Like it or not, Bots are used more often than you think online. Over the past 8 months I developed a bot more as a proof of concept than anything else - also to prove once and for all that solid play over hundreds of hours results in winning poker. The bot really isn't all that smart, and any player paying attention should be able to destroy it in a limit game. It does some things very well though - including never going on tilt and always playing draws only when pot odds dictate it is correct. Remember, this is more of a research project than anything else - I already know how the world feels about bots in general, although I don't really understand why. A bot can never... ever be as good as a human player. If you had a table full of bots you'd make tons of money.
Back in August I turned the bot loose on several sites in the .25-.50 limit game. The results are fascinating. I won't mention which sites it has been playing, but I'll designate them as:
Site 1: Ten handed game, fairly busy site Site 2: Nine handed game, moderately busy site Site 3: Nine handed game, site barely has traffic but enough to play one or two tables
Summary statistics Site 1: 923 Total Hours - 130,000 hands played - net profit $924.71 (exactly 2BB/hour) Site 2: 366 Total Hours - 59,000 hands played - net loss $75.35 (losing a little less than half BB/hour) Site 3: 33 Total Hours - 5,000 hands played - net loss $141.75 (losing 8.5 BB/hour)
Remember, this is a bot, playing EXACTLY the same at each site. I have logged all of the hands in Poker Tracker for analysis. This is where things really get interesting.
Avg Players Per Hand Site 1: 8.31 Site 2: 8.18 Site 3: 8.24
Flop % Site 1: 46.67% Site 2: 37.99% Site 3: 38.65%
The play stats are almost identical - the only statistically significant difference is Site 3 seems to win at showdown less than the other two. In reviewing hand histories, there are sessions where the bot has gone to the river as a big favorite 20 times and lost all 20 hands, resulting in a big losing session. It's bordering on hand manipulation, or a hacked site. Raising with AKs, getting J5o to call, flopping AK2, J5o calling all the way for runner 3, 4. This happens frequently at Site 3, and almost never at Site 1.
Even though Site 1 is ten handed, the number of players per hand is almost the same as the other two sites. The big difference is flop %. Site 1 shows 8% more than the other two. For a minute let's just throw out the results of site 3 since it hasn't played nearly as much as the first two.
Is it possible that having one less person seeing the flop (i.e., tighter game) can mean the difference between earning 2 BB/hour and being a losing player? Also note that Site 1 is charging, on average, more than FOUR TIMES the amount of rake as site 2. Logically you'd think this would negatively affect win rate at Site 1 - yet it's still performing at a much more profitable clip.
I can't really explain why Site 2 is showing a loss. Most of the statistics are identical to Site 1. One thing that stands out a little is that generally it wins small pots on Site 2 and loses the huge ones. Even after flopping a set of aces and building a gigantic pot it will lose to a crappy flush or whatever.
This is not a rant about losing money - the money is insignificant. Believe it or not I'm actually interested in proving/disproving the theories around online sites being rigged. Clearly a poker site has much to be gained by keeping the money even amongst the players, not allowing the more skilled players to take the money from the crappy players. This is especially true of the smaller sites trying to establish a consistent user base.
A human player could never create statistically meaningfull data - humans tilt, play differently, go on "feel", etc. This bot will play exactly the same over thousands of hours.
At some point I'll have a few hundred thousand hands logged for 6 different sites, and I plan to publish the results.
For those wondering, generally the bot plays strategy straight out of SSH for loose, passive games. Does anyone else consider this information valuable? Would it be more valuable at a higher limit, such as 1-2?
_______________________________________________________________ Your Online Poker Community - http://www.recpoker.com
an interesting post to say the least. why have you concluded that the sites are using bots? seems like you could have just as easily lost some hands to poor/drunk players.
I haven't concluded that the sites are using bots - but I've definitely spotted several player created bots. What I'm interested in is the idea that sites will stack the deck and create more winning situations for people who play badly in order to keep the money basically "even".
