Limit/HeadsUp poker (practically) solved...?

pretty sure it is very - ev to play these bots for free.

You are essentially giving the researchers or creators free work time towards analyzing high quality strategies from competent humans. If you aren't getting paid $/hour to play against the bot it seems exceptionally foolish

On January 09 2015 08:32 Highcard wrote: pretty sure it is very - ev to play these bots for free. You are essentially giving the researchers or creators free work time towards analyzing high quality strategies from competent humans. If you aren't getting paid $/hour to play against the bot it seems exceptionally foolish

this is a tinfoil hat level of paranoia. high quality strategies lol, have you seen how play money plays on stars? opening this to public on a convenient site will only generate valueless noise if they even bother to record the data at all which might not be the case since they're mostly trying to make equilibrium strategies (which can be done well with bot vs bot machine learning techniques)

On January 09 2015 08:32 Highcard wrote: pretty sure it is very - ev to play these bots for free. You are essentially giving the researchers or creators free work time towards analyzing high quality strategies from competent humans. If you aren't getting paid $/hour to play against the bot it seems exceptionally foolish

it was for fun, and i was curious how good today's bots are.

On January 08 2015 15:48 Romm3l wrote: http://www.economist.com/news/science...%2Fte%2Fpe%2Fed%2Ftheperfectcardsharp good timing post. HULHE is now 100% solved

I wonder who funds such research and whats the use of it Like can they actually use the data for something else like an evolved Nash equilibrium or something

edit: lawl i missclick closed the article midread and cant continue reading without registering, fuck the economist

NOUGHTS and crosses (known as tic-tac-toe in America) is one of the first games children learn. The more inquisitive among them soon realise there are strategies that always win if your opponent makes a mistake, and guarantee a draw even if he does not. (The best is to start out in one of the grid’s corners.) When a provably ideal strategy such as this is discovered for any given game, mathematicians describe that game as being “solved”. Using computers, quite a few games have now been solved in this formal mathematical sense. These include Connect Four, nine-men’s morris and draughts. One thing those examples have in common is that they are “perfect information” games, meaning each player knows, at all times, everything that is going on. Not all perfect information games have been so solved. Chess has not. Neither has Go. But no non-trivial “imperfect information” game, such as one involving playing cards, has ever been solved formally. In this section Searching for pale blue dots Chancing your arm The perfect card sharp The Richard Casement internship Reprints Strictly speaking, this remains true. But, as he reports in a paper in this week’s Science, Michael Bowling of the University of Alberta has come close enough to solving a version of poker called Heads-Up Limit Hold’Em (HULHE) that a player armed with his strategy can virtually guarantee coming out ahead of any opponent who is not using it. Such a player would not expect to lose, even over a lifetime of games against an error-free opponent. Dr Bowling picked HULHE because, in poker terms, it is about as simple as it gets. Only two can play, and betting is heavily restricted. This means only 1.38x1013 (13.8 trillion) different circumstances can arise within it. Still, that is quite a large number, so previous attempts at solving even this form of poker have involved some simplification. But such simplification means losing important details, and the resulting strategies are an imperfect fit to the real game. By speeding up the algorithms, Dr Bowling’s team managed to bring the full game within reach of computational brute force, in the form of 200 computers, each sporting 24 processors, working in parallel for more than two months. Admittedly, the result will not be of immediate use to card sharps. Although the researchers have built a webpage that contains a strategy tool based on their results (readers can try playing against the machine at poker.srv.ualberta.ca), they have deliberately hobbled its response times to avoid giving succour to cheats. Mechanising poker is not, though, Dr Bowling’s primary purpose in developing this software. Many problems that do not look like games, from airport security to medical diagnosis, can nevertheless be modelled as such, and he hopes his algorithm can be adapted to analyse those, too. The program has, nevertheless, answered several bar-room debates about HULHE. It has quantified the well-known advantage that the dealer enjoys. It also suggests that “limping”—a betting strategy favoured by some strong players with certain hands, which involves resisting the temptation to raise the bet as their first action—is usually a bad idea. Whether computers will ever be able to solve other forms of poker remains doubtful. Merely removing the betting restrictions on HULHE, for instance, boosts the range of possibilities to 6.38x10161, a figure so mind-bogglingly big that it far exceeds the number of subatomic particles in the observable universe. No amount of improvement in computer hardware will ever make such a problem tractable. The only hope is an enormous, and unlikely, conceptual breakthrough in how to attack the question. There are, of course, poker-playing programs out there already that play more complicated versions of the game than HULHE. The best are better than most humans. But they, like chess-playing programs, do not actually solve the game in a mathematically rigorous sense. They just process more data that a human brain can cope with, and thus arrive at a better answer than most such brains can manage. The most interesting computational solution to poker, though, would be one that did work more like a human brain, for instance by looking for the famous “tells” that experienced players claim give away their opponent’s state of mind, or even bluffing those opponents about its own intentions. When computers can do that, mere humans—and not just poker players—should really start worrying.

