Pokerbots Making Online Players Sad 408
Anonymous Coward wrote to mention a Wired article about the rise of Pokerbots in online gaming venues. From the article: "Smart, skilled players are rewarded in the long run, especially online, where there are plenty of beginners who would never have the nerve to sit down at a real table. But WinHoldEm isn't just smart, it's a machine. Set it to run on autopilot and it wins real money while you sleep. Flick on Team mode and you can collude with other humans running WinHoldEm at the table. For years, there has been chatter among online players about the coming poker bot infestation. WinHoldEm is turning those rumors into reality, and that is a serious problem for the online gambling business."
Where's the problem? (Score:5, Interesting)
If they're not allowed to play (why not?), but still do, there are two problems. The social one of people running them (I'm assuming the bots don't decide to play by themselves) which probably can't be solved - some people are inherently dishonest. Then there's the technical problem - how do you let humans play while shutting out bots? There really isn't a feasible solution, especially if humans decide to play physically but let a bot decide their moves for them. But of course some will still try to implement a partial solution. Discuss.
From Someone Who Makes His LIving Playing (Score:5, Interesting)
I can tell you that the bots are not a big deal yet. First of all, I'll be amazed when they ever come up with the technology to play no limit hold 'em. That would be a miracle program. Poker is much more than just betting and raising, and the occasional bluff. Just as important are reading your opponent, making bets that damage others pot odds, and playing your position in relation to the blinds. Plus, there's just a certain amount of feel needed in the game. Even Doyle Brunson claims ESP is important in Super System.
Limit ring games are a different ballgame, and a bot does have some chance of success. However, that chance is at best only at the low level games, where a program could actually outplay the players. Any mid to high stakes game has players who will quickly figure out the way a bot plays, and milk it for all it's worth.
As it is now, winholdem is a pretty bad program. I don't know of anyone who has made a profit with it, and I do know a couple of people who have at least taken a look at it. If you're worried about something in online poker, be much more worried about collusion, with multiple people at the same table sharing their hands with each other. But, even that doesn't give a huge advantage against a good player, unless there are upwards of six or seven people in a room sharing information against the rest. Poker is, and always will be a skill game, and none of these cheating methods can change that.
hed.
don't be afraid of poker bots (Score:2, Interesting)
A good player adjusts to his players in a very human way.
Artificial intelligence of a high variety would be need to emulate this adaptive behaviour in a robot/software program.
There are two benefits that I see from poker bots:
1. They will provide self-funded development in artificial intelligence, just like the stock market provided advancement in certain aspects of physics, statistics, and probability.
2. Good poker players will detect bots and 'trap' them to make money from them.
Implied odds (http://rds.yahoo.com/S=2766679/K=implied+odds/v=
The poker bots do provide more information to pople, and they give them an edge, in that respect they are simply a tool.
The poker bots provide a better mathematical approach to poker, which means statistically, they will beat bad players.
Regardless of how it happens, a fool and his money are soon parted.
on-line poker is for marks (Score:3, Interesting)
Do you really believe that the operators of these on-line "casinos" are above playing poker against you while they can watch your hands, or when they can tell the computer what to deal next? And while dealing themselves the good cards too often might be caught by statistical analysis of the decks (if you can afford to loose enough to gather maeningful data), their watching and knowing your hands would only look like skillful play on their part.
Another form of cheating that I know is going on (because I know someone who admits to doing it) is to play multiple hands in the same game against another player and share information about your hands. This is a great way to part the fools from their money, since having lots more information about the deck than non-cheating players geatly improves your odds. You know, for example, if the chance of drawing that fourth king is very high because it hasn't been dealt to the other hands you know about, or zero because it has. And when one of the positions you control has a particularly good hand you can drive up the pot by having the other hands you control place small raises when they would otherwise drop.
If you like on-line poker, let me introduce you to three card monty. Some people confuse it with a game of chance too, but it's just a very expensive private magic show.
Re:Where's the problem? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Poker Cheaters (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:find a flaw (Score:5, Interesting)
The point you're missing is that several accounts, all playing WinHoldEm bots which are communicating with one another can rape even the best players over time. It's cheating at poker, and the gambling sites can't seem to control it yet.