One thing I'd like to analyze eventually is the standard deviation in wins/losses per site for every player. If a site is "evening out" the losses it should be obvious - no players will have statistically significant wins or losses. Everyone will come out basically even after several hundred thousand hands - which will actually amount to everyone coming out as a slight loser after the rake is paid :)
As far as losing hands to poor/drunk players - that's definitely happening. The problem is, playing strong hands aggressively and being able to lay down hands, in the long run, should win money in a limit game. Going to the flop as a big favorite the majority of the time should end up being profitable. If the bot plays 100,000 hands at a given site and doesn't show a profit, but at another site is showing a 2BB/hour win rate - that raises my suspicion.
On Nov 22 2005 10:28 AM, mo_charles wrote:
> an interesting post to say the least. why have you concluded that the > sites are using bots? seems like you could have just as easily lost some > hands to poor/drunk players.
> mo_charles
_______________________________________________________________ The Largest Online Poker Community - http://www.recpoker.com
BeavisChrist wrote: > Like it or not, Bots are used more often than you think online. Over the past 8 > months I developed a bot more as a proof of concept than anything else - also to > prove once and for all that solid play over hundreds of hours results in winning > poker. The bot really isn't all that smart, and any player paying attention > should be able to destroy it in a limit game. It does some things very well > though - including never going on tilt and always playing draws only when pot > odds dictate it is correct. Remember, this is more of a research project than > anything else - I already know how the world feels about bots in general, > although I don't really understand why. A bot can never... ever be as good as a > human player.
Absolutely... and a computer can never... ever be as good a chess player as a human player. At least that's what people used to say.
> If you had a table full of bots you'd make tons of money.
No, you would lose money since the site is taking a rake and your bots are simply transferring their money around to one another.
<<<SNIP>>>
> I can't really explain why Site 2 is showing a loss. Most of the statistics are > identical to Site 1. One thing that stands out a little is that generally it > wins small pots on Site 2 and loses the huge ones. Even after flopping a set of > aces and building a gigantic pot it will lose to a crappy flush or whatever.
Did you actually go through all 59,000 hands? I'm a little wary of anyone who claims that something like this "generally" happens. I would be willing to believe that you found that pot sizes tended to be small wins/big losses since you could easily query the data to determine this. Adding in that it loses with a set of aces against a "crappy flush" and implying that this is the cause wreaks of bias.
> <u>Summary statistics</u> > Site 1: 923 Total Hours - 130,000 hands played - net profit $924.71 (exactly > 2BB/hour) > Site 2: 366 Total Hours - 59,000 hands played - net loss $75.35 (losing a > little > less than half BB/hour) > Site 3: 33 Total Hours - 5,000 hands played - net loss $141.75 (losing 8.5 > BB/hour)
If I'm interpreting these stats incorrectly please let me know, but to me it seems you're playing at 8-handed tables and playing ~150 hands per hour on each site? Seems a bit high for almost full tables.
Chris
_______________________________________________________________ The Largest Online Poker Community - http://www.recpoker.com
You misunderstood. I meant if you are the only human player at a table full of bots, YOU'D make tons of money because the bot patterns and play would be easy to figure out. Also note that in general, poker is considered a vastly more complex game than Chess. One developer working part time to create a bot doesn't quite compare to hundreds of engineers contributing to Deep Blue. But I'm flattered at the comparison ;)
I have gone through *most* of the hands. Note that it's not necessary to go through 59,000 hands, only through the hands that have won or lost money, along with targeting specific trouble hands in limit such as A9s. I'm not prepared to post the results of all hands, the one I used is just an example. Of course one single beat on one hand is meaningless.
You say it wreaks of bias - how about a theory as to why a computer controlled player, using the exact same decision logic, playing exactly the same way would result in such drastically different results from one site to the next? How is that possible? It's not like there are a bunch of sharks playing .25-.50 on one site, but not on another. The gameplay stats are showing the play to be very similar from site to site.
Forget individual hands, individual sessions, or even individual weeks. Let's talk LONG TERM. How do we account for the difference?
> BeavisChrist wrote: > > Like it or not, Bots are used more often than you think online. Over the > > past 8 > > months I developed a bot more as a proof of concept than anything else - > > also to > > prove once and for all that solid play over hundreds of hours results in > > winning > > poker. The bot really isn't all that smart, and any player paying attention > > should be able to destroy it in a limit game. It does some things very well > > though - including never going on tilt and always playing draws only when > > pot > > odds dictate it is correct. Remember, this is more of a research project > > than > > anything else - I already know how the world feels about bots in general, > > although I don't really understand why. A bot can never... ever be as good > > as a > > human player.
