Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by raincole 246 days ago
Sites have very a strong incentive to make you believe this. Otherwise no human would join anymore.
2 comments

I'm beating online poker. The difficulty of beating online poker is very much dependent on the site and the rake.
Doesn't mean bots aren't widespread. It just means you're better than the breakeven player.
I'm a software engineer with 10+ years of experience. I'm also a poker player that has a very deep understanding of the game. Writing a poker bot that can beat the game is absolutely not trivial. There are "solvers" that use counterfactual regret minimization to solve a constrained version of the game for specific scenarios. These are useful for understanding the principles of the game but they are not the cheat sheet people think they are.

I think people fundamentally don't get that poker is not like chess. The vast majority of money I win is from identifying when players are too attached to their hand and never folding or when they just give up on their hand and fold to any bet.

I'm an ex online poker pro. You probably don't have the deep understanding of the game you think you have. Bots were already destroying the field up to mid-stakes 10 years ago.
I'm literally winning money playing online today playing 400nl (200nl with a straddle, in the US).

Please explain to me how you think these bots work? Do you think they are literally hooked into solvers and solving these hands in real time? If you actually understood poker you'd understand that the winrate from GTO is not good enough to make real money playing poker without a massive sample size, the game is all about exploiting players when they deviate from GTO. Explain to me how you program your poker bot to know intuitively that a player has too many bluff combinations when a flush arrives on the turn after they check back on the flop therefor you should call wider than standard? There are a billion little unique situations where people don't bluff enough, bluff too much, call too much or call too little and that is where the winrate from poker comes from.

This is the difference between having a 3 bb / 100 winrate and a 10-15 bb / 100 winrate. Maybe there are a bunch of shitty poker bots winning at 1 bb / 100 but if they are winning it's because some players suck really really bad, not because they are playing perfect poker.

How do you know that they don't have a massive sample size?
I'm a current online poker pro but probably not for much longer. Bots are a serious and real problem and they do beat the games for a good winrate. But it's still possible to make money even in environments with some bots as long as you can find games with fish. And some games on geofenced sites (the OP said they play in Michigan) or other small pools don't appear to have bot problems.
If a sufficiently good bot exists it must be highly profitable and since its software it would be easy to port to every site. Surely you could just get an address in Michigan cheaply and would have financial incentive to.

I feel like there was (or will be, if it somehow hasn’t yet occurred) a very short gap between one site being unwinnable and all sites being so.

Indeed. Chess is a game of perfect, complete information. Poker is imperfect and incomplete. Different paradigms altogether.
That's cool, but I'm not sure why you replied to my comment
That’s not true, people willingly put money into games that they know are heavily slanted against them all the time.

Even some people who are victims of scams admit that at the time they sent some/all of money they knew it was a scam but did it anyway.

Sure but you shouldn't then trust their decision asking ability