Legality of Online Poker

[Richard Masters]

What are the laws on playing poker online? (assuming residence in the USA) Are they enforceable?

If I created a poker bot (an automaton that plays expertly on online poker sites), would I be breaking any laws, or would I simply be breaking the poker site's agreement?

What are the ethics of "cheating" on a site that is known to game its own system?

 

[Babbylonian]

What are the laws on playing poker online? (assuming residence in the USA) Are they enforceable?

Unless I'm mistaken (very possible), it's legal to play but it would take some effort to get the money in play. The anti-online-poker law passed restricted the use of US credit cards to make deposits for play.

If I created a poker bot (an automaton that plays expertly on online poker sites), would I be breaking any laws, or would I simply be breaking the poker site's agreement?

That's going to depend on the laws in your jurisdiction, and the laws in effect at the poker site. Realistically, if discovered, you're probably simply going to be banned from the site. I would imagine they could hold your winnings if your initial deposit had already been paid back/played.

What are the ethics of "cheating" on a site that is known to game its own system?

In my view, that would fall under the "two wrongs don't make a right" rule.

ETA: I should note that the answer to the first question also depends on your local laws. While the feds have put a stop to US credit cards, checks, etc. to play online poker, local gambling laws vary widely.

 

[Rasmus]

If I created a poker bot (an automaton that plays expertly on online poker sites), would I be breaking any laws, or would I simply be breaking the poker site's agreement?

Possibly neither.

What are the ethics of "cheating" on a site that is known to game its own system?

Could you elaborate?

A poker bot would not (necessarily) be cheating, even if it did break the site's rules.

A bot would be up against other players, though, and not compete against the site as such.

 

[Delscottio]

What are the laws on playing poker online? (assuming residence in the USA) Are they enforceable?

If I created a poker bot (an automaton that plays expertly on online poker sites), would I be breaking any laws, or would I simply be breaking the poker site's agreement?

What are the ethics of "cheating" on a site that is known to game its own system?

Have bots moved on much in the last few years? When I used to play regularly a few years back they used to stick out like a sore thumb and were pretty easy to play against. As long as the sites were getting the rake they didn't seem that fussed - but that may have changed.

Which site games its own system? - again years back there used to be huge arguments whether it actually went on or the sample size was so big that the bad beats were inevitable.

 

[valis]

There are many companies that market software that claims it can reveal the other players cards to you. I believe Poker Spy is the name of one.

If you don't cheat you may be the only honest person involved in the game.

 

[EvilSmurf]

Which site games its own system? - again years back there used to be huge arguments whether it actually went on or the sample size was so big that the bad beats were inevitable.

Ultimatebet and Absolute Poker...check both of them on wikipedia.

There are many companies that market software that claims it can reveal the other players cards to you. I believe Poker Spy is the name of one.

Those programs do not work.

 

[Richard Masters]

Possibly neither.

Could you elaborate?

The site is known to cheat. For example Ultimatebet and Absolute Poker. I guess since you are not taking money from the site, they might not care about poker bots.

A poker bot would not (necessarily) be cheating, even if it did break the site's rules.

Right, if it's only using the information that is given to everyone else.

A bot would be up against other players, though, and not compete against the site as such.

Yeah, I guess the sites wouldn't care very much.

 

[Donal]

Technically, UB and Absolute weren't doing the cheating as a company. Absolute got hacked by a former employee and UB was gamed by Russ Hamilton, a poker pro acting as a consultant.

 

[EvilSmurf]

What are the laws on playing poker online? (assuming residence in the USA) Are they enforceable?

It's illegal to give money to an online poker site.

If I created a poker bot (an automaton that plays expertly on online poker sites), would I be breaking any laws, or would I simply be breaking the poker site's agreement?

Um, expertly? I don't think you can program a bot to play poker expertly. A better money-making scheme would be a blackjack bot, to take advantage of online casino bonus/prop offers.

 

[dtugg]

Um, expertly? I don't think you can program a bot to play poker expertly. A better money-making scheme would be a blackjack bot, to take advantage of online casino bonus/prop offers.

