong as botting the general consensus would reflect that.

The general consensus in germany during the second world war was that the jews should be exterminated!

Many believe the sites themselves use bots to start game, betfair use bots on the sports betting side of their business.

Is using software to play pre-flop for u and then playing post-flop for u , "using a bot" , i believe thats very prevalent.What about poker stove is that a bot? I mean u use it to do a calculation u would otherwise do and it influences ur decision making!

ArmaniJeanss

LARDO wrote: »

The general consensus in germany during the second world war was that the jews should be exterminated!

Wow, just wow. Thats an unexpected twist in this thread.

Imposter

hotspur wrote: »

But the answer is that the poker sites are the ones who decide what constitutes cheating and what doesn't, they have decided that bots constitute cheating. Why have they done it? Because people would have been afraid to play online poker if everyone knew that bots are allowed. You get trashy stories in the media about them even though there have been very few cases and sites allowing them. Most people wouldn't try online poker if they thought bots were going to take their money, so it was necessary for the sites to declare bots against the rules.

Pokertracker and HUDs don't scare people away from online poker, and they facilitate rake generating multitabling so they are permitted.

Very good post as usual, but...

As you say if bots were allowed it would scare people away. Every cheating episode of the last while has done the same. Do you not think that if most of the losing players had some more info about what they are up against that they might stop playing too? I'd imagine any such article that might appear in any mainstream publication would no doubt compare such tool using regulars to bots listing the similarities which are numerous. Listing the flaws of the "human bot" would also not placate most people as no doubt if they were honest with themselves they would notice those problems in themselves as well.

We cannot expect the pokersites to draw anyones attention to bots, cheating or indeed what tools are being used. Nor can we expect them to take the games interest into account seeing as multitabling serves their interests by generating more rake rather than the games interest by keeping it fair.

Mellor

DEEP THROAT wrote: »

You seem to be watching too much sci-fi..

Advanced bots better than their creators taking over the poker world aaahhhh :rolleyes::rolleyes:

yup, thats exactly what I said in my post, sigh
reading comprehension FTW

ArmaniJeanss

Imposter wrote: »

Nor can we expect them to take the games interest into account seeing as multitabling serves their interests by generating more rake rather than the games interest by keeping it fair.

Is this highlighted bit true?
The likes of Phantom Lord pay a lot of rake using his tracker and Pahud tools to multitable, but a lot of the money he wins is taken away from the site and translated into TVs and cars and ipods or whatever.
If he played less, won less and generated less rake (because the Tools were banned), the losing players would win more (whilst still being long term losers) , and these players are more likely to keep their money on site, gradually losing it but paying a lot more rake along the way.

cooker3

Imposter wrote: »

I also personnally think most of the regs (we're talking 8+ tables every day types) are as near to bots as you'll get.

Datamining, huds and PT allow people who play nearly robotic poker, to play 8+ tables thereby filling all tables with 1+ of such people. Now to someone who plays casually without datamining, even if PT and a HUD is used, they have a major disadvantage. Of course the multitabler may tilt occasionally but he/she/it is still nearer to a bot than what could be considered a normal poker player.

Take Lee Jones suggestion from about 2 years back. Allow a user to change their screenname daily - then these multitablers will have to play less tables and concentrate a bit more and perhaps try and play poker. The simple fact that they would have to change what they do means that datamining and the huge databases that come from that are an unfair tool against the casual player.

Lol, you clearly have never player 8+ tables with a hud if you think that's as close to playing robotically as possible.

I love to be able claim I do it but seeing as every time I play I screw up all the time unfortunately I and most everyone else fails miserly otherwise we wouldn't be playing the rather low levels that we do

Imposter

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

Is this highlighted bit true?
The likes of Phantom Lord pay a lot of rake using his tracker and Pahud tools to multitable, but a lot of the money he wins is taken away from the site and translated into TVs and cars and ipods or whatever.
If he played less, won less and generated less rake (because the Tools were banned), the losing players would win more (whilst still being long term losers) , and these players are more likely to keep their money on site, gradually losing it but paying a lot more rake along the way.

The sites give away X% in prizes/bonuses whatever you want to call it. Each player pays roughly the same per hand as any other (depending on how rake is calculated on the site). More rake for the site is more profit.

Imposter

cooker3 wrote: »

Lol, you clearly have never player 8+ tables with a hud if you think that's as close to playing robotically as possible.

I love to be able claim I do it but seeing as every time I play I screw up all the time unfortunately I and most everyone else fails miserly otherwise we wouldn't be playing the rather low levels that we do

If you you are making mistakes yet you continue to play too many tables then that's your own problem.