> Absolutely... and a computer can never... ever be as good a chess > player as a human player. At least that's what people used to say.
> > If you had a table full of bots you'd make tons of money.
> No, you would lose money since the site is taking a rake and your bots > are simply transferring their money around to one another.
> <<>>
> > I can't really explain why Site 2 is showing a loss. Most of the statistics > > are > > identical to Site 1. One thing that stands out a little is that generally it > > wins small pots on Site 2 and loses the huge ones. Even after flopping a set > > of > > aces and building a gigantic pot it will lose to a crappy flush or whatever.
> Did you actually go through all 59,000 hands? I'm a little wary of > anyone who claims that something like this "generally" happens. I would > be willing to believe that you found that pot sizes tended to be small > wins/big losses since you could easily query the data to determine > this. Adding in that it loses with a set of aces against a "crappy > flush" and implying that this is the cause wreaks of bias.
> -Tom.
_______________________________________________________________ Block Lists, Favorites, and more - http://www.recpoker.com
> > Summary statistics > > Site 1: 923 Total Hours - 130,000 hands played - net profit $924.71 (exactly > > 2BB/hour) > > Site 2: 366 Total Hours - 59,000 hands played - net loss $75.35 (losing a > > little > > less than half BB/hour) > > Site 3: 33 Total Hours - 5,000 hands played - net loss $141.75 (losing 8.5 > > BB/hour)
> If I'm interpreting these stats incorrectly please let me know, but to me it > seems you're playing at 8-handed tables and playing ~150 hands per hour on > each > site? Seems a bit high for almost full tables.
> Chris
_______________________________________________________________ Your Online Poker Community - http://www.recpoker.com
Very interesting post. I am at that stage in life where I am not willing to discount that anything is possible and will be very curious to see your follow up studies. Post note - Until the bots get better then the programmed players on Wilsons simulator programs, I will stay more worried about collusion then anythng else.
> It's playing three tables at each site which amounts to ranges from 140 to 160 > hands per hour.
> On Nov 22 2005 10:56 AM, Chris in Texas wrote:
> > On Nov 22 2005 12:12 PM, BeavisChrist wrote:
> > > Summary statistics > > > Site 1: 923 Total Hours - 130,000 hands played - net profit $924.71 > > > (exactly > > > 2BB/hour) > > > Site 2: 366 Total Hours - 59,000 hands played - net loss $75.35 (losing a > > > little > > > less than half BB/hour) > > > Site 3: 33 Total Hours - 5,000 hands played - net loss $141.75 (losing 8.5 > > > BB/hour)
> > If I'm interpreting these stats incorrectly please let me know, but to me it > > seems you're playing at 8-handed tables and playing ~150 hands per hour on > > each > > site? Seems a bit high for almost full tables.
> > Chris
_______________________________________________________________ * New Release: RecPoker.com v2.2 - http://www.recpoker.com
BeavisChrist wrote: > You misunderstood. I meant if you are the only human player at a table full of > bots, YOU'D make tons of money because the bot patterns and play would be easy > to figure out.
Sorry for the misunderstanding.
> Also note that in general, poker is considered a vastly more > complex game than Chess. One developer working part time to create a bot doesn't > quite compare to hundreds of engineers contributing to Deep Blue. But I'm > flattered at the comparison ;)
My point is that at one time people thought that it was inconceivable that a computer could ever beat a really good human player at chess. People once thought that a 10MB hard drive would be more than anyone would ever need. People once thought that a human being could never run a 4-minute mile. You have to be pretty careful when using the term "never".
> I have gone through *most* of the hands. Note that it's not necessary to go > through 59,000 hands, only through the hands that have won or lost money, along > with targeting specific trouble hands in limit such as A9s. I'm not prepared to > post the results of all hands, the one I used is just an example. Of course one > single beat on one hand is meaningless.
Ok, that makes sense. Once you narrow those hands to hands played out etc. I can see where it would become a reasonable number of hands to go through. My thought however, is that if the number of hands is small enough for a human to go through then it's probably not large enough to be statistically significant.