A few years ago I did exactly that, without the bot. Many online casinos offered bonuses that were structured in a manner that blackjack players could easily beat the house. I cleared several thousand dollars.

 

[Richard Masters]

Have bots moved on much in the last few years?

<snip>

I think beating the rake is enough to make a profit, but I don't know what the state of the art is. I just figure if humans can do it, so can computers.

 

[GlennB]

I think beating the rake is enough to make a profit, but I don't know what the state of the art is.

???? Beating the rake is the definition of profit.

I just figure if humans can do it, so can computers.

Good luck.

 

[Rasmus]

I think beating the rake is enough to make a profit,

what GlennB said.

Or rather: There is no real distinction between beating the rake and beating other players: You have to beat both to make a profit, and it's hard to tell where your losses are.

but I don't know what the state of the art is. I just figure if humans can do it, so can computers.

You are mistaken.

I hear computers are still lousy at playing Go. IIRC, the possibilities for each move vastly outnumber the abilities of a computer - a human player can quickly discard the vast majority of legal moves, though.

I can't find the site - but I know of a game that explicitly designed so that a 5 year old could play it well, whilst a computer would not be able to play even just reasonably well.

Anyway ... poker:

In order to play well, you need to be able to assign motives to the actions of players: Is he trying to bluff me out of a pot, or is he trying to build value?

Computers are notoriously bad at making that type of distinction.

Maybe you can write a bot that does reasonably well against poor players, when it takes all of their playing history in account. such a bot might even win money.

Until another player figures out what it is you are doing. You will be extremely exploitable.*

Better players will often adjust their game, they will change their style and react to what it is you are doing at the time. I have no idea how a computer should keep up with that.

* I was laying a free online tournament the other day. Guy with a massive stack would

- limp into practically every pot,
- minbet on the flop and turn
- bet huge (potsized or over) on the river

Strategy:
- limp with any hand that might be semi-reasonable
- call flop and turn with anything better than TPTK or a draw to anything better.
- fold to his final bet if oyu didn't hit; call or reraise if you hit

-> I think he doubled me up, then massively increased my stack and then gave me everything he had left.

He was an extremely easy opponent. Hardly ever changed or adjusted his play; he was well worth losing a few BB against because he kept paying you off. And even after I had taken a few pots off of him, he did not change his play or get any more careful. (There was the odd push on the river or even flop. But that wasn't enough.)

It would be difficult to get a computer to even recognize this incredibly simple pattern.

It would be even more difficult, to let a computer find out the incredibly simple counter-strategy. (Because it wasn't good play at all. Playing over half of my hands at a full table would have gotten me killed in any other situation, after all.)

Simple standard play would have seen me playing a few hands here and there, and then folding against his massive raises. In fact, that is what I ended up doing for the first few hands until I had figured him out.)

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

The site is known to cheat. For example Ultimatebet and Absolute Poker.

Not true.

Also, it doesn't make sense for them to do that. They make money pretty much the same way casinos do in live poker games.

I think the reason many people believe on-line poker games are somehow rigged is a nice exercise in critical thinking. The problem is that in on-line poker, you play a LOT of hands in a very short time. Often, players play more than one table simultaneously. The result is, you see a helluva lot of hands. So, those bizarro hands (where one guy has pocket Aces and another player has pocket Kings, and then the flop comes up with another King, or some such) which happen in the real world too are simply seen more often in on-line poker.

I've had times where a guy swears more straights or more flushes or whatever are coming up that would be expected by the odds. I then ask him to start counting hands, and he's usually amazed to find something like 12 games of 6-handed poker pass before he sees another of the hand he thinks is happening too often.

The die-hards will then start claiming that I'm an agent of the site (I'm not) and that I'm actually controlling the cards.

 

[Delscottio]

Not true.

Also, it doesn't make sense for them to do that. They make money pretty much the same way casinos do in live poker games.

I think the reason many people believe on-line poker games are somehow rigged is a nice exercise in critical thinking. The problem is that in on-line poker, you play a LOT of hands in a very short time. Often, players play more than one table simultaneously. The result is, you see a helluva lot of hands. So, those bizarro hands (where one guy has pocket Aces and another player has pocket Kings, and then the flop comes up with another King, or some such) which happen in the real world too are simply seen more often in on-line poker.

