Re: [ba-poker] Bots

["David S. Heller" <david(deleted the rest)>]

> Now we're talking about human assisted bots?  As you
> probably  know, many players already play with aid
> devices.  There are readily available programs which
> not only collect stats on the user's play but your
> play also.  There are server player groups who share
> databases of millions of hands.  There are programs
> which can "remember" discarded up cards in stud games.
>
>
> Far from discouraging this type of behavior, the
> online sites have faciliated the collection of data,
> allowing the user to request his last several hands in
> an easily machine readable format.  In their own
> programs, the sites themselves also allow you to make
> written notes on a particular player which are
> automatically recalled if the player sits down against
> you in the future.
>
> What I'm trying to say is that a "human assisted bot"
> is no different fundamentally from all of these other
> aids.   If using these databases and aids are within
> the bounds of fair play, then bots are also.  A "bot"
> is nothing more than an aid which helps me make
> descisions and play.  If the sites and players see no
> wrong in using their aids, I see nothing wrong in
> using a bot to make money for me.

I think it's different.  Getting help from a book or a friend or some notes
is not the same as turning loose a self-operating computer program.  One
still requires the player to make decisions about how to use the
information.  The other is a machine which is telling the human what to
type.  To me, it's like the difference between beating blackjack because
you're smart, and beating blackjack because you have a computer that counts
for you.

> Now about ruining online poker.  Well it takes a bit
> of work to set up thousands of accounts on a site
> without them figuring it out.   Sure you can share
> bots with friends, but you can share information now.

Well, with regard to setting up accounts, there have been rumors all over
the place that some online sites already have bots at work, supplementing
the owners' income by winning as well as raking.  It may or may not be true
now, but at some point... Also, there are people who claim to make a lot of
money setting up many, many accounts and "bonus hustling".  If that can be
done, this can be done, and the internet casinos have less incentive to stop
this because they still get to rake the games.

>
> What if I said I could create a 3x5 index card of
> information that could make someone play perfectly at
> the end of a tournament?  If this information is
> distributed it could make heads-up play pointless.
> Should I not be allowed to put this information in the
> book I'm writing, because it will "ruin" the game?  I
> doubt many would make this arguemnt...
>
Again, it's the human mind rather than a machine, and I think this is a
crucial distinction.  If you can do that, and if people can memorize it,
then maybe we would need to change the way we run poker tournaments.
"Diplomacy" eventually was "solved" in the sense that numerous unbreakable
stalemates were discovered, which pretty much ruined that game.

Sklansky has written about how to compute all-in decisions, considering the
range of your opponent's hands, the odds of each one being his hand, and
your hand's headsup chances versus that distribution.  There are people who
can do this in their heads.  I bet Sklansky can, and I expect Chris Ferguson
can, too.  (According to Jim McManus in "Positively Fifth Street", Chris
can multiply four digit numbers in his head in seconds).  That kind of
ability may give them an advantage, but I don't feel that it is an unfair
advantage because it's their own mind, not some machine, that's at the table
doing it.