Bots: who thinks they can work and why/why not?

[Bayes]

Just wondering what members think about bots. I'm particularly interested in opinions as to WHY a bot can't work (if you think it can't).

Is it because you don't believe that any system can be run on "auto", but must a have human element? If so, what is the human element and why is it preferable to decisions mechanically coded into a bot?

Personally, I don't use bots, although I don't deny that they can work in principle. For me, it's more a case of not having the nerve to set it and forget it. I'd be watching it all the time to make sure it didn't come off the rails, which kind of defeats its purpose. This has more to do with uncertainty of the system coded into the bot than the bot per se.

IF a system was a cast-iron consistent winner, I'd have no problem using a bot, but I'm not sure I will ever be that confident, which I personally think is a sensible attitude to adopt. There are certainly advantages to running a bot: they don't get tired or emotional, they never make mistakes (assuming they're programmed correctly!) and they always follow the rules to the letter. This last point is the problem, for the bot is only as flexible and adaptable as the code inside it.

This brings us back to the "human element". I'm not denying that ANY decision you make at the table can be coded, the question is - do you sometimes make decisions on the spur of the moment? or is everything fully worked out in advance? do you have a rule for EVERY eventuality? if you do, then there's no reason why in principle you shouldn't object to using a bot. On the other hand, if some of your decisions are "intuitive" and ad-hoc, what reasons do you have for thinking they're the right decisions?

[superman]

On the other hand, if some of your decisions are "intuitive" and ad-hoc, what reasons do you have for thinking they're the right decisions?

Which means if you have a reason, that reason can be coded, could be something you saw on the marquee, if this happens do that.

Even if your system is played by hand, writing down everything for some people is too much effort, I for one will play a system, if I think it has merit, by hand for maybe an hour, if it works that far I will code it into a bot to get the full picture, this has, over the years, saved me so much time clicking and calculating myself that it is really worth while. Remember, you can also tell the bot if we get below a certain threshold, stop, then the user can take over when he comes back to the pc, as you know Bayes, theres nothing that can't be coded.

For example, the matrix methods, writing all that down waiting and clicking, some poor soles have spent days testing by hand, I coded, the first few in half an hour, I got my results within 10 minutes of testing against RNG and 2 hours, approx, on a real live wheel, plug n play, saves ink and trees!

[F_LAT_INO]

No bot can replace human mind as experience and patience it can't register...

[RouletteExplorer]

A bot would be usefull only if RNG wasn t cheating and If someone would make a winning system on sleepers that would require for example betting on a bet that has slept for 300 or so times ... then the bot would be usefull....

BUT the RNG is cheating and there is also no winning system on sleepers...

So final conclusion is that Bots aren t useful because they are not working.

[Optimist]

Very nice post Bayes.

(sorry for my English in advance)
I think that there are few approaches.
First of all - if we simulate normal human play in the real casino then NO ONE BOT can replace a human (F_LAT_INO is absolutely right). I mean few hours spins can manage most of the people ( bot for sure) but you can not ignore mind factor all the feelings and so on.

Second. We see many ideas some nice bet selections and MM and if you want to apply them (sure some of them) it is impossible without the bot (I mean playing live wheel online). You got 20 sec to place bets - its simply impossible for some ideas. You could have semi auto bot - like wait for a trigger and then with 1 click you place 90 chips bet on many singles splits and corners just to fit in time.

Third. Full auto mode. RouletteExplorer is right - you need fair RNG first or you can play with a bot live wheel but many systems require long tracking so live wheel is not practical. But there are systems you simply can play them without bot (if you need 10 minutes to find out what is you next bet is then it is not playable manually)

Regards

DL

[Optimist]

*simply cant

sry for mistake

[mr.ore]

Humans: who thinks they can work and why/why not?
By the way is there anyone still winning/in positive?

[Bayes]

Humans: who thinks they can work and why/why not?

That's exactly the way I feel about it mr.ore. The only way a bot can't be used is if you yourself don't know the reason why you place a bet. Maybe you're psychic? 

Thanks for the responses guys.

[hamsup_sotong]

hi guys,

i'm of the opinion as the bot can work possibly if the method is sound as it does remove the risk of human error.

I'm sure that many people who play often have experienced times whereby they realised that they made a mistake that contributes to the loss.


cheers
hamsup

[frost]

of course bots can work. its the system that doesn't. with a bot you can place yourself anywhere in the session. you can bet after any situation and before any situation. you can do anything anyhow anyway.


the problem is how to use this information?

[MadMax]

For my play, the biggest advantage of a bot is its consistency. A bot always sticks to the rules I made without exception. I´m always faced with my biggest losses when I don´t stick to my own rules (stop loss reached? "Ah, one more spin, the next spin MUST bring the win!", and so on!  )

Of course, a bot is only fit for systems without inspirations, fully mechanical, but in this case a bot is much more steady than I am.

[ThomasGrant]

Bots work better than humans.
Humans are emotional beings.
Bots have no emotions.
They do what you tell them to do.

[Smee]

If we can find a system that wins consistantly manually, then there is no reason why a bot cant be programmed to do it. And it will also prove the system in  the long run - after a zillion spins etc.

Thers a lot of good systems and progressions on here, surely one of them is a winner! Id like to see F_LAT_INOS consistant winning bet botted....

[Optimist]

Id like to see F_LAT_INOS consistant winning bet botted....

It is coded in to MST and there is separate CWB tracker - so u can test it. But test will be not so promising.

Regards

DL

[superman]

F_LAT_INOS consistant winning bet botted

Done all versions of it, they all failed