Re:find a flaw (Score:5, Interesting)
This is the important thing, collaboration. In all scenarios, casinos, both real and online, factor in the odds or frequency of the player winning. For every percentage over 49% in favor of the player, the casino adjusts accordingly. It just doesn't make any sense for the casino to win less than 51% of the time. int he case of these poker sites, they take a certain percentage of the 'take' in any hand. In blackjack, the odds are in favor of the dealer about 51% of the time. Casinos have unlimited money and can continue to play, knowing in the long run statistically they'll win.
What scares Casinos is collusion. To any one player in blackjack, he has a 49% chance. However, multiple players sharing information changes those odds, in favor of the group over the casino . (this only applies to 'house' games, like blackjack) If you read Ben Mezrich's 'Bringing down the house', a group of students at MIT figured this out. They were able to play statistically and when they found a table whose odds leaned into the players, they called in a big fish who would bet more, knowing that the odds had swung.
The same collusion applies to Poker, except against other players, not the house. If I am dealt two Aces, and I collude with another player who indicates that he got one ace, I can tell two things... One, that no one else can match my aces, since there's a single ace somewhere else, and second, the other player can drop out, minimizing the loss of the teams.
The great thing about card games is that there's a finite number of cards dealt, and therefore statistical rules apply... the chances of drawing an Ace from a deck of cards increase for every non-Ace you draw. Since robots can keep track of every card dealt, they have an excellent chance to quickly calculate poker and blackjack situations. Collusion allows even more input to be gathered and for computers to make even more informed decisions
Re:Automated (Score:5, Interesting)
Of course, playing ten tables at a time is a good way to get yourself noticed, but you could probably get away with 5 or 6 tables at a time. My brother-in-law plays 5 tables live, without a bot. He does, however, use Pokertracker, which helps him keep statistics on everyone he plays with, which in my opinion isn't cheating, it is just automating something that you could do manually. Having seen his statistics for the average 3/6 player on PartyPoker, I have no doubt that a bot could make money there. Maybe it wouldn't make 2.2 big-bets per hour the way the best human limit players do, but I have no doubt that 1 BB/hr would be easy. Play 5 bots at 5/10 and that is $50/hour. Run it 4-6 hours a day to avoid getting noticed by the admins and it wouldn't make you a millionaire, but it would be a nice chunk of change.
Re:Why not do what casinos do? (Score:3, Interesting)
Story, Here. [lasvegastribune.com]
Bots should be easy to deal with. (Score:3, Interesting)
Just put in a challenge-response mechanism which stays one step ahead of the bots. When a bot is detected, skew the results against them, in favor of the humans. Eventually the bot accounts will go broke.
This basically ends up encouraging the bot accounts to go elsewhere, while retaining and attracting players who don't want to play against bots.
Ultimately, it ends up rewarding the Casino's which can stay on the technology edge, while forcing the other ones to be primarily attractive to bots. Those will undoubtedly end up going broke.
The only real problem that I see here is one of lazyness on the part of the Casino operators.
Stay away from the cash tables. (Score:4, Interesting)
If you are a good player and have a bankroll large enough to handle the variance, you have a very good chance at winning some nice cash. I personally found this too expensive and risky to enjoy the whole experience.
I like the idea of asking questions and including turing tests, BTW. These two things, applied to the cash tables, would go a long way toward thwarting the bot problem. Collusion will remain an issue however.
The problem with the cash tables, and to a lesser degree on the sit 'n go games, is the ability for players (bot or human) to communicate outside the game environment. I'm not sure we are going to be able to solve that. --Stay away from the cash games, unless they are very high stakes. (Even then variance is several times your buyin cost --be ready and beware!)
The wife and I play regularly --it's a lot of fun when you've got some good players online. We started out playing cash games and sit and go contests. However, variance was just huge compared to real table action. Ended up losing a fair amount, despite solid play.
After doing some analysis and research, we decided to give it another go and stick to tournament play. --Much better experience. We've got our losses back and are now profit taking while slowly building the bankroll.
Coupla things I've noted:
- the cards often appear balanced for high action. Almost every hand sees flops that are difficult for players to let go of. It's our perception that bad beats on the river are far more common online than seen at the meatspace tables. (Undecided if this is just due to more hands being played however...)
- be aware of the overall game speed. Long rounds allow time to play cards that matter, short ones don't. Speed games are very profitable for the house, putting pressure on skilled players. Avoid those at higher buy in's.
