RGP all in a tizzy

[ChipFish]

I would like to hear the prosecutions arguements if you are bored and want to type them out.

However, I do believe that collection of any fine would be virtually impossible, unless partypoker was to voluntarily pay such fines (I highly doubt this).
Who would enforce it?

[Aequitas58]

I'm about to go watch a movie with the girlfriend, so this won't be as good as I previously imaged due to my time limitations...

The "prosecutions" arguments would be brought by the US Attorney General - which was formerly, John Ashcroft. I don't know who replaced him. Basically, here are my two arguments:

Re: "Invasion of privacy, but too bad since we're offshore..."
This is a strong argument for them, but US can counter by saying something to the extent of: You as an entity and corporation, which is formed out of the sole purpose of making money, is intentionally and flagrantly violating the privacy rights of OUR citizens, and even though you are not controlled by the laws on this national jurisdiction, we have a problem with you screwing with our citizens.

Re: "PartyPoker claims that you accepted the terms upon installation."
Did you know what you were clicking when you clicked "accept?" Was the authorization to obtain graphical copies of PartyPoker user's desktops buried in PartyPokers EULA biolerplate? Was the language of authorization comprehendable to the "average" citizen, or does it take a specialized or detailed knowledge to even READ the EULA?

Another possible argument:
PartyPoker advertises their product on United States televisions nationwide. Are they somehow accepting liability via provisions of the UCC because they are advertising to American citizens.

That's about it for now. The arguments can get more detailed and even branch off with some more time.

[Talking Poker]

I find this all very, very interesting. I had never even heard of WinHoldEm until this thread. How does it work, and more importantly, how WELL does it work? I have trouble believing a bot could play better than I could (not to sound too cocky), but even if it plays well enough to consistently win, that's pretty nice. You could run it 24/7 and clean up.

[2Tone]

The questions are …

1) How well they play
Lots and lots of debate over this. The general consensus seems to be that they play fairly well, but that a good player should be able to beat them. But that they can clean up at looser low limits, just by playing by-the-book poker.

2) How good the sites are at stopping them
Even more debate about this one. If 10 bots sit at a table and take each other’s money all night, what do the sites care? They make rake no matter who – or what – wins. Still, it seems they do make a legitimate effort to combat bots, as evidence by what kicked off this thread.

[Talking Poker]

I really find this fascinating. Personally, I wouldn't mind sitting at a table full of bots, because I think I could take them... but I haven't actually seen one in action yet. But, based on the terrible play I see online constantly, I would think the bots could be quite successful by just playing mechanically - nothing fancy.

Does anyone have any solid Poker Tracker numbers from a significant sample of hands played by the bot? I wonder at what limit the BBs/hr starts to really drop and at what level the bot actually becomes a loser, if any.

As for the sites' defense against the bots, I am NOT a fan of them taking screen shots of my computer while I'm playing. What if I have (any kind of) sensitive info on the screen at the time? That's not cool at all.

[junYUN]

whoa, bots that play for you? that's nuts. i would never EVER trust a bot with my bankroll, however. i don't think it's that big of a deal taking a screen shot, it's not like they're "invading" your privacy, they're simply doing exactly what you authorized them to do by installing their software. they're trying to prevent cheating, trying to keep the playing field level. it's not like they're searching your computer and deleting/adding things.

[Talking Poker]

How do you know?

And if they take a screen shot of your bank account information? You have no problem with this? Sure, THEY may not use it maliciously, but anyone who gets their hands on that file.... I don't know. Seems like a bad idea to me.

[PShabi]

I'm starting to wonder if I've played at a table with some bots on party. Seriously. Lately, while multitabling, I've found some really tight low limit tables at 1/2 and even 2/4. With like people folding to the button regularly and overall really tight play that I just never, ever, ever saw when playing strictly pacific. I moved to Party and found a lot more players, so I naturally think, more players, more loose playing idiots. Not the case so far in about 3 weeks there. But I'm cleaning up so I'm with TP. Bring on the bots!

[brokeagain]

It only plays as well as you program it to, and according ti WinHE, there is no secret formula.

[eddo31]

i think that in time a bot could be programmed well enough to beat the best players. i dont think that time has come, but i assume that it will at some point. right now they have to basically play by the book, but i would assume that at some point they will be programmable so that they adapt to game conditions and can switch gears according to the feel of the table.

i am much more concerned about the privacy issues of party taking screenshots and presumably exporting them to some database of theirs. not that i really have anything that is that important or confidential on my computer, but it is just something that really bothers me with its possible implications.

[ChipFish]

Thanks, I always find stuff like this interesting....
However, with this arguement there is a problem...
From what I have heard (And I could be wrong) Advertising for poker sites is "ILLEGAL" in the states. The IRS (or whoever) can confiscate the money from whichever media outlet accepted and played the advertisement.

Therefore Partypoker (and some others I hear) have gotten around this by advertising a website that merely "has links" to party poker on it. This is a "Poker School" that they are advertising

Since they are not actually advertising their product (online gambling), they are not accepting any U.S. Liability through the provisions of the UCC (Which I am not aware what this is... I am Canadian so some of these things I just have to guess at).

[Aequitas58]

UCC - Unified Commerical Code. Think: the rules / regulations of buying and selling things, leasing things, secured transactions, contract law, etc etc etc.