> You say it wreaks of bias - how about a theory as to why a computer controlled > player, using the exact same decision logic, playing exactly the same way would > result in such drastically different results from one site to the next? How is > that possible? It's not like there are a bunch of sharks playing .25-.50 on one > site, but not on another. The gameplay stats are showing the play to be very > similar from site to site.
I can't really say. I'm not trying to claim that your conclusion is wrong (or hypothesis if it's not yet a conclusion). It just sounded an aweful lot like those players who can't find a reason for their continued losses except that they're "unlucky" and they pull out one hand to "prove" that they're unlucky. I've acquired an automatic response mechanism to those at this point. :-)
> Forget individual hands, individual sessions, or even individual weeks. Let's > talk LONG TERM. How do we account for the difference?
I'd say get a bit more data, which you seem to be doing. Without seeing the data it would be hard for me to say what the cause is, but I'll give some thought to the possibilities.
> Very interesting post. I am at that stage in life where I am not willing to > discount that anything is possible and will be very curious to see your follow > up studies. Post note - Until the bots get better then the programmed players > on > Wilsons simulator programs, I will stay more worried about collusion then > anythng else.
From what I understand, a bot can only be as good as the human who programs it. Right, Beavis?
In any case, I'm surprised you've been able to do this without detection from the sites your bot is playing on. There was a discussion here last year about PartyPoker scanning players' computer screens while they're playing to make sure a bot program isn't running (at the time, WinHoldEm was the bot program in question). A few players allegedly got their accounts closed (and I believe their money confiscated) by Party because of this. Oh, and also a site will become suspect if someone plays for long periods of time without sitting out.
I can't imagine Party is the only poker site out there that actively searches for bot programs, but apparently they just may be.
- Mrs. E
_______________________________________________________________ Posted using RecPoker.com v2.2 - http://www.recpoker.com
It's true that many sites have "bot detection" logic. For these reasons I've developed a bot that has no footprint on the machine it's running on. Basically running as a hidden windows service with no UI. Taking a screenshot would reveal nothing. I also limit the bot playing to random periods that are reasonable amounts of time. Playing three tables for 4 hours at a time is way below the "bot radar" on the sites. Humans are playing 8 tables for 10 hours (read some of the posts here on RGP).
I'd say the bot I've developed is right up there with the Wilson simulated players - likely even more intelligent. It actually adjusts in real time to changing table conditions (over aggressive play, etc.). It might be an interesting exercise to pit it against Wilson to see how it does against the best simulated players. One thing it doesn't do at this point is player profiling - I'm not sure if Wilson does that or not.
> > Very interesting post. I am at that stage in life where I am not willing to > > discount that anything is possible and will be very curious to see your > > follow > > up studies. Post note - Until the bots get better then the programmed > > players > > on > > Wilsons simulator programs, I will stay more worried about collusion then > > anythng else.
> From what I understand, a bot can only be as good as the human who programs > it. > Right, Beavis?
> In any case, I'm surprised you've been able to do this without detection from > the sites your bot is playing on. There was a discussion here last year about > PartyPoker scanning players' computer screens while they're playing to make > sure > a bot program isn't running (at the time, WinHoldEm was the bot program in > question). A few players allegedly got their accounts closed (and I believe > their money confiscated) by Party because of this. Oh, and also a site will > become suspect if someone plays for long periods of time without sitting out.
> I can't imagine Party is the only poker site out there that actively searches > for bot programs, but apparently they just may be.
> - Mrs. E
_______________________________________________________________ The Largest Online Poker Community - http://www.recpoker.com
Hehe, nice. And true. Programming a reasonable chess game is much easier than a decent poker player. Chess has a much (and I mean MUCH) smaller set of "possible" moves - and each move can be played out considering what your opponent's counter will likely be. Poker (especially no limit) is infinitely more complex.
I can't remember the web site, but I once read an article written by a chess grand master who decided to take up poker. After a few years he came to the conclusion that poker is more complex than chess. Of course that was just his opinion (and now heresay from me).
But yes, I can say from a programming perspective, poker is very tough. High school students can program a chess game.
Aodhan wrote: > > to figure out. Also note that in general, poker is considered a vastly more > > complex game than Chess.
> By who??
> Chess is incredibly more complex than poker.
