We do need a test case but running a poker bot is clearly an attempt to cheat. The bot is banned by the Ts and Cs and it interferes directly with the betting process/game vs another player.
I completely disagree. A traditional bot does not interfere with the betting process at all, it only follows the rules of the betting process in an automated fashion. If we are talking about poker only, then that would be associated with deception, not interference, since the mechanics of poker assume another player. So that
could be cheating. But even that would require a court case to determine.
"The generality of section 1" - cheating is the offence. Running automated gambling software that is specifically banned from the game in order to try and gain an unfair advantage is almost the very definition of cheating. There is deception, the game rules are broken and the outcome (betting patterns in poker effect the outcome) is altered or rather attempted to be altered. The whole process of the game is altered by the bot, the virtual game fundamentally altered.
I again disagree completely. Your second sentence is loaded with the term "unfair advantage," which assumes something that is unfair. We then need to define "unfair". For something to be unfair, one player must have access to something that other players do not. That still doesn't count as cheating, though. I might have an IQ of 4000 that makes me invincible at Poker. That's certainly unfair. So whether something is unfair or not is immaterial to a determination of cheating.
Cheating must be active. As such, it must be a circumvention of game mechanics. The process of the game must be interfered with. That is why
the law specifically mentions this. That does not happen with a bot. That does not happen with false identity. That happens with hacking. We are not talking about hacking. The game rules are thus not broken.
Moreover, if we allow for the utter generality of "cheating" without definition, cheating is then defined as doing anything against the T&C's of a casino. This law would then give casinos unilateral ability to
write laws, which is patently absurd. No court on Earth would accept that line of argument.
Your poker example is problematic.
All behavior affects the outcome of poker. That's what poker is. And the whole point of poker is to alter or attempt to alter the outcome. Unless I can spy on my opponents cards, there is no clear-cut case of cheating here. And again, a bot changes nothing except the behavior of the player. The game is not fundamentally altered.
Similarly collusion in online poker is an offence. It is against the rules, it effects the outcome and is done to achieve an unfair advantage.
Poker collusion rules exist almost exclusively to prevent chip dumping, which is associated with money laundering.
Importantly, all of this has been quite the derail of the thread. The important point is that the player in question did not break the law.