Because this story was linked-to from HN, I read the article expecting the punch line would be that Isildur1 is software (or maybe a human+software team). I know there's a group at the University of Alberta that's been working on poker-playing software for some time, and no doubt there are other such groups. I don't know enough about online poker to know if there are mechanisms to prevent the use of software. It seems to me it would be hard to tell.
My best guess is that most online players are now "augmented," using at least PokerTracker (hands played databases) with HUDs (heads-up displays that overlay the game window and provide some significant statistical info based on mining hands and odds calculations without player input). I believe, based on what I've read at 2+2 and other sites that even small limit games (say 25/50 cent limit hold'em) are mostly played by players with these tools.
I stopped playing at smaller games almost two years ago because I became convinced I was playing more bots than people - in spite of the fact that I was winning and continuing to build bankroll, I wasn't interested in entering the arms race that I saw the software requiring.
The game sites have a strong incentive to not put in too many safeguards against software automation - they take a small portion of each pot on each hand at a table. The majority of players using software to augment their play during a game are multi-tabling, thus more games/hands = more money for the sites.
I had an interesting exchange with the support staff at one online site, where I was arguing that the simplest thing they could do to discourage data mining was to allow players to use another screen name during sessions as an option. They shot me down pretty quickly.
Even though gathering statistically significant info about a specific opponent requires a prohibitively large number of hands (more than 10K?), most people on HN are highly aware of how we can build algorithms that classify data pretty easily with limited info. By simply deciding that most players fall into a relatively small set of classes, you can probably grab enough info to be positive EV against a new opponent in a relatively small number of hands - this is what you do as a player, but I really feel that adding a software tool to do it tarnishes the game. It makes it a little like playing chess against an opponent sitting there with a laptop with a chess playing program - really the program is what you're playing The human opponent is really just a complicated interface.
But I miss the game, it's a great way to stretch your brain differently than hacking.
Using statistical tracking software is pretty standard for any serious player. It can help a lot playing full tables against 6 to 9 players as stats are used to get an idea of how opponents play, what their ranges are etc.
However I think, these programs are less useful for HU play. When you have only a single opponent and you are concentrating fully on their play your own powers of observation will pick up reads more quickly and consistently than the than the stat programs.
that'd be my assumption, too. all of poker players use software like poker tracker or such, but my guess would be that this new guy got a hold of some new program.
what's especially telling (IMHO) was the part where he was 30k down, said brb and proceeded to win much more than he lost. it's almost as if he had a quick'n'dirty bugfix to make.
Indeed, there must be a trick somewhere. First, the guy opens 6 tables and doesn't win. Then there is this "brb" moment where he shuts down 5 tables and start to focus on the last one. The pattern is similar with the other opponents, first he loses, then something happens, then he starts to destroy his opponent.
There is a pattern here. Maybe the guy has programmed a tool/helper that can learn from the playstyle of his opponent really quick (multiple tables at first), making them more predictable and modifying the stats accordingly. I don't know, but something is definitly happening somewhere in the process.
The top poker sites try to make it impossible for bots to play. Which is not to say that it is actually impossible.
As I understand, having a program with statistics and the like open is considered perfectly normal, so "computer-aided human" probably describes either party to this match.
That said, I'm not exactly an expert, having never played even a single game of online poker myself.