http://www.economist.com/news/science...%2Fte%2Fpe%2Fed%2Ftheperfectcardsharp

spitfire don't be a noob next time ^^

rake is going to destory humans before bots do lol

BBC article - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-30718558

something that NL bots dont seem to understand (yet) is that some bets are closer to a check than a bet

like, betting 10 into 1000 is a lot closer to checking than betting even 50 into 1000. but bots seem to place any bet into the category of "the opponent chose to bet rather than check". so they seem to assume a 1% pot bet is closer to a 10% pot bet than it is to a check. it seems that minbet > NL bots atm

Nothing is going to destroy anything. Poker will continue being the little shithole it has always been.
I'm sick of this nonsense now for over a decade.

All the solving in the world will not get fish to play any better. Anyone really think people who cold-call 3bets pre-flop with suited connectors for 15%+ of their stack because "now they have odds with 2 people in the hand and have to call" or who bet 1/10 pot and go apeshit at people who hit flushes against them because "always get drawn out on by stupid chasers who don't know how to play" will play any better because a computer program can play the game well?

It's like when there was this whole thing about new trackable stats in new versions of PT and HEM, how it's going to make poker tougher....and it didn't since people didn't magically get smarter or more able or more hard-working.

As an exercise, it's certainly interesting and has a whole bunch of applications, not the least of which is video poker machines in casinos that rape players for a sick win rate while advertising (perfectly honestly) a fair game.

^ ...i have no idea what u're talking about...

On January 12 2015 23:50 Minsk wrote: Nothing is going to destroy anything. Poker will continue being the little shithole it has always been. I'm sick of this nonsense now for over a decade.

This is pretty narrowsighted, if a bot is already playing GTO HU LH it wont take long till its available for regular computers and there is virtually no way to stop players to use them if not a programmed bot simply coping the actions of the bot in a secondary computer.

Good thing HU LHE was already as dead as it can be ?

On January 17 2015 01:30 VanDerMeyde wrote: Good thing HU LHE was already as dead as it can be ?

haha good point.

it means they're that much closer to NL tho t.t

supposedly the method used to solve LHE won't work for NLHE even with betsize simplification because the game tree is magnitudes larger. IF HULHE took 2 months to crack brute forcing on 200 comps with 24 good CPU/GPUs then HUNLHE would take virtually forever to solve on the same setup with current or foreseeable algorithms. At least thats what the programmers say; they may just want to prevent pissing people off who love poker by falsely guaranteeing its security.

On January 18 2015 04:19 traxamillion wrote: supposedly the method used to solve LHE won't work for NLHE even with betsize simplification because the game tree is magnitudes larger. IF HULHE took 2 months to crack brute forcing on 200 comps with 24 good CPU/GPUs then HUNLHE would take virtually forever to solve on the same setup with current or foreseeable algorithms. At least thats what the programmers say; they may just want to prevent pissing people off who love poker by falsely guaranteeing its security.

Yes its more complex with different sizings but if we consider if almost all of bets fall between 50% ro 90% of pot then even if its not solved just to mimic the LHE algorithm would be very powerful

saw this posted on twitter

looks like it's taken from 538's article computers are learning how to treat illnesses by playing poker and atari.