Chess is a game of complete information (both players know where all of the pieces are at all times). Since poker is a game of incomplete information (you don't know what your opponent's hand is) it brings its own set of complexities when trying to model it in a computer application.
Also, with poker your play has to take into account your opponent's play. Whether or not you want to reraise may depend on whether or not your opponent is a very tight player or a maniac. With chess you don't really have this problem. Given any setup of the pieces there is typically a theoretical "best" move. Of course, if you are against a weak player you might want to try to set up simple traps that you wouldn't against a grand master who is sure to avoid them and against a player who is not so good at complex positions you might want to play for those kinds of positions, but the effect of this is much less than the same effect in poker of playing your specific opponent.
Of course, chess has its own complexities of course - early in a game the choice between two moves has to take into account things such as control of the center, mobility of pieces, etc. which are also hard to model in a way in which they can be compared accurately. For example, just look at a typical gambit... a grand master can make a good guess at whether or not the sacrifice of the piece is worth some intangible (for lack of a better word) advantage in position. How do you quantify this so that a computer can make the same decision correctly?
59,000 hands is not nearly enough to ensure that a winning player will be ahead. Look at your overall results for all three sites. You're winning 1.07 big bets/hour. Right where you should be.
I'm not sure why you suspect bias or rigging just because you have an overall losing streak on a site. Numerous possible reasons for this. One, a winning player can easily be down in cash after 60k hands. It sounds huge, but 60k STILL isn't that large a sample. Two, as you said, if a player suspects you're running a bot it would be relatively simple for him to defeat it if he could figure out the algorithm. It would only take the loss of a few big pots to seriously skew the data. Finally, and no offense intended, but the bot may not be as good as you think. This is not a slight of your coding ability, as I'm fully aware of the complexities involved in programming one of these buggers. But playing straight pot odds, even adjusting for table conditions, is unlikely to net much more than 1-2 BB/100. As Jacksup said, assimilating all of your results shows a 1BB/100 profit, which is about what I'd expect for this strategy.
I commend your efforts here though, and I have a great deal of respect for people that are able to generate programs like this. It is an impressive feat to be able to code something like this that shows a steady profit. You're right that it defiintely shows that solid consistent poker is a winner. I'd love to see more data from your future trials.
You should try to hit every major site on the Internet for at least 500,000 hands (a million if that's feasible). While you've got the bots running, you should spend time getting ahold of some poker magazines, and probably 2+2 Publishing, to see if anyone's interested in printing your work. You may even want to consider some non-poker publications.
When you've finally got your data sorted and your hypotheses written out, you should try to get it all out there in the public RGP isn't a big enough forum. Whether your results point to rigging or not (or any other phenomena), they will be a significant study, and they may even have an effect on online cardrooms' business.
_______________________________________________________________ Posted using RecPoker.com v2.2 - http://www.recpoker.com
> Like it or not, Bots are used more often than you think online. Over the past > 8 > months I developed a bot more as a proof of concept than anything else - also > to > prove once and for all that solid play over hundreds of hours results in > winning > poker. The bot really isn't all that smart, and any player paying attention > should be able to destroy it in a limit game. It does some things very well > though - including never going on tilt and always playing draws only when pot > odds dictate it is correct. Remember, this is more of a research project than > anything else - I already know how the world feels about bots in general, > although I don't really understand why. A bot can never... ever be as good as > a > human player. If you had a table full of bots you'd make tons of money.
> Back in August I turned the bot loose on several sites in the .25-.50 limit > game. The results are fascinating. I won't mention which sites it has been > playing, but I'll designate them as:
> Site 1: Ten handed game, fairly busy site > Site 2: Nine handed game, moderately busy site > Site 3: Nine handed game, site barely has traffic but enough to play one or > two > tables
> Summary statistics > Site 1: 923 Total Hours - 130,000 hands played - net profit $924.71 (exactly > 2BB/hour) > Site 2: 366 Total Hours - 59,000 hands played - net loss $75.35 (losing a > little > less than half BB/hour) > Site 3: 33 Total Hours - 5,000 hands played - net loss $141.75 (losing 8.5 > BB/hour)
> Remember, this is a bot, playing EXACTLY the same at each site. I have logged > all of the hands in Poker Tracker for analysis. This is where things really > get > interesting.
