> none of the online poker sites have really stepped up to the plate and either a) made bots legal (similar to the way that they're legal on Internet Chess Club) or b) put effective prevention measures in place.
That's a tough choice for a casino. Allow automation and you create a ghetto which discourages casual users. Disallow automation and you encourage an escalating "arms race".
Regardless, the techniques discussed could be detected using anti-virus techniques. I'm surprised that native clients don't perform integrity checks or is this the state of play in the "arms race"?
It would be fairly simple to disable integrity checks using methods to circumvent software DRM. Then it would be a matter of implementing distributed state to determine and ignore circumvented clients.
Interestingly, the casino's financial interest, since it makes its money only on the rake, is to have as many players or bots as possible. In fact, from their perspective, an infinity of bots battling each other should be just fine--bots scale better than humans. From Ultimate bet's perspective, bots are great:
It doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And it absolutely will not stop, ever, until UltimateBet is rich.
I considered this possibility but a casino which is too open to bots could become marginalised. Real players would be scalped too easily and bot writers would be playing a zero-sum game. Both factors would reduce casino turnover and profit.
So, it is in a casino's interest to leave the whole issue unresolved and with a level of tolerance which is in-step with competitors.
I agree to an extent, however, I would be most happy owning a bot battleground, personally. It would dispense with all that time wasted on "thinking" and reduce the speed to a processor/internet lag dependent game. Bots are no more zero sum than people, they are just faster. I love the idea of a money making machine that scales with processor cores/mhz.
Comments
> none of the online poker sites have really stepped up to the plate and either a) made bots legal (similar to the way that they're legal on Internet Chess Club) or b) put effective prevention measures in place.
That's a tough choice for a casino. Allow automation and you create a ghetto which discourages casual users. Disallow automation and you encourage an escalating "arms race".
Regardless, the techniques discussed could be detected using anti-virus techniques. I'm surprised that native clients don't perform integrity checks or is this the state of play in the "arms race"?
It would be fairly simple to disable integrity checks using methods to circumvent software DRM. Then it would be a matter of implementing distributed state to determine and ignore circumvented clients.
Interestingly, the casino's financial interest, since it makes its money only on the rake, is to have as many players or bots as possible. In fact, from their perspective, an infinity of bots battling each other should be just fine--bots scale better than humans. From Ultimate bet's perspective, bots are great:
It doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And it absolutely will not stop, ever, until UltimateBet is rich.
I considered this possibility but a casino which is too open to bots could become marginalised. Real players would be scalped too easily and bot writers would be playing a zero-sum game. Both factors would reduce casino turnover and profit.
So, it is in a casino's interest to leave the whole issue unresolved and with a level of tolerance which is in-step with competitors.
I agree to an extent, however, I would be most happy owning a bot battleground, personally. It would dispense with all that time wasted on "thinking" and reduce the speed to a processor/internet lag dependent game. Bots are no more zero sum than people, they are just faster. I love the idea of a money making machine that scales with processor cores/mhz.