Poker Bots - Quality information - Page 2

I totally agree with everything royalsu says.

agree w/ edzwoo

i agree with dogmeat

On June 16 2009 11:59 Sennpu wrote: lol... if you can't beat a bot, quit poker

On June 16 2009 12:33 Achoo wrote: Show nested quote + On June 16 2009 07:07 Zalfor wrote: HU is a more perfectly informed game and can make more perfect decisions i guess Well i dont think so, hu is more about adaptability/exploit weakness and i have no doubt players like Fayth's caliber would totally destroy any bots hu as we speak . Bots would probably excell in sngs where a solid push/fold strategy is primordial, not to speak about perfect ICM calculation on the spot and massive multi-tabling. Poker is not like chess and i doubt it can be solved in the next 50 years. And even then there will still be live poker.

someone who knows better can correct me if i'm wrong, but i'm pretty sure HU is more amenable to game theory analysis than other formats, even though it might seem a little counterintuitive. most people (correctly) put much more focus on exploiting their opponents' tendancies rather than trying to make themselves unexploitable, so they approach HU as a very feel-based game, but the point of the bot's approach is to play unexploitably and wait for its opponents to make mistakes.

On June 16 2009 19:44 NeillyJQ wrote: Show nested quote + On June 16 2009 11:59 Sennpu wrote: lol... if you can't beat a bot, quit poker

also ignore people who say "if you can't beat a bot, quit poker" because they really have no idea what the fuck they're talking about.

the polaris bot has fared pretty well against some of the top LHE HU specialists in the world. since LHE is much simpler on the game theory tree than NLHE, it might be true that there's no bots that could currently beat a good NLHU player, but it's just a matter of time before they figure out how to balance all the variables in NLHE to make a GTO-bot for that game.

On June 19 2009 20:52 bigredhoss wrote: Show nested quote + On June 16 2009 19:44 NeillyJQ wrote:   On June 16 2009 11:59 Sennpu wrote: lol... if you can't beat a bot, quit poker also ignore people who say "if you can't beat a bot, quit poker" because they really have no idea what the fuck they're talking about. the polaris bot has fared pretty well against some of the top LHE HU specialists in the world. since LHE is much simpler on the game theory tree than NLHE, it might be true that there's no bots that could currently beat a good NLHU player, but it's just a matter of time before they figure out how to balance all the variables in NLHE to make a GTO-bot for that game.

No, SUPERcomputers still have trouble fighting with grand masters in chess, a game of complete information, making a bot to defeat Poker is much more harder.

On June 20 2009 15:33 Baal wrote: Show nested quote + On June 19 2009 20:52 bigredhoss wrote:   On June 16 2009 19:44 NeillyJQ wrote:   On June 16 2009 11:59 Sennpu wrote: lol... if you can't beat a bot, quit poker also ignore people who say "if you can't beat a bot, quit poker" because they really have no idea what the fuck they're talking about. the polaris bot has fared pretty well against some of the top LHE HU specialists in the world. since LHE is much simpler on the game theory tree than NLHE, it might be true that there's no bots that could currently beat a good NLHU player, but it's just a matter of time before they figure out how to balance all the variables in NLHE to make a GTO-bot for that game. No, SUPERcomputers still have trouble fighting with grand masters in chess, a game of complete information, making a bot to defeat Poker is much more harder.

Not sure what you're saying no to. It's a fact that HU LHE has pretty much been solved by the alberta computer poker research group, and if the polaris bot was a person it would be one of the top 10 or so HULHE players in the world.

wtf r u on about. chess programs crush chess champions

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blunder_(chess)#Deep_Fritz_vs._Vladimir_Kramnik

Baal nowadays you can run chess programs on a PC that will beat most any grandmaster.

Also, complete information doesn't say everything. Simple incomplete information games are being destroyed by bots (LHE?). Go, a complete information game, has computer bots struggling against the average amateur club player. Luck also complicates things, but nowadays the best human backgammon players use backgammon bots as coaching tools, deriding themselves when they pick a different option than the computer. There's a lot of things that can make a game hard or easy for computers.

At the moment, NLHE is quite hard for computers, but it won't be so forever.

computation time (and therefore PC-Hardware) is irrelevant for current NLHE Bots.
They work with pretty simple Rulesystem like "if hand is better then top pair and players_at_table <7 then bet/raise" or "if holecards are 27o and stage is preflop then check/fold"
an amiga500 could solve this in realtime

If you would try to "solve" the game correctly you would have to solve a pretty complex euqitationsystem with tons of variables. This actually IS curently solveable by strong computers - but only for a headsup limit game. A fullring nolimit game simply has too much variables for current computers.

This is a wonderful example of how the human brain excels even the strongest computers of our time since most of us find it quit simple to analyse most NLHE poker situations in a split second

@mow

Only a grand achievement if you believe computers are already better than humans in most things.

After all, nowadays pocket calculators are faster than the best mental calculators.

On June 20 2009 19:17 genjix wrote: wtf r u on about. chess programs crush chess champions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blunder_(chess)#Deep_Fritz_vs._Vladimir_Kramnik

did you even read your link you gooftard, he made a blunder that cost him the game that he otherwise had in the bag lol

dont be a nit

On June 20 2009 19:03 bigredhoss wrote: Show nested quote + On June 20 2009 15:33 Baal wrote:   On June 19 2009 20:52 bigredhoss wrote:   On June 16 2009 19:44 NeillyJQ wrote:   On June 16 2009 11:59 Sennpu wrote: lol... if you can't beat a bot, quit poker also ignore people who say "if you can't beat a bot, quit poker" because they really have no idea what the fuck they're talking about. the polaris bot has fared pretty well against some of the top LHE HU specialists in the world. since LHE is much simpler on the game theory tree than NLHE, it might be true that there's no bots that could currently beat a good NLHU player, but it's just a matter of time before they figure out how to balance all the variables in NLHE to make a GTO-bot for that game. No, SUPERcomputers still have trouble fighting with grand masters in chess, a game of complete information, making a bot to defeat Poker is much more harder. Not sure what you're saying no to. It's a fact that HU LHE has pretty much been solved by the alberta computer poker research group, and if the polaris bot was a person it would be one of the top 10 or so HULHE players in the world.

LIMIT poker....

On June 21 2009 07:06 Night2o1 wