huge botring smashed at ftp

[doubleup]

So where do you draw the "Artificial intelligence" line?

Poker bots are not a form of artificial intelligence.

They have a set of rules which they follow, they will do whatever the previous action tells them is the right thing to do based on other factors including what their hole cards and the community cards are.

Doesn't that apply to all so-called artificial intelligence?

Anyway, my question still stands. Stoves - hud's - trackers - bots....  Where do you draw the line?

I guess a bot would be classed as an Expert System. Semantics, shmemantics.

And, it still doesn't answer the question.

You draw the line when the software says fold bet etc.

[RED-DOG]

So where do you draw the "Artificial intelligence" line?

Poker bots are not a form of artificial intelligence.

They have a set of rules which they follow, they will do whatever the previous action tells them is the right thing to do based on other factors including what their hole cards and the community cards are.

Doesn't that apply to all so-called artificial intelligence?

Anyway, my question still stands. Stoves - hud's - trackers - bots....  Where do you draw the line?

I guess a bot would be classed as an Expert System. Semantics, shmemantics.

And, it still doesn't answer the question.

You draw the line when the software says fold bet etc.

So if it said  "According to my calculations, if you call here, you will probably lose, but of course, it's up to you"  Or, if it gave you a list of figures that you could interpret to mean the same thing, That would be OK?

[doubleup]

So where do you draw the "Artificial intelligence" line?

Poker bots are not a form of artificial intelligence.

They have a set of rules which they follow, they will do whatever the previous action tells them is the right thing to do based on other factors including what their hole cards and the community cards are.

Doesn't that apply to all so-called artificial intelligence?

Anyway, my question still stands. Stoves - hud's - trackers - bots....  Where do you draw the line?

I guess a bot would be classed as an Expert System. Semantics, shmemantics.

And, it still doesn't answer the question.

You draw the line when the software says fold bet etc.

So if it said  "According to my calculations, if you call here, you will probably lose, but of course, it's up to you"  Or, if it gave you a list of figures that you could interpret to mean the same thing, That would be OK?

sitngo wiz for example isnt allowed during play because it is designed to advise a player in the actual situation they are facing.

pokerstove is prob just the otherside of the line imo as it just provides your equity vs your opponents range, but I wouldn't argue very hard if someone wanted to say they shouldn't be allowed during play.

huds just provide info on player actions, so cant see that they are at all advice tools.

 

[RED-DOG]

So where do you draw the "Artificial intelligence" line?

Poker bots are not a form of artificial intelligence.

They have a set of rules which they follow, they will do whatever the previous action tells them is the right thing to do based on other factors including what their hole cards and the community cards are.

Doesn't that apply to all so-called artificial intelligence?

Anyway, my question still stands. Stoves - hud's - trackers - bots....  Where do you draw the line?

I guess a bot would be classed as an Expert System. Semantics, shmemantics.

And, it still doesn't answer the question.

You draw the line when the software says fold bet etc.

So if it said  "According to my calculations, if you call here, you will probably lose, but of course, it's up to you"  Or, if it gave you a list of figures that you could interpret to mean the same thing, That would be OK?

sitngo wiz for example isnt allowed during play because it is designed to advise a player in the actual situation they are facing.

pokerstove is prob just the otherside of the line imo as it just provides your equity vs your opponents range, but I wouldn't argue very hard if someone wanted to say they shouldn't be allowed during play.

huds just provide info on player actions, so cant see that they are at all advice tools.

 

So, (And please forgive me, I'm not trying to be argumentitive here, I just thing it's an interesting debate) you use pokerstove, (which by your own admission, is outside the line) but you think bots are wrong?

I put it to you that all these devices are, to a greater or lesser degree, artificial aids, and that the line is different for everyone, drawn using a combination of conscience, fear of consequence, and degree of personal gain as a yardstick.

[pokefast]

I don't know about stove but huds and trackers are only any good if the person using them can interpret the data properly, if not they are fairly useless as aids.

[RED-DOG]

I don't know about stove but huds and trackers are only any good if the person using them can interpret the data properly, if not they are fairly useless as aids.

Machine guns are only any good if you know how to shoot one, but they are quite easy to master, and they do give the operator a bit of an advantage if used in a boxing match.

[thetank]

So if it said  "According to my calculations, if you call here, you will probably lose, but of course, it's up to you"  

no, would be bad

Or, if it gave you a list of figures that you could interpret to mean the same thing, That would be OK?

A set of figures like people's stack sizes, the size of the blinds and antes, the size of the pot, the payouts, how many people are left?

Pretty sure it would be counterproductive to the business for a site to ban their own client software so obviously it can't be this.


If you mean something that predicts your equity or something similar for each action raise/fold etc, then that's not going to be allowed.

Something that tells you how often a player is raising pre flop while you've been at the table, it's going to be fine.

Rather than a fine line, there's a decent sized gulf in between these two things imo.

A really good HUD like Holdem Manager that can give you all sorts of info on how often your opponents are doing various things at various junctures is going to be ok still.

A really bad programme that say, lists the 169 holecards and gives each one a number.
It lists the number of your holecards in a different colour depending on where it lies on the list.
The top 20 appear in green and it flashes up saying raise
21-35 appear in amber and it says call
36-169 appear in red and it says fold
It ignores all circumstances and just gives you this info based on where your holecards lie on the list. It's a pretty useless way of playing poker but the program will likely not be allowed.

