Talk:Cheating
From PokerAI
Indiana: I fixed up the definition along recommendations. Please check and reopen the discussion if needed.
legacy417: A link or quote from a EULA might be useful to show the perspective of a poker room. Pokerstar's policy on "Poker Software Programs" it currently does or does not prohibit is here: [1]. Its EULA [2] specifies a difference between "EXTERNAL PLAYER ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS (EPA)" (5.4) and "AUTOMATIC PLAYERS (BOTS)" (5.5).
This article is still lacking a mention of the fine-line discrepancy that some clients, like Pokerstars, draw - namely, that use of some software is not considered (by them) to be cheating, but automated play / use of AI / collusion is.
I am thinking that this Wiki definitely needs a "EULA" article, if it doesn't have one already. As for information that would go in that article, I would probably have the following:
- a summary of the general perspective of poker clients in regard to the use of poker AI
- a rundown of their usual policy when they've caught a "cheater"
- a link to the 2+2 incident of false accusation and account freezing
- a mention of Ray's idea (giving him credit for it?) that without an open protocol, etc. it is impossible to prevent a client from "robbing" a player through false accusation of cheating
The idea of other players being "unaware" of cheating could be addressed by mentioning Ray's idea of an open client (again, credit?) where you can / must mark if your player is AI. Since this ties in with the "robbing" concept mentioned above, I am thinking that maybe Ray's idea of an open poker client, espoused in numerous WinHoldEm forum posts (which I am too lazy to reference right now), should get its own article.
I like very much some proposals above. Please mark YES/NO/comments to which of the below you agree:
- The "open protocol"/open client needs more investigation. Is there such for stock markets? - that would be relevant. Usually it is a very much wishful thinking to think that in industry where so much money are involved to introduce new forms of standartisation, especially in such sensitve areas, to be feasible. So to summarize: I tend to think that while open client/open protocol is a good idea, it's rather wishful thinking.
- Describing and giving Ray credit for the idea (in full) of having marked bots etc.: I think this is very good idea and very appropriate. I would propose to not link this to the "is pokerbots cheating" discussion, but rather to refer to it as a proposal for specific client/server implementation.
- I don't like to link EULA to cheating (it's the wikipedia current approach and it leads to great inconsistencies and very shaky ground for any logical conclusions, instead, it opens doors for numerious speculations and argues. EULA is something that every casino defines by itself. If I open my own casino I can make "winning money against EULA" and hence cheating. This may sound ridicilous but it is actually what some casinos did by disallowing proffesional play. So you always end up with inconsitent and temporary definition of cheating.
- For me it make sense to have article on EULA simply to mention what is EULA, and what could be the eventual differences between the different EULAs. I would think it make sense to keep cheating separate from EULA, to not fall into wiki's trap. I.e. From my point of view, cheating should not be linked to EULA, but to the question "do the player gain, or not, advantage from game-th. perspective". The EULA contain so many clauses, very different one - from money laundring and credit card fraud, to collusion, to poker botting. Which are very very different things, but handled the same.
- Maybe just personal opinion, but I don't like to give positive credit to PokerStars. They are completely driven by business and their customer base (which is absolutely OK) but this leads to the fact that they simply update their EULA based on what majority of the players want, not based on any meaningful definitions or basis. Their clause on "automated play" is very good definition as such (Self-contained and consistent) but it's like (as I said), if I start my own casino, and make very formal nice definition that "players that breath, i.e. that consume O2, are against EULA"
- I don't know if there is similar "open client" stock market software. I agree with you; while open source and free software is used in many significant applications, the consensus seems to be that Ray's desire for standardized poker client software won't ever come to fruition. A good example might be media cards for cameras; companies can choose to use common formats, like SD, or they can choose to lever their size and market share and push their own proprietary formats (like Sony Memory Sticks). It doesn't seem like there will ever be a push for client standards unless the industry is regulated and/or there is a rash of account-confiscation incidents that cause enough bad press to damage business for multiple clients. I just don't see either situation occurring any time soon.
- I agree with you on the idea of having a seperate article for this idea; you can always have it say "...this implementation would ______ in regards to cheating". As for giving Ray credit, I propose that he gets credit for his particular open client implementation as outlined in his forums, but not credit for the idea of an (open) standard in general - I am sure many people have thought of this before.
- Agreed.
- Yeah, sounds like we need a separate article on EULAs. Maybe use the clauses of Pokerstars' EULA that I referenced as quoted examples? We should also note that some sites call it "Terms of Service" - I guess have a search for "Terms of Service" or "TOS" redirect to the EULA article.
- I understand where you are coming from, but it is important to try and be partial on Wikis - at least I think it is. That said, you certainly don't have to hold up Pokerstars as a bastion of rationality and fairness when it comes to their business practices. You can certainly mention the idea that EULAs are constructed by each different client and can be correspondingly arbitrary or based on majority player opinions/wishes, etc. I actually don't see where Pokerstars would fit into this Wiki, unless it was an article discussing methods of breaking or detecting pokerbots (CAPTCHAs, shifting elements of a client window a few pixels to break scraper profiles, etc) - which is probably needed, by the way.
- OK, I think w.r.t. open client, we are in agreement to the extend to start an article and the just keep working on it. If you like to start separate article ot that -> just go for it, otherwise I'll do it at some point. Then we can link from EULA and other appropriate places.
- Separate article on EULA. TOS and other avr. refereing to it. I will try to start this soon. You are right that inclusion of PokerStars make sense as it's of the biggest casinos, but I would like to come with more examples, especially stress on the point that the EULAs right now are simply random, therefore they're not good as a basis for a general definition of cheating.
- It make sense to make players aware that PokerStars has extensive mechanisms against botting. But I like also to make a point that this is actually bad for both botters and non bot players playing on pokerstars, i.e. players (also non-botters) lose money because of that.
> Pokerstars, draw - namely, that use of some software is not considered (by them) to be cheating,
> but automated play / use of AI / collusion is.
Just to make sure I understood this. Collusion (in almost all forms) is actually cheating, because you have theoretical advantage against the other players by knowing more about the game, than they do. Pokerboting (in a way of automating playing decisions) is nothing more than automating your strategy.
EULA & Cheating
Though we kepp EULA (End User License Agreement) in the sites, cheating can be done. Stock market and some listed sites are different. They do require EULA, but there will be no chance to cheat.