- rebuy games often generate very good payouts in relation to the intial buy-in. avoid the temptation to rebuy however, unless it's very early in the game. Extra chips won't matter to a skilled player and you just pay a lot more in relation to your potential winnings. Rebuy speed games are pure evil at higher buy-ins, but can be fun and very profitable at lower ones. (Given you don't mind the greater chance factor.)
- the large sites are more difficult to manage than the smaller ones are. When considering online poker, pay close attention to the tournament games offered. This will tell you a lot about the site and what players they are looking for. Number of initial chips, buy ins offered and round length are key.
I'm posting this out of self-interest as well. (Like any solid poker would!) The more players in the game, the bigger the winnings are for everyone involved. Just thought that disclaimer was appropriate to make everything clear.
Want to play where my wife and I do and save yourself the trouble of learning what we have? Shoot me an e-mail and I'll trade our learning in return for a signup referral. (Referrals generate points and some small dollars, we use to play more tournament poker.) I'm not a sales shill by the way. Google me and you will find nothing of the kind. I simply enjoy the game and have been winning enough to continue playing to learn, earn and the occasional nice dinner with winnings
One important rule, passed on to me during our last trip to play at Binyons: Play as cheap as you can and as often as you can. Keeping play overhead low helps to manage player variance and thus overall profit.
Doesn't matter (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Where's the problem? (Score:2, Interesting)
Its all FUD (Score:3, Interesting)
Oh and you can always get up and find another table if they make you uncomfortable, thats be beauty of online poker, there's lots of tables out there so you don't have to be stuck on one.
Its also just a matter of time until the poker sites develop bot detection and destruction software. Its already in some clients.
Brilliant solution (Score:3, Interesting)
Finally real hope for AI! (Score:5, Interesting)
While some people might argue that using poker bots is wrong because it is a violation of some user agreement with the casino consitancy requires us to give no more credance to the casino liscensce agreement than any other clickwrap. Even if the Casino has a EULA type agreement preventing bots how is this really any different than a hypothetical clause in the MS EULA requiring that you won't dual boot linux or use OSS in general? In both cases the company is demanding you not use your own computers in the way you choose so as to protect their profits. We should treat both cases exactly the same.
Of course this isn't to say that the online casinos shouldn't do what they can to detect and evict bots (though seizing their money goes too far...you can ban whoever you like from your sight but stealing their money is a whole other matter). This brings me to the title of this post. No, I don't think that this poker bot or even poker playing in general will create significant advances in AI.
However, the battle between the automated bots and those trying to detect (or even take advantage of) the bots does offer real promise. Online casinos are only the tip of the iceberg, I fully expect the war between bots and anti-bots to only get more ferocious and spread from casinos and MMPOGs to more and more online activities. Finally their will be competitive pressure to develop incrimentally more and more sophisticated AIs dealing with more and more types of situations.
Unfortunatly, the academic community is particularly ill-suited toward developing integrated human like AI. We know from brain research and evolution that incrementally equipping and improving a system gradually with pragmatic hacks and adding specialized functional subunits can create human-like intelligence (it made us). Moreover, the continued difficulties faced by AI research suggests that no simple elegant algorithm will serve. If you want a computer to do all the things a person does you you need to program that computer with all hundreds of specialized sub-functions our brains posses. In short no clever idea will allow us to circumvent the fact that human like AI will take a massive number of lines of code.
Unfortunatly, while the academic community is very apt at creating algorithms for well specified functions, e.g., computer vision, it is very poor at creating massive integrated applications. While the core concepts and algorithms for the OS, database and the like have often come from academia it isn't a coincedence that the complex fully featured non-reasearch versions are either commercial or open-source. Quite simply academia rewards novelty and creativity not dilligence and the quality of the final product. As a CS prof you are far better off (and have more fun) testing your own pet idea or at best creating a demonstration app with a few other research group members than incrimentally contributing small features to a massive code base.
Only the commercial software companies and open source communities have the sort of reward structures suitable to creating usefull AI. In these communities it is overall product usefullness that is rewarded and many people are happy to make incrimental improvements even if they won't make for a good paper. I just hope these bot wars provide the begining baby steps necessery to get some of these projects rolling.