What I'm trying to say is it's immaterial how much a program helps. Giving you info as to what people are doing when is considered ok at the moment (though datamining this is usually considered bad) and stuff that tries to quantify for you - in game - the merits of folding/calling/raising is not ok.

[thetank]

So, (And please forgive me, I'm not trying to be argumentitive here, I just thing it's an interesting debate) you use pokerstove, (which by your own admission, is outside the line) but you think bots are wrong?

Pokerstove used while he's not playing.

It's ok to use a bot while you're not playing poker too. You can have it do the laundry.

[thetank]

I put it to you that all these devices are, to a greater or lesser degree, artificial aids, and that the line is different for everyone, drawn using a combination of conscience, fear of consequence, and degree of personal gain as a yardstick.

Where do you stand on check raising? Is check raising immoral? What about bluffing, representing a hand you do not in fact have?

Fundamental judgements of morality of what is permissable in a game based on general external real life sensibilities is a bit silly.
The rules of the game are what they are and most people like to do what you can within these rules to win. The sites allowing you to use a program means it's ok to use that program

[RED-DOG]

So, (And please forgive me, I'm not trying to be argumentitive here, I just thing it's an interesting debate) you use pokerstove, (which by your own admission, is outside the line) but you think bots are wrong?

Pokerstove used while he's not playing.

It's ok to use a bot while you're not playing poker too. You can have it do the laundry.

My bad, I was referring to his "outside the line" comment.

So speaking of the line, where, precisely, do we draw it?

NB: "It is considered" isn't precise.

[RED-DOG]

I put it to you that all these devices are, to a greater or lesser degree, artificial aids, and that the line is different for everyone, drawn using a combination of conscience, fear of consequence, and degree of personal gain as a yardstick.

Where do you stand on check raising? Is check raising immoral? What about bluffing, representing a hand you do not in fact have?

Fundamental judgements of morality of what is permissable in a game based on general external real life sensibilities is a bit silly.
The rules of the game are what they are and most people like to do what you can within these rules to win. The sites allowing you to use a program means it's ok to use that program

So sites that allow bots are fine? (I don't mind bots you understand, I'm just asking)

 

[thetank]

I put it to you that all these devices are, to a greater or lesser degree, artificial aids, and that the line is different for everyone, drawn using a combination of conscience, fear of consequence, and degree of personal gain as a yardstick.

Where do you stand on check raising? Is check raising immoral? What about bluffing, representing a hand you do not in fact have?

Fundamental judgements of morality of what is permissable in a game based on general external real life sensibilities is a bit silly.
The rules of the game are what they are and most people like to do what you can within these rules to win. The sites allowing you to use a program means it's ok to use that program

So sites that allow bots are fine? (I don't mind bots you understand, I'm just asking)

 

Yes.

Are there any though?

The botters describe some sites as being 'bot friendly' meaning not a lot of their dirty brothers are being caught. It's still in the T&Cs that you can't use a bot there though.

The FullTilt thing was comedy. It was never ok to use a bot on FullTilt, security catches a big bunch of them at once and confiscate their funds and the botters have the brass to moan.

[doubleup]

So, (And please forgive me, I'm not trying to be argumentitive here, I just thing it's an interesting debate) you use pokerstove, (which by your own admission, is outside the line) but you think bots are wrong?

Pokerstove used while he's not playing.

It's ok to use a bot while you're not playing poker too. You can have it do the laundry.

My bad, I was referring to his "outside the line" comment.

So speaking of the line, where, precisely, do we draw it?

NB: "It is considered" isn't precise.

I think you can use pokerstove while playing although I don't because its not really designed for that purpose (and if you need to use it, the answer you're going to get is 40% anyway)

[Cf]

So where do you draw the "Artificial intelligence" line?

Poker bots are not a form of artificial intelligence.

They have a set of rules which they follow, they will do whatever the previous action tells them is the right thing to do based on other factors including what their hole cards and the community cards are.

They make no decisions on their own and have no intelligence whatsoever whether it be artificial or otherwise. They simply follow a set of rules which have been pre programmed.

If a bot with true intelligence has been developed then it's GG online poker. A truly intelligent bot would adapt to other players strategies over time and as such would be undetectable as a bot. It would play perfectly and would only ever be beaten by the element of luck that creeps in to poker oh so often.

I can't let that one go

Poker bots, as you describe there (i'm no expert on them), are a form of AI.

Ok, perhaps not a particulary advanced form of AI, but AI none the less.

The same goes for the chess example. AI.

The computer is given an environment in which a decision is to be made (in this case based on cards, stack sizes, etc) and will make the decision based on it's ruleset. Ok, it might not be learning anything, but machine learning is only one field of AI and isn't required for everything. eg board games where a complete decision tree can be made - the computer can play optimally and nothing the player can do can change that - therefore no learning is required.

[gatso]

A really bad programme that say, lists the 169 holecards and gives each one a number.
It lists the number of your holecards in a different colour depending on where it lies on the list.
The top 20 appear in green and it flashes up saying raise
21-35 appear in amber and it says call
36-169 appear in red and it says fold
It ignores all circumstances and just gives you this info based on where your holecards lie on the list. It's a pretty useless way of playing poker but the program will likely not be allowed.

sky poker actually have this exact function built into their software