I've had times where a guy swears more straights or more flushes or whatever are coming up that would be expected by the odds. I then ask him to start counting hands, and he's usually amazed to find something like 12 games of 6-handed poker pass before he sees another of the hand he thinks is happening too often.

The die-hards will then start claiming that I'm an agent of the site (I'm not) and that I'm actually controlling the cards.

Thats what I always thought and sorta mentioned upthread, the other thing to consider is the number of *"recreational" players there are. The type who want to log on and get action straight away and pretty much call everything down. The probability of bad beats rises the further down to the river card you get, frustrating as hell sometimes but if you keep plugging away the odds go in your favour (eventually)

*I can't call anyone crap at poker when I am pretty awful myself.

 

[Richard Masters]

Not true.

Also, it doesn't make sense for them to do that. They make money pretty much the same way casinos do in live poker games.

I think the reason many people believe on-line poker games are somehow rigged is a nice exercise in critical thinking. The problem is that in on-line poker, you play a LOT of hands in a very short time. Often, players play more than one table simultaneously. The result is, you see a helluva lot of hands. So, those bizarro hands (where one guy has pocket Aces and another player has pocket Kings, and then the flop comes up with another King, or some such) which happen in the real world too are simply seen more often in on-line poker.

I've had times where a guy swears more straights or more flushes or whatever are coming up that would be expected by the odds. I then ask him to start counting hands, and he's usually amazed to find something like 12 games of 6-handed poker pass before he sees another of the hand he thinks is happening too often.

The die-hards will then start claiming that I'm an agent of the site (I'm not) and that I'm actually controlling the cards.

I thought the cheating was done by someone on the inside and was documented.

 

[GlennB]

I thought the cheating was done by someone on the inside and was documented.

It was, apparently installed by someone who subsequently left the company, and freely admitted by UB. An outline here and more here

 

[manxman]

It's illegal to give money to an online poker site.


Um, expertly? I don't think you can program a bot to play poker expertly. A better money-making scheme would be a blackjack bot, to take advantage of online casino bonus/prop offers.

Would it be illegal to give your money to a third party in the isle of man where most of the biggest sites are situated, who then passed the money on to the sites/offices.

 

[This is The End]

Here's an interesting page from the PokerStars rules section. A good read.

http://www.pokerstars.com/poker/room/prohibited/

It's funny how big the lists of both allowed and disallowed 3rd party software are.

I assume these are the pertinent sections:

Q In general, what kind of tools and services are acceptable?
A The following types of tools and services are generally acceptable:

1. Tools, services or charts that simply tell you odds, starting hand recommendations, etc.
2. Tools and services that profile your opponents, but make use of only information which you have accumulated through your own play.
3. Macros and Hotkey programs that don't have any bearing on gameplay logic. For example, you can use AutoHotKey, MacroExpress or AutoIt3 to make it such that you 'bet the pot' when you press the 'P' key, but you cannot use these or other utilities to create an autofolder that folds poor starting hands, or that automates advice or actions from any other program.
4. Tools and services that help you analyse your game but do not or cannot be setup to offer direct, real-time advice on the appropriate action to take.

Q In general, what kinds of tools and services are prohibited?
A The following types of tools and services are prohibited:

1. Any program that shares hole card data with other players or programs is colluding, and is prohibited.
2. Any program that works off of a central database of player profiles or hands played is prohibited.
3. Any program that plays without human intervention (a 'bot') or reduces the requirement of a human playing. For instance, an 'auto-folder' is prohibited. 4. The practice of data-mining (observing games without playing in order to build up a database of hand histories for future reference) is prohibited.
5. Any software that offers direct game play advice on the appropriate action to take.

 

[isthisreal?doucare?]

Originally Posted by Richard Masters
I think beating the rake is enough to make a profit,

what GlennB said.

Or rather: There is no real distinction between beating the rake and beating other players: You have to beat both to make a profit, and it's hard to tell where your losses are.

