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

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/29/...ossip/heads-up-holdem-solved-1379043/

read FullyCompletely's posts.

Originally Posted by Kanu:
"Thanks for the very good posts FullyCompletely, nice to hear that things won't be solved for a while"

FullyCompletely:
"Thanks! There is the caveat, of course, that solving a game is a way harder goal than making a bot that can beat all human players. Chess programs are stronger than all human players but the game is nowhere near solved. The checkers program Chinook beat the human champions long before the game was finally solved in 2007. In heads-up limit, Polaris was holding its own against human pros in 2007 and 2008, the programs we had in 2010 were much stronger than it was, the ones we have now are again much stronger than that, and yet we're still a ways short of solving the game. The same goes for backgammon, scrabble, and a lot of other games."

cliffs:
- Bots are playing as close to nash equilibrium as it gets... they beat humans.
- No-limit heads up bots that beat humans either exist or will exist in ~2 years time.

I think the part about headsup FL poker being (relatively) close to being solved has been semi-common knowledge for a while. surprised about how close they're saying 100bb HUNL is to being solved though. kind of interesting and gross at the same time.

there's no way NLHE will be solved in 2 years. it's just too complex of a game

i play PLO mostly now anyway so who cares

On October 16 2013 04:19 TimDawg wrote: there's no way NLHE will be solved in 2 years. it's just too complex of a game

what kind of odds would you lay against the best bot beating an elite player (since there might not be a consensus on who is best) at 100bb HUNL within 2 years?

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.

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.

You don't need to solve the game to beat all humans. It's not even close.

On October 16 2013 04:51 bigredhoss wrote: Show nested quote + On October 16 2013 04:19 TimDawg wrote: there's no way NLHE will be solved in 2 years. it's just too complex of a game what kind of odds would you lay against the best bot beating an elite player (since there might not be a consensus on who is best) at 100bb HUNL within 2 years?

idk you seem confident they will make a bot good enough to do it...you tell me what odds seem fair?

but i'd take WCGRider vs the best 100bb HUNL bot they can come up with in 2 years and be feeling pretty good about it right now lol

On October 16 2013 06:52 nlloser60 wrote: Show nested quote + 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. You don't need to solve the game to beat all humans. It's not even close.

Yea that was pretty much my point.

I would bet that bots will get destroyed by the top HUsng players in 25bb HU NLH for a long time still

On October 16 2013 04:51 bigredhoss wrote: Show nested quote + On October 16 2013 04:19 TimDawg wrote: there's no way NLHE will be solved in 2 years. it's just too complex of a game what kind of odds would you lay against the best bot beating an elite player (since there might not be a consensus on who is best) at 100bb HUNL within 2 years?

lol not even for 25bb

On October 16 2013 07:17 TimDawg wrote: Show nested quote + On October 16 2013 04:51 bigredhoss wrote:   On October 16 2013 04:19 TimDawg wrote: there's no way NLHE will be solved in 2 years. it's just too complex of a game what kind of odds would you lay against the best bot beating an elite player (since there might not be a consensus on who is best) at 100bb HUNL within 2 years? idk you seem confident they will make a bot good enough to do it...you tell me what odds seem fair? but i'd take WCGRider vs the best 100bb HUNL bot they can come up with in 2 years and be feeling pretty good about it right now lol

i'm not confident they'll make one by then at all, i really have no idea. but i don't think the chances are low enough to be insignificant. i'd take 10:1 for some amount for sure, i don't know if those are "fair odds" though, probably consider slightly worse offers.

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..

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 ?

("No value in this game", he said)

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.

On October 16 2013 08:18 player999 wrote: I would bet that bots will get destroyed by the top HUsng players in 25bb HU NLH for a long time still

I would definately bet against you. Lets hope somebody will arange something like that soon.

On October 16 2013 11:56 NMcNasty wrote: Show nested quote + 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..

Yeah i always imagine the ultimate GTO bot varying his raising sizes preflop all the time, minbetting or overbetting all over the place, etc. I'd be very surprised if a true GTO bot would 1/2 pot 3/4 pot or pot everything, that's only cuz as you said they just use fixed betting patterns, but doesn't mean those are truly the optimal ones.

^ I would agree a GTO bot varies sizes in a real game, but I still think its useful, interesting, and computationally possible to solve (practically) for a toy game where you're only allowed a few different bet sizes. If limit bots can crush any human now I see no reasons why a bot couldn't crush any human in such a toy game right now.

On October 16 2013 11:56 NMcNasty wrote: Show nested quote + 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. They use many other simplifications, like card grouping pf, on flop, etc.
And you cant just add complexity as you wish. Most of the time you will be restricted by max size of the memory you can use at once.

On October 16 2013 20:36 locoo 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.. Yeah i always imagine the ultimate GTO bot varying his raising sizes preflop all the time, minbetting or overbetting all over the place, etc. I'd be very surprised if a true GTO bot would 1/2 pot 3/4 pot or pot everything, that's only cuz as you said they just use fixed betting patterns, but doesn't mean those are truly the optimal ones.

Well I am not sure about minbetting or overbetting all the time, I would say most of the time the bet sizes will actually be pretty similar to what top players use, but sure, there will be a lot of varying.

If I remember correctly, there were some partial GTO solutions for specific low stack situations in the Elky&co book Raisers Edge. It was quite interesting how some holecards only had like one pf raise size 100% of the time and some had like 4 or 5 different raise sizes with different percentages. Like KK in one 3b scenario (I dont remember exactly), was something like 3% shove, 70% raise very small, 15% raise normal (2.5x or so), 12% raise big (i am making up the numbers, but it was along those lines).

If these capable bots exist, why aren't they filling up poker rooms?

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.

http://www.neopokerbot.com/

so far ive played 2850~ hands and i'm up ~30bbs. was down over 400bbs a while ago

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.