Re:Stay away from the cash tables. (Score:1, Interesting)
That doesn't stop a human player who is at the computer and is letting the program make decisions. The human can answer whatever while the program plays. All it stops is unattended bots, and then only until they get more sophisticated. It also dings false-positive for humans who are away (still at the poker table but not playing, e.g. in the bathroom when the question pops up) or busy (a human playing at multiple tables, trying to make decisions inside a time limit and then getting these pesky questions).
Re:Stay away from the cash tables. (Score:3, Interesting)
Action flops are a myth. Pull any reasonably sized hand database into pokertracker's postgres version, and then do queries on the hand histories. Look for things like "odds that I am going to flop a set" or "odds that I will be dealt X versus Y" and check it. You'll see it's right in range. Obviously some questions require very large sample sizes to know for sure... but as my sample size has increased, everything has always come out in line.
Whenever I see these hands happen in the casino I joke that the casino is rigged for action, and that's why I only play online. (I say this because the old coots who play daytime poker near me all claim online is rigged...)
be aware of the overall game speed. Long rounds allow time to play cards that matter, short ones don't. Speed games are very profitable for the house, putting pressure on skilled players. Avoid those at higher buy in's.
Good tournament advice. You just need different skills as the blind/stack ratios change. "Solid" play just because BAD play once the blinds get big in relation to the stacks.
If you're serious about tournament poker, buy harrington's books, and read both of them... volume 2 is NLHE tournament gold.
rebuy games often generate very good payouts in relation to the intial buy-in. avoid the temptation to rebuy however, unless it's very early in the game. Extra chips won't matter to a skilled player and you just pay a lot more in relation to your potential winnings. Rebuy speed games are pure evil at higher buy-ins, but can be fun and very profitable at lower ones. (Given you don't mind the greater chance factor.)
There's no reason to avoid the rebuy. If you're a better player, it's foolish not to (especially since rebuys generally don't have any fees attached).
Imagine for a second that you were offered entry into a tournament where everybody else bought in for $400, and you can enter for $200. However, you will start with half the chips of everybody else. You'd be a fool NOT to take this offer! Given equivalent skill, a half-sized stack is MORE than half as likely to win. If you have an edge, then it's even better.
Fast rebuy tournaments (as are common in casinos) are high gamble, but they offer an excellent ROI for the expert player. MTTs require an absurdly large bankroll, though, if you're routinely playing in large fields. (I'm not honestly sure since I'm not an MTT specialist, but I'd guess you'd need 100x the buy-in to get down to a 1% risk of ruin).
the large sites are more difficult to manage than the smaller ones are. When considering online poker, pay close attention to the tournament games offered. This will tell you a lot about the site and what players they are looking for. Number of initial chips, buy ins offered and round length are key.
If you're serious about poker, use neteller. Keep some money stashed there, and use it when you have the urge to play a different site or try something out. This also makes it easy to have cash on hand if you like to take advantage of deposit bonuses.
Re:Where's the problem? (Score:3, Interesting)
If you start modifying the cards in a captcha-like way, that too will be extremely annoying for people playing at multiple tables. You expect the ace of spades to look the same no matter where or when it appears. Same with any other card. If you just start juggling filenames, that won't affect the human players at all... but it won't affect screen-scraping bots either, only ones that depend on constant filenames. Those that do would quickly be replaced by those that can "read" directly from the data in video RAM. And I really can't see a way to stop people from running the bot on a second computer which controls the first over a VNC connection.
Even chat queries are spotty. Playing four tables at once (as I often do) doesn't leave a whole lot of time for witty banter. I keep the dealer in Verbose mode where every action of every player is announced, allowing me to look over the history of that hand quickly when it's my turn to act at a given table. Unfortunately, this has the side effect of scrolling chat text off the screen very quickly, and I've pretty much given up on trying to be sociable while playing. If you want to talk to me, that's what IRC is for. Then I don't have to worry about tables stealing focus while I'm trying to type.
For those of you that don't play (or don't play multiple tables), any table will steal focus when it is your turn to act. It doesn't matter if you are typing into another table's chat box, you are forcibly taken to the one where it is your turn. This often leads to half-formed thoughts being uttered at the wrong table and the first half never being said at all. I find this focus jumping to be worse than any other aspect of trying to chat with other players. The tables will steal focus from ANY app, not just other poker tables, but somehow they don't steal the input devices. If you keep typing, your text will still go where you intended (provided it's not another table). This means I'll happily blather away in IRC while playing poker, but won't talk to the other players much if at all.
Mal-2