Your response to Richard Masters is not accurate. If a player just breaks even against opponents and beats the rake at worst their profit would be +0. However if same player slightly beats the opponents this would equal a profit.

Richard failed to mention the magic word that makes the real distinction between beating rake vs. beating opponents. The magic word is RAKEBACK. Rakeback is a promotional offer in which a percentage of the payments you contribute to the cardroom are paid back to the player.

Rakeback is commonplace in the online poker world so rakeback is a dynamic factor in calculating profit. Average rakeback percentage paid to players is about 35%. Below are a couple rough examples of how rakeback is vital.

Examples with 35% rakeback and just breaking even against the house and opponents.

1. Playing 5-10 limit hold'em 20 hours a weeks just 1 table at a time would profit roughly 200 a week, 900 a month and 10,000 a year.

2. Double the above, so 2 tables at once, 40 hours a week playing 5-10 limit hold'em would profit roughly 800 a week, 3,500 a month and 42,000 a year.

3. Super grinder playing 60 hours a week playing 4 tables at a time of 5-10 limit hold'em equals a profit well over 6 figures a year.

Using the 3rd example a player could not even play well and lose to opponents and house and still make a large profit.

This information can be find by typing rake calculator in any search engine, google, bing, etc.

There is a clear distinction between beating the rake and beating opponents.


Quote:
but I don't know what the state of the art is. I just figure if humans can do it, so can computers.

You are mistaken.

I hear computers are still lousy at playing Go. IIRC, the possibilities for each move vastly outnumber the abilities of a computer - a human player can quickly discard the vast majority of legal moves, though.

I can't find the site - but I know of a game that explicitly designed so that a 5 year old could play it well, whilst a computer would not be able to play even just reasonably well.

Anyway ... poker:

In order to play well, you need to be able to assign motives to the actions of players: Is he trying to bluff me out of a pot, or is he trying to build value?

Computers are notoriously bad at making that type of distinction.

Maybe you can write a bot that does reasonably well against poor players, when it takes all of their playing history in account. such a bot might even win money.

Until another player figures out what it is you are doing. You will be extremely exploitable.*

Better players will often adjust their game, they will change their style and react to what it is you are doing at the time. I have no idea how a computer should keep up with that.

* I was laying a free online tournament the other day. Guy with a massive stack would

- limp into practically every pot,
- minbet on the flop and turn
- bet huge (potsized or over) on the river

Strategy:
- limp with any hand that might be semi-reasonable
- call flop and turn with anything better than TPTK or a draw to anything better.
- fold to his final bet if oyu didn't hit; call or reraise if you hit

-> I think he doubled me up, then massively increased my stack and then gave me everything he had left.

He was an extremely easy opponent. Hardly ever changed or adjusted his play; he was well worth losing a few BB against because he kept paying you off. And even after I had taken a few pots off of him, he did not change his play or get any more careful. (There was the odd push on the river or even flop. But that wasn't enough.)

It would be difficult to get a computer to even recognize this incredibly simple pattern.

It would be even more difficult, to let a computer find out the incredibly simple counter-strategy. (Because it wasn't good play at all. Playing over half of my hands at a full table would have gotten me killed in any other situation, after all.)

Simple standard play would have seen me playing a few hands here and there, and then folding against his massive raises. In fact, that is what I ended up doing for the first few hands until I had figured him out.)

After serious testing of poker being played with bots vs. human players majority of highly skilled players say the bots would have no problem beating limit poker. The Bot playing Heads Up (1 on 1) would give even the most skilled Heads Up players a real battle. With 6 handed or 10 handed tables the Bot would prevail in limit poker, but not to the same degree although close to the same. This is simply because limit poker involves less game theory than No Limit Poker. The best programmer's especially with some poker knowledge are able to create a BOT that never makes a mathematically error.

Now it has been said by some poker pros that there will never be a BOT that will have the edge over the human expert No Limit Poker player. Although the same people say these BOTS would most likely be fairly profitable until they reach pretty high stakes.

Programmers naturally have a different opinion. They believe as of now there may not be a BOT that could beat the best No Limit Poker players, but it is only a matter of time.