4 ms·

> This score is based on a composite of a variety of factors including the length of their sessions, the standard deviation of those lengths, times played, and

by cryptoz 16y ago

> This score is based on a composite of a variety of factors including the length of their sessions, the standard deviation of those lengths, times played, and consistency of play schedule It seems that anyone able to write a poker bot is able to tell it to take breaks every now and then. This doesn't seem like a war the poker sites can win.

rbanffy 16y ago
> anyone able to write a poker bot is able to tell it to take breaks You can always go after those players who take breaks that are too random ;-)
- uptown 16y ago
  The players still need to be mindful of how successful they are. It's easy to stand out when you're using illegal methods. Take a look at the plot from this article showing one poker cheater's win rate: http://simplecomplexity.net/catching-an-online-poker-cheater-with-data-mining/ http://simplecomplexity.net/catching-an-online-poker-cheater...
  - shasta 16y ago
    Your article is about actual cheating, not just automated "bot" play
    - uptown 16y ago
      I know. But presumably a bot is programmed to play consistently well ... otherwise there's no point in automating the process. I'm not saying a bot's performance would approach that of someone that's cheating, but if they can be consistently successful to the point where they can play a game unattended, I suspect their dot would fall towards (or beyond) the edges of most other players.
      - shasta 16y ago
        Maybe if it was just playing heads up (1v1), but with technology where it is today, playing better than a group of good humans is apparently a hard problem.
        jhamburger 16y ago
        Yes, heads-up limit holdem is basically a solved game from an AI perspective.
      - BrandonM 16y ago
        The majority of recreational players are really bad. All you have to do is make a bot that is a little bit better and not trivially exploitable. It doesn't matter how good you are, you still lose some. All you have to do to win money in the long run is be "better enough" than the majority of the competition that you can beat the rake. How would you tell the difference between a bot who plays consistently well and a human who does? It's pretty trivial to legitimately put in 10K hands per day. You think that with 250K hands in a month, a human player doesn't start to play consistently well? At that point, there will be long stretches where the players is basically on auto-pilot, a human-powered robot if you will.
        jhamburger 16y ago
        Honestly one difference that comes to mind is that machines don't go on tilt. I knew quite a few people in the community of winning players and I never came across a single one who didn't admit to playing differently/worse while on an extended losing streak. And that includes the 250K hands a month guy. I think for a bot to be undetectable you would have to actually mimic emotional responses to losing money.
        BrandonM 16y ago
        I envision a bot as a neural-network-based engine that adjusts its play based on fitting different opponents into different patterns. Honestly, the easiest way to develop a potentially-good bot would be to give it every piece of input and try to evolve a good player, as opposed to trying to develop all the logic manually. Such a bot is guaranteed to have some artifacts which cause it to respond to certain situations and generally play sub-optimally, basically making it look like a human player, anyways.
  - rograndom 16y ago
    This is a totally different ball of wax. This cheater had access to everyone's hole cards and could play perfectly. The bots in the parent article don't have that access. They're limited to making the same decisions that a regular person could make while playing, they only know about their own cards and the cards on the board.
  - rbanffy 16y ago
    Keep in mind a bot player would not need to be hugely successful - you can launch hundreds of them that sit just above breakeven. It's a lot like algorithmic traders, BTW.
- chaosprophet 16y ago
  But then, how random is too random??? http://img51.imageshack.us/img51/2848/dilberttourofaccounting.png http://img51.imageshack.us/img51/2848/dilberttourofaccountin...
rograndom 16y ago
The software mentioned in the article has functionality to take random breaks.
notahacker 16y ago
There are plenty of other indicators as well, but then that leads you to kick off the obsessive-compulsive maths prodigies comfortable playing six tournaments at once to grind out an income.
- BrandonM 16y ago
  You don't have to be a math prodigy to play six tournaments at once. I used to play six 6-handed cash games at once, and one day I played 16 full ring cash games at a time for like twelve hours straight. The craziest players can sustain about 50 tables at a time. That is not an exaggeration.

by cryptoz 16y ago

rbanffy 16y ago

> anyone able to write a poker bot is able to tell it to take breaks You can always go after those players who take breaks that are too random ;-)

uptown 16y ago
The players still need to be mindful of how successful they are. It's easy to stand out when you're using illegal methods. Take a look at the plot from this article showing one poker cheater's win rate: http://simplecomplexity.net/catching-an-online-poker-cheater-with-data-mining/ http://simplecomplexity.net/catching-an-online-poker-cheater...
- shasta 16y ago
  Your article is about actual cheating, not just automated "bot" play
  - uptown 16y ago
    I know. But presumably a bot is programmed to play consistently well ... otherwise there's no point in automating the process. I'm not saying a bot's performance would approach that of someone that's cheating, but if they can be consistently successful to the point where they can play a game unattended, I suspect their dot would fall towards (or beyond) the edges of most other players.
    - shasta 16y ago
      Maybe if it was just playing heads up (1v1), but with technology where it is today, playing better than a group of good humans is apparently a hard problem.
      - jhamburger 16y ago
        Yes, heads-up limit holdem is basically a solved game from an AI perspective.
    - BrandonM 16y ago
      The majority of recreational players are really bad. All you have to do is make a bot that is a little bit better and not trivially exploitable. It doesn't matter how good you are, you still lose some. All you have to do to win money in the long run is be "better enough" than the majority of the competition that you can beat the rake. How would you tell the difference between a bot who plays consistently well and a human who does? It's pretty trivial to legitimately put in 10K hands per day. You think that with 250K hands in a month, a human player doesn't start to play consistently well? At that point, there will be long stretches where the players is basically on auto-pilot, a human-powered robot if you will.
      - jhamburger 16y ago
        Honestly one difference that comes to mind is that machines don't go on tilt. I knew quite a few people in the community of winning players and I never came across a single one who didn't admit to playing differently/worse while on an extended losing streak. And that includes the 250K hands a month guy. I think for a bot to be undetectable you would have to actually mimic emotional responses to losing money.
        BrandonM 16y ago
        I envision a bot as a neural-network-based engine that adjusts its play based on fitting different opponents into different patterns. Honestly, the easiest way to develop a potentially-good bot would be to give it every piece of input and try to evolve a good player, as opposed to trying to develop all the logic manually. Such a bot is guaranteed to have some artifacts which cause it to respond to certain situations and generally play sub-optimally, basically making it look like a human player, anyways.
- rograndom 16y ago
  This is a totally different ball of wax. This cheater had access to everyone's hole cards and could play perfectly. The bots in the parent article don't have that access. They're limited to making the same decisions that a regular person could make while playing, they only know about their own cards and the cards on the board.
- rbanffy 16y ago
  Keep in mind a bot player would not need to be hugely successful - you can launch hundreds of them that sit just above breakeven. It's a lot like algorithmic traders, BTW.
chaosprophet 16y ago
But then, how random is too random??? http://img51.imageshack.us/img51/2848/dilberttourofaccounting.png http://img51.imageshack.us/img51/2848/dilberttourofaccountin...

rograndom 16y ago

The software mentioned in the article has functionality to take random breaks.

notahacker 16y ago

There are plenty of other indicators as well, but then that leads you to kick off the obsessive-compulsive maths prodigies comfortable playing six tournaments at once to grind out an income.

BrandonM 16y ago
You don't have to be a math prodigy to play six tournaments at once. I used to play six 6-handed cash games at once, and one day I played 16 full ring cash games at a time for like twelve hours straight. The craziest players can sustain about 50 tables at a time. That is not an exaggeration.