General Poker Discussion Poker Forums

How are you defining "regs"?

How are you defining "regs"?

Let´s define a reg as a player who´s better than the bot. Finally not me, but mikefut used that term initially.

This is an interesting idea and I admit that I never considered the the "bot scenario" under that light. Still - I think it´s not quite correct, please tell me if I am wrong:

Assume the number of fish and regs are constant - say 33% fish and 66% regs. So, at "any" (average) 6m table you´ll find 2 fish and 4 regs. Now the bots come and there are as many bots like fish, which makes up for 50% regs, 25% bots and 25% fish now. Right? So the new table constellation only sees 3 regs (and 1.5 fish and 1.5 bots). As long as the bot is worse than the reg (what I generally assume) - the table in general got weaker now - which is great for us.

Any flaws in my thinking?

Yes... Many flaws Suppose that on average you take 10bb/100 to fish, 2 to bots and 0 to regs.

With 2 fish and 4 regs you would be making 2*10bb/100 + 4*0bb/100 = 20bb/100

With the bot scenario 1.5*10bb/100 + 1.5*2bb/100 + 3*0bb/100 = 18bb/100



I just made up the numbers, but I rather have as many fish as possible on average.

Lets all get high and go to galacticrewind's house to listen to more stories!

Yes... Many flaws

Meh, that´s no prove. And now you made some flaws ...

1) You have to subtract one reg - us. So the numbers are 2/0/3 (f/b/r) and 1.5/1.5/2 respectively.

2) Your figures are taken from nowhere. Replace the 2bb for the bot by 3.5bb - and the table gets better with the bot. So, who is right?

You definitely did not read the last sentence of my post...

No, I read it - it just didn't logically fit with your and tb's posts. You agreed with the "So what" and said you you weren't concerned with playing with them. As I pointed out, there is a "so what" and you should be concerned about playing with bots. I really don't understand why you think there are two issues here - the issues are one and the same.

Regardless, it's semantics and I'm going to let it go now.

the table in general got weaker now - which is great for us.

As I said before, I think we are all overstating how good the average reg is and underestimating how good these bots are. I have played against players I was 90% sure were HU bots after the match, and I can tell you, they weren't as massively exploitable as you all seem to think. In high rake environments (we know these bots play up to 100NL) to assume that the average winning microstakes reg has an edge on a bot after the astronomical rake is IMO a bit optimistic, especially when trying to multitable and exploit fish.

Is the average winning reg better than most bots? Almost certainly. Do I think the difference is big enough to want them at my table more than a human reg? Not really - I am mostly indifferent. All I care about is the number of fish at my table. If the poker economy has 100 regs, 100 fish and 100 bots, at a random 6m table with bots, we'd expect 1.65 fish. If the bots got struck by the banhammer, the number of fish I'd expect at my table jumps to 2.5. That's a huge win IMO.

Meh, that´s no prove. And now you made some flaws ...

1) You have to subtract one reg - us. So the numbers are 2/0/3 (f/b/r) and 1.5/1.5/2 respectively.

2) Your figures are taken from nowhere. Replace the 2bb for the bot by 3.5bb - and the table gets better with the bot. So, who is right?

1) It's 0 anyways so it doesn't change
2) you are right in the fact that no one is right

It would be very interesting (nb: must get out more) to model the poker ecosystem,
here is a link to a wiki page.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecosystem_model
In the example (Predator-Prey)
δ is the mortality rate of the predator species

and unfortunately this is very low, the sites don't seem to kill them off fast enough.

Would be interesting to stick values inti the equation to see how it looks! I expect you can easily flat line the prey.

As I said before, I think we are all overstating how good the average reg is and underestimating how good these bots are.

Under this assumption I agree 100% with all you said. Maybe I´m a little outdated, in my book bots still played on a pretty low "skill level". That might explain my attitude so far.

If actually "bot = reg" than it´s pretty clear that it´s a bad thing for the poker world.

It's not even so much that I think the bots are good - they're not ( at least based on everything I've read and my experience playing suspected HU bots). But it's not like the average micro/smallstakes reg is good either - he's pretty mediocre. The biggest factor by far is the rake, which is 4-5PTBB/100 at these limits. You need a pretty big edge on someone to overcome that, which is why, despite the e-peen "I beat up on mediocre regs" poker forum claims, for the majority of micro/smallstakes players most profit will come from the fish.

A table with boths would be easy money if they indeed play 9/9 or something like the bots discovered on PS.

But even that would still be a problem for the poker economy, because it's safe to assume that the bots that run make money on average because otherwise people wouldn't keep them running. And a dollar won by the bots is a dollar lost for the winning players and the poker sites. Every fish that's busted by a bot is bad news, even if you would be able to make decent money from the bots.

i wouldn't assume that "regs" at micro/small stakes are necessarily winning players fwiw. lots of people play tons of hands but struggle to do much more than break even (or lose slightly). maybe its just semantics but i think micro players tend to really overestimate the skill levels of their opponents.

i wouldn't assume that "regs" at micro/small stakes are necessarily winning players fwiw. lots of people play tons of hands but struggle to do much more than break even (or lose slightly). maybe its just semantics but i think micro players tend to really overestimate the skill levels of their opponents.

I agree. I play regularly in micro-stakes and I'm terrible.

i wouldn't assume that "regs" at micro/small stakes are necessarily winning players fwiw. lots of people play tons of hands but struggle to do much more than break even (or lose slightly). maybe its just semantics but i think micro players tend to really overestimate the skill levels of their opponents.

The reg you are describing in your post is me before I join DC tbh