A lot of the regs take ages to move up the levels as they are living off their low stakes earnings. They are withdrawing a huge chunk of their bankroll every month to live off. They are generally also players who cannot beat the game at 2 or 3 levels higher and so are content to multitable low limits 'professionally'.

Take away their database and/or their HUD and there is no way they can play so many tables as well. They use HUD statistics to make their decisions much more than what they themselves have noticed on the table or would notice without a HUD/large db.

Mellor

Imposter wrote: »

The sites give away X% in prizes/bonuses whatever you want to call it. Each player pays roughly the same per hand as any other (depending on how rake is calculated on the site). More rake for the site is more profit.

Did you even read his post?

He said that a winning multi-tabler withdraws money from the site. Hense, the total in circulation is less. If losing players didnt go bust, they would keep the cash on there, and help generate rake.

cooker3

Imposter wrote: »

If you you are making mistakes yet you continue to play too many tables then that's your own problem.

A lot of the regs take ages to move up the levels as they are living off their low stakes earnings. They are withdrawing a huge chunk of their bankroll every month to live off. They are generally also players who cannot beat the game at 2 or 3 levels higher and so are content to multitable low limits 'professionally'.

Take away their database and/or their HUD and there is no way they can play so many tables as well. They use HUD statistics to make their decisions much more than what they themselves have noticed on the table or would notice without a HUD/large db.

Everyone makes mistakes everyday, trust me on that.

Decisions require thought. Bots don't. They are pre-programmed. In fact the absolute 16 tablers who do play "robotically" are great. I love playing against them, as they are so simple to play against.

Imposter

Mellor wrote: »

Did you even read his post?

He said that a winning multi-tabler withdraws money from the site. Hense, the total in circulation is less. If losing players didnt go bust, they would keep the cash on there, and help generate rake.

Yes I did read it and read it as the typical prizes a site would offer.

Reading it the other way why do you assume a losing player wouldn't withdraw after a winning spell?

Either way more hands played = more rake for the site. Multitablers play more hands. The total in circulation is largely irrelevant.

ArmaniJeanss

Imposter wrote: »

Yes I did read it and read it as the typical prizes a site would offer.

Reading it the other way why do you assume a losing player wouldn't withdraw after a winning spell?

Either way more hands played = more rake for the site. Multitablers play more hands. The total in circulation is largely irrelevant.

No it was nothing to do it prizes. I meant it as Mellor said, that a winning multitabler will typically take money out and spend it on non-poker items, and that money will never return to the poker site so will not generate any more rake.

Whereas if the losing player loses his money at a slower rate, then that chunk of money will generate more rake.

Therefore your premise that multitabling is good for sites isn't totally true.

Mellor

Imposter wrote: »

Yes I did read it and read it as the typical prizes a site would offer.

Reading it the other way why do you assume a losing player wouldn't withdraw after a winning spell?

Either way more hands played = more rake for the site. Multitablers play more hands. The total in circulation is largely irrelevant.

The total in circulation is relevant, more chips means higher limits.
If everyones roll was halfed, rake would suffer.
Obviously your comments are true also, that multi-tablers generate more rake. The above is just the otherside. And I don't think that its the reason that PT, HUDs etc are allowed. If it was mosts sites wouldn't have a table limit.
I think the reason forit being allowed is that it relies on human action, and unless all sites banned it, most sites that did would suffer. Eg, if titan banned it, alot of players would leave to other ipoker skins

strewelpeter

hotspur wrote: »

... Dataming and HUD's help inform our profiling of other players but they don't make our decisions for us. Every decision we make on a poker table is 100% our decision about how to play the specific hand at that particular time based on our own poker ability and thought processes. This makes it categorically different from a bot.
.

The key here is inform. Because of a combination external software processes that can be run overlaying the poker client, some of which are in direct contravention of the rules others of which are a grey area and some of which are legal, the decision making becomes relativly trivial and mechanistic instead of something that even a good player would be forced to spend some seconds thinking about.

hotspur wrote: »

It can never be said that a bot is merely an automated version of you doing what you would do anyway.
Living tissue bots FTW.
Is it fair that some of us have superior brain software when our opponents aren't aware of it and risk their money in ignorance?

Never say never ;-)
I'm not so sure that a bot cannot an automated version of what you would do anyway, IMO that is mostly what the non poker bots that I am surrounded by and that is just what I would expect a good poker bot to do. And the whole point is that it isn't just superior brain software that allows the smart guys to play n tables profitably.

