Limit/HeadsUp poker (practically) solved...? - Page 2

On October 16 2013 15:04 NMcNasty wrote: Show nested quote + On October 16 2013 14:24 VanDerMeyde wrote: Didnt Phil Galfond speak about NL holdem for 100bb or less beeing solved in a 25-50 video on Full Tilt like 4 years ago ? He's joking/exaggerating. Still its a slight peeve of mine when people claim a game "solved" when its obviously not.

pretty sure he's said it more explicitly than this.

99% sure like the first 10 plo videos he's ever made, he's always began with something like "there isn't much money to be made in nlhe anymore, if u are a poker player, and want to be doing this for the future, it might be time to learn plo."

guess u can always play live though, fish are a plentiful and will always be thanks to addiction and generations of degens.

On October 17 2013 18:36 mnj wrote: Show nested quote + On October 16 2013 15:04 NMcNasty wrote:   On October 16 2013 14:24 VanDerMeyde wrote: Didnt Phil Galfond speak about NL holdem for 100bb or less beeing solved in a 25-50 video on Full Tilt like 4 years ago ? He's joking/exaggerating. Still its a slight peeve of mine when people claim a game "solved" when its obviously not. pretty sure he's said it more explicitly than this. 99% sure like the first 10 plo videos he's ever made, he's always began with something like "there isn't much money to be made in nlhe anymore, if u are a poker player, and want to be doing this for the future, it might be time to learn plo."

Pretty sure he says this because the more people playing PLO the better for him. NLHE is very far away from solved an there's lots of money to be made albeit NOT easy money at all.

On October 17 2013 16:00 Joe wrote: Show nested quote + On October 16 2013 11:56 NMcNasty wrote:   On October 16 2013 05:59 Joe wrote: 100bb NLHE HU wont probably be completely solved for quite a while, maybe more than a decade. The size of the gamespace of the game is between 10^18 and 10^19 and last time I checked (like a year ago) the best bots were able to solve game simplifications the size of about 10^12 (info comes from university of alberta poker bots research group). Improving it means either: way higher computation power (probably not gonna happen in 10 years) or more effective algorithms for various tasks or better methods for mapping the real game onto the simpified fully solvable one. Or the combination of all of it of course. With that being said, I would guess top hu NLHE bots would beat most human players even now in a 100bb cap game. If you simply the action you should be able to "practically solve" it. If you take NLHE and make it PLHE, then specify that you can only bet pot, raise pot, call, or fold, the solution might even be easier than FLHE. Then you can add complexity as you wish, allowing half pot bets, then 1/4 and 3/4 pot bets, etc.. Sure they use betting restrictions in the simplified games to get a solution. But its far from enough. Even FLHE is far from being completely solved.

Here's a relevant quote from the thread, from a PhD student developing one of the bots:

Our most recent game solving algorithm, called CFR-BR (link) lets us use abstraction techniques but get as close as possible to a Nash equilibrium within an abstraction. In that paper we had strategies as low as 41.199 mbb/g (2 BB/100)

So basically while "solving" exactly, as if were a mathematical equation is seemingly impossible, they were able to create an algorithm that computes the best possible strategy set against a test strategy set, and then they play the two strategies against each other over a ton of hands to get an EV for the dominant strategy. The lower the EV, the closer the test strategy is to equilibrium. So right now, he's claiming that he's only 2 BB/100 away from equilibrium, meaning that's the absolute most he can lose if his opponent is exploiting perfectly (something a human is likely not capable of duplicating). I would agree that's not "solved" but I think its a lot better than "far off" from being solved, especially since the year before he was claiming to be at 5BB/100.

On October 17 2013 18:01 GameOverNoob wrote: If these capable bots exist, why aren't they filling up poker rooms?

Lots of reasons:
- they would be banned
- its illegal
- the developers aren't releasing them
- supposedly they're too large to market (like 120 gigs or something)
- the developers have or will have high paying tech jobs and don't really need the money

Can't say I wouldn't be tempted though.