> Avg Players Per Hand > Site 1: 8.31 > Site 2: 8.18 > Site 3: 8.24
> Flop % > Site 1: 46.67% > Site 2: 37.99% > Site 3: 38.65%
> Avg Rake > Site 1: 0.17 > Site 2: 0.04 > Site 3: 0.13
> The play stats are almost identical - the only statistically significant > difference is Site 3 seems to win at showdown less than the other two. In > reviewing hand histories, there are sessions where the bot has gone to the > river > as a big favorite 20 times and lost all 20 hands, resulting in a big losing > session. It's bordering on hand manipulation, or a hacked site. Raising with > AKs, getting J5o to call, flopping AK2, J5o calling all the way for runner 3, > 4. > This happens frequently at Site 3, and almost never at Site 1.
> Even though Site 1 is ten handed, the number of players per hand is almost the > same as the other two sites. The big difference is flop %. Site 1 shows 8% > more > than the other two. For a minute let's just throw out the results of site 3 > since it hasn't played nearly as much as the first two.
> Is it possible that having one less person seeing the flop (i.e., tighter > game) > can mean the difference between earning 2 BB/hour and being a losing player? > Also note that Site 1 is charging, on average, more than FOUR TIMES the amount > of rake as site 2. Logically you'd think this would negatively affect win rate > at Site 1 - yet it's still performing at a much more profitable clip.
> I can't really explain why Site 2 is showing a loss. Most of the statistics > are > identical to Site 1. One thing that stands out a little is that generally it > wins small pots on Site 2 and loses the huge ones. Even after flopping a set > of > aces and building a gigantic pot it will lose to a crappy flush or whatever.
> This is not a rant about losing money - the money is insignificant. Believe it > or not I'm actually interested in proving/disproving the theories around > online > sites being rigged. Clearly a poker site has much to be gained by keeping the > money even amongst the players, not allowing the more skilled players to take > the money from the crappy players. This is especially true of the smaller > sites > trying to establish a consistent user base.
> A human player could never create statistically meaningfull data - humans > tilt, > play differently, go on "feel", etc. This bot will play exactly the same over > thousands of hours.
> At some point I'll have a few hundred thousand hands logged for 6 different > sites, and I plan to publish the results.
> For those wondering, generally the bot plays strategy straight out of SSH for > loose, passive games. Does anyone else consider this information valuable? > Would > it be more valuable at a higher limit, such as 1-2?
_______________________________________________________________ New Feature: Mark All As Read! - http://www.recpoker.com
Mrs. LHE wrote: > From what I understand, a bot can only be as good as the human who programs it. > Right, Beavis?
I don't think that's true. It's entirely possible for a bot to do the math better than a human. (It would seem its advantage could be greater at stud than hold'em.) It's also entirely possible for the bot to keep track of the past moves of the other players better. Plus the ability to avoid tilt.
> In any case, I'm surprised you've been able to do this without detection from > the sites your bot is playing on. There was a discussion here last year about > PartyPoker scanning players' computer screens while they're playing to make sure > a bot program isn't running (at the time, WinHoldEm was the bot program in > question).
I suspect the easiest thing to do is to run the bot on a different computer, which just accesses the UI on the client.
> A few players allegedly got their accounts closed (and I believe > their money confiscated) by Party because of this. Oh, and also a site will > become suspect if someone plays for long periods of time without sitting out.
That seems easy enough to work around. The bot can sit out. Another bot can run second shift, with some random noise.
"A bot can never be as good as a human?" Surely the bot can be programmed to randomly alter its play to prevent anyone getting a handle on it! A delux bot would continually collect and colate opponents' play and store that data for future use. One of the unsung advantages of a "good" bot it that it never makes bone headed blunders. Was that a straight I just folded? As far as prevention goes, I know some sites alter the pixellation on the screen to make "screen scrapers" life a misery.
"BeavisChrist" <43082...@recpoker.com> wrote in message
> Like it or not, Bots are used more often than you think online. Over the > past 8 > months I developed a bot more as a proof of concept than anything else - > also to > prove once and for all that solid play over hundreds of hours results in > winning > poker. The bot really isn't all that smart, and any player paying > attention > should be able to destroy it in a limit game. It does some things very > well > though - including never going on tilt and always playing draws only when > pot > odds dictate it is correct. Remember, this is more of a research project > than > anything else - I already know how the world feels about bots in general, > although I don't really understand why. A bot can never... ever be as good > as a > human player. If you had a table full of bots you'd make tons of money.
