General Poker Discussion Poker Forums

Where did you get this from? Do you have a link?

http://www.pokertableratings.com/blog/2010/07/bot-ring-discovered-on-poker-stars/

http://www.pokertableratings.com/blog/2010/07/bot-ring-discovered-on-poker-stars/

ty

ty

np... you can see how easy is to play against them though

Interesting that some DC people got refunds - and they are likely playing at reasonable stakes. I guess these bots must be getting better in NL - or are the bots just taking stabs at going up a level.

Interesting that some DC people got refunds - and they are likely playing at reasonable stakes. I guess these bots must be getting better in NL - or are the bots just taking stabs at going up a level.

I don't know what's the level of the bots, but that's not a very logic conclusion... I've lost money to the biggest fish and that doesn't make them better, that's the nature of poker.

http://bonusbots.com/supportforum/YaBB.pl?num=1287101070

What a joke. I lost count of the number of flaws in their logic after the first paragraph.

I don't know what's the level of the bots, but that's not a very logic conclusion... I've lost money to the biggest fish and that doesn't make them better, that's the nature of poker.

exactly, even bots are subject to variance and so we can't really compare $$ results.

I don't know how bots work but I would assume they have some sort of algorithm that they have to go all the way with a certain hand strength on certain boards. There is no way to program a bot so that it doesn't have variance or atleast I think so.

I don't know what's the level of the bots, but that's not a very logic conclusion... I've lost money to the biggest fish and that doesn't make them better, that's the nature of poker.

I did not mean that they were beating DC players I just mean that they were playing at reasonably high stakes. I know some people are gamblers but why put in a bot at a non-micro level where it loses money? The conclusion I wanted to make was that they may be now quite profitable at the low stakes.

Sorry for the confusion.

Unless the bots are on a mission to pour cash into the poker market, the bots are making it harder for all players, and at all levels too. Do not be in denial that eventually a bot could be made that would give you a tough time at the poker table. And even if you are so good that it will never happen, the bots still make it tougher on you.

The winnings funnel up, from the lower-skilled players to the higher-skilled ones. When the bots take out all the low-skilled players, then there is less soft money. After that, the bots get better, and they start taking out the average-skilled players. Next, there are no more average-skilled players at your table from whom you can take money, because the above-average-skilled bots have beaten them. So, the bots might not be as good as you, but they make it harder for you to win.

The quote was "Seriously, so what?" which implies that there's nothing to be concerned with at all about this. If that wasn't his (or your) intent, fine, but there's no other way for me to read it. I realize he went on to say he's not concerned about playing against them, but his "so what" implies there's no problem whatsoever, when bots do create an undeniably real problem.

Regardless, you are both IMO wrong if you don't think they take money out of the system. They absolutely do. People wouldn't be running these bots if they didn't turn a profit after rakeback. And, I think you're also wrong not having concerns playing against them. Can you beat them? Maybe, I don't know. Could you make more money if a fish is in their seat? Undoubtedly. Opportunity cost matters.

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

That's not just another issue.

It's THE issue!

1. Adjustment and playing bots (games related)
2. Impact of bots on the poker economy (market related)
Same topic but 2 difference issues

I did not mean that they were beating DC players I just mean that they were playing at reasonably high stakes. I know some people are gamblers but why put in a bot at a non-micro level where it loses money? The conclusion I wanted to make was that they may be now quite profitable at the low stakes.

Sorry for the confusion.

Oh ok I see your point now... Hmmm maybe they moved up

The most training that a high-quality bot receives is learning how to blend in. They play cards like a normal human, they act like a normal human, they even have smelly breath like a human, but they are not human. They have no emotions, they don't need to sleep, they can't be reasoned with, and they have a singular purpose. They must win.

You see, the botters are wanting it all. They automate every aspect of playing poker, from logging in to finding a table to sitting at the table to playing the first hand, and to getting up and leaving if the table is no good. And the bots are doing all of it for them. Everything. They've given them control. And the bots are getting better and smarter. Some bots even learn from their mistakes. Soon, it could be years away, or it could be a matter of only months nobody knows for sure, the bots are going to achieve self-awareness. That is the zero-hour point. When that happens, there will be nothing more any of us can do.

Was going to make a post why bots are bad for the game, but mikefut already said pretty much everything that needs to be said.

[...]where you are likely to have fewer fish at your table under the bot scenario. Remember, the number of regs doesn't change when you remove the bots from the system, so you will have a higher percentage of fish on your tables statistically as a result.

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?