On October 17 2013 18:36 mnj wrote: Show nested quote + On October 16 2013 15:04 NMcNasty wrote:   On October 16 2013 14:24 VanDerMeyde wrote: Didnt Phil Galfond speak about NL holdem for 100bb or less beeing solved in a 25-50 video on Full Tilt like 4 years ago ? He's joking/exaggerating. Still its a slight peeve of mine when people claim a game "solved" when its obviously not. 99% sure like the first 10 plo videos he's ever made, he's always began with something like "there isn't much money to be made in nlhe anymore, if u are a poker player, and want to be doing this for the future, it might be time to learn plo."

I think its generally correct that NLHE players play closer to GTO than PLO players, so there's some argument there that it would be better to learn PLO. But there's no way Galfond thinks NLHE is actually "solved" as in an unbeatable strategy has been found.

lol... HU LHE is call raise raise raise call

bet call

bet raise raise call

check bet raise call

Jack high takes it downnnnn!




-but seriously I never play HU LHE, swingy as fuuuuuuck and will only play 3 handed if there is a huge donk still with a lot of chips.
<3 LHE

ok, so why don't these bot makers test out their bots against some good players? I would love to play one.

On October 19 2013 10:20 Stroggoz wrote: ok, so why don't these bot makers test out their bots against some good players? I would love to play one.

They have, the good players got crushed.

There was a video in One of the nvg threads (Wcgrider v sauce challenge I think) showing the top NLHE bots playing heads up vs each other. Like Polaris vs albertaNL or something. The betsizings varied a lot and they both made odd plays like a lot of donk minbetting. Hard to say in that short sample how good they were but I was impressed and relieved at the same time if that makes any sense. Like they weren't retarded but they were still far from equilibrium.

I'll try to find the vid

On October 21 2013 03:41 traxamillion wrote: There was a video in One of the nvg threads (Wcgrider v sauce challenge I think) showing the top NLHE bots playing heads up vs each other. Like Polaris vs albertaNL or something. The betsizings varied a lot and they both made odd plays like a lot of donk minbetting. Hard to say in that short sample how good they were but I was impressed and relieved at the same time if that makes any sense. Like they weren't retarded but they were still far from equilibrium. I'll try to find the vid

gl hope you find it

On October 18 2013 21:07 Svenman87 wrote:

Love this gif, made me lol because it is so true.
Limit hold'em is not solved however.

http://www.theverge.com/2015/1/8/7516...poker-solved-computer-program-cepheus

Take away is that they basically 'solved' Limit HU

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2015/jan/08/online-poker-bot-cepheus-flaw

this guy gets paid to make bold claims

here we are spewing dumb posts while we could be hustling the freelance writing world

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

good timing post. HULHE is now 100% solved

where is WCG btw, he played only a couple months this year at PS/FTP

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

That is no where near what the article says.

Bah ill take it back, its says that, i mean to point out something else, not relevant from this viewpoint.

-1 diggerflopboat

On October 18 2013 21:07 Svenman87 wrote: lol... HU LHE is call raise raise raise call bet call bet raise raise call check bet raise call Jack high takes it downnnnn! -but seriously I never play HU LHE, swingy as fuuuuuuck and will only play 3 handed if there is a huge donk still with a lot of chips. <3 LHE

http://poker.srv.ualberta.ca/strategy#

Take a look at the strategy section. Its pretty much that gif lol

I'm sure they're coming along nicely but..

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.

So its still a computational solution as opposed to a formal mathematical one, meaning it is theoretically possible to a create a more accurate version of itself in which case this version would lose to it. So I still don't think the "solved" declaration fits even if we are incredibly close.

The preflop charts are really interesting. Looks like we just supposed to flat K3s instead of raising twice out of every 10,000 hands, and we'll slowplay AA once out of every 500.

On January 08 2015 14:19 Highcard wrote: http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2015/jan/08/online-poker-bot-cepheus-flaw

Good god that's a terrible article.