> Back in August I turned the bot loose on several sites in the .25-.50 > limit > game. The results are fascinating. I won't mention which sites it has been > playing, but I'll designate them as:
> Site 1: Ten handed game, fairly busy site > Site 2: Nine handed game, moderately busy site > Site 3: Nine handed game, site barely has traffic but enough to play one > or two > tables
> Summary statistics > Site 1: 923 Total Hours - 130,000 hands played - net profit $924.71 > (exactly > 2BB/hour) > Site 2: 366 Total Hours - 59,000 hands played - net loss $75.35 (losing a > little > less than half BB/hour) > Site 3: 33 Total Hours - 5,000 hands played - net loss $141.75 (losing 8.5 > BB/hour)
> Remember, this is a bot, playing EXACTLY the same at each site. I have > logged > all of the hands in Poker Tracker for analysis. This is where things > really get > interesting.
> Avg Players Per Hand > Site 1: 8.31 > Site 2: 8.18 > Site 3: 8.24
> Flop % > Site 1: 46.67% > Site 2: 37.99% > Site 3: 38.65%
> Avg Rake > Site 1: 0.17 > Site 2: 0.04 > Site 3: 0.13
> The play stats are almost identical - the only statistically significant > difference is Site 3 seems to win at showdown less than the other two. In > reviewing hand histories, there are sessions where the bot has gone to the > river > as a big favorite 20 times and lost all 20 hands, resulting in a big > losing > session. It's bordering on hand manipulation, or a hacked site. Raising > with > AKs, getting J5o to call, flopping AK2, J5o calling all the way for runner > 3, 4. > This happens frequently at Site 3, and almost never at Site 1.
> Even though Site 1 is ten handed, the number of players per hand is almost > the > same as the other two sites. The big difference is flop %. Site 1 shows 8% > more > than the other two. For a minute let's just throw out the results of site > 3 > since it hasn't played nearly as much as the first two.
> Is it possible that having one less person seeing the flop (i.e., tighter > game) > can mean the difference between earning 2 BB/hour and being a losing > player? > Also note that Site 1 is charging, on average, more than FOUR TIMES the > amount > of rake as site 2. Logically you'd think this would negatively affect win > rate > at Site 1 - yet it's still performing at a much more profitable clip.
> I can't really explain why Site 2 is showing a loss. Most of the > statistics are > identical to Site 1. One thing that stands out a little is that generally > it > wins small pots on Site 2 and loses the huge ones. Even after flopping a > set of > aces and building a gigantic pot it will lose to a crappy flush or > whatever.
> This is not a rant about losing money - the money is insignificant. > Believe it > or not I'm actually interested in proving/disproving the theories around > online > sites being rigged. Clearly a poker site has much to be gained by keeping > the > money even amongst the players, not allowing the more skilled players to > take > the money from the crappy players. This is especially true of the smaller > sites > trying to establish a consistent user base.
> A human player could never create statistically meaningfull data - humans > tilt, > play differently, go on "feel", etc. This bot will play exactly the same > over > thousands of hours.
> At some point I'll have a few hundred thousand hands logged for 6 > different > sites, and I plan to publish the results.
> For those wondering, generally the bot plays strategy straight out of SSH > for > loose, passive games. Does anyone else consider this information valuable? > Would > it be more valuable at a higher limit, such as 1-2?
> _______________________________________________________________ > Your Online Poker Community - http://www.recpoker.com
> One of the unsung > advantages of a "good" bot it that it never makes bone headed > blunders. Was that a straight I just folded?
this goes both ways. a human becomes aware of the mistake, but a bug in the program will repeat mistakes forever.
i built a black box trading program a few years ago and passed it to another trader to manage. he didn't pay attention to what it was doing, so when he made some change in the stocks he wanted it to trade, forgot an important update in the code. the result was an illegal short position of over 100k shares - $2.5 million - which cost me about $50k to unwind.
mo_charles
---- * kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com
|