I just do not accept that in essence there is enough significant difference between a player plugged into a complex set of tools allowing them the facility to extend their intellectual capicity to play far more tables and make better and quicker decisions than would otherwise be possible and what we are calling a bot.

OK then, some questions for a multitable grinder who is already using all the tools -
Imagine a script that reads in the preflop action and automatically folds all 4+ gappers from seats UTG to MP1 when there is a raise in without you having to look at the window or press any buttons.
Now we have something that is just as trivial as a bet pot script and achieves nothing more than making life a little less tedious for the multitabler.
If I told you I could sell you that script right now would you want it? would it be useful to you?
If it was available free and you knew that many other players were using it how would you feel then?

Imagine now if you will a script that after you have raised in position examines the board, your hand, the preflop action and your opponents stats. Maybe it looks something like:
If Myhand greater or equal to TPTK
And
Opponents fold to CB > 30%
Then
CB 70% pot

Now what do we think? Are we cheating yet?

What if the script is very configurable so you can configure it to take the decision that you would always take in a particular situation. Who is taking the decision, you or the script? The agency comes from you the player not from the script.
And if it were that such scripts were widely available it is my assertion that those who profit from them would justify them in the same way as they do the tools that they use now.

opr

strewelpeter wrote: »

Imagine now if you will a script that after you have raised in position examines the board, your hand, the preflop action and your opponents stats. Maybe it looks something like:
If Myhand greater or equal to TPTK
And
Opponents fold to CB > 30%
Then
CB 70% pot

Where can i get this please ?

Opr

Hosef

Excellent post Strew, makes a lot of sense

I would expect a variation of your auto-fold script would probably allow most multitablers to increase their number of tables by about 50%

"Semi-bot" players?

opr

I was pretty sure the auto fold thing exsisted.

First hit in google - http://www.texasautofold.com/

Opr

Hosef

opr wrote: »

I was pretty sure the auto fold thing exsisted.

First hit in google - http://www.texasautofold.com/

Opr

Automated tilt avoidance....

opr

Hosef wrote: »

Automated tilt avoidance....

You know i have to say coming from someone who suffers from major tilt issues at times this was the first thing i thought of too when i read a little about the software !

Opr

Mellor

strewelpeter wrote: »

OK then, some questions for a multitable grinder who is already using all the tools -
Imagine a script that reads in the preflop action and automatically folds all 4+ gappers from seats UTG to MP1 when there is a raise in without you having to look at the window or press any buttons
Now we have something that is just as trivial as a bet pot script and achieves nothing more than making life a little less tedious for the multitabler.
If I told you I could sell you that script right now would you want it? would it be useful to you?
If it was available free and you knew that many other players were using it how would you feel then?

I don't see the point of your example.
You attempt to show how the legal tools are just as bad as bots. The whole point of the pro-PT camp is that the decisions are still human, we must decide and take the action, even if its jsut one button.
But you describe a script that is completely at odds with this. You say the differance is trival, yet I consider it to be key. I imagine that script would be illegal under the T&Cs of most, if not all, sites.

Imagine now if you will a script that after you have raised in position examines the board, your hand, the preflop action and your opponents stats. Maybe it looks something like:
If Myhand greater or equal to TPTK
And
Opponents fold to CB > 30%
Then
CB 70% pot
Now what do we think? Are we cheating yet?

As above.
Are we cheating? Em, yes. Who ever said different
How are either of these scripts relevant to PT/Hud/AHK etc.

What if the script is very configurable so you can configure it to take the decision that you would always take in a particular situation. Who is taking the decision, you or the script? The agency comes from you the player not from the script.

The fact that is would be our decision everytime means nothing. Its is acting on its own, which is the key point all along. I really don't see how the above is related to PT and the rest. If anything, its a basic bot

opr

Mellor wrote: »

I don't see the point of your example.
You attempt to show how the legal tools are just as bad as bots. The whole point of the pro-PT camp is that the decisions are still human, we must decide and take the action, even if its jsut one button.
But you describe a script that is completely at odds with this. You say the differance is trival, yet I consider it to be key. I imagine that script would be illegal under the T&Cs of most, if not all, sites.

Who decides whats human ?

Lets say at each table i have to press a button first then the script will fold my hand if it deems fit ? Is this ok ? Remember the decision to fold was mine as i set the rules and i pressed the button ?

Isn't this after all the same as bet pot ? I just press a button that automates something i would have had to otherwise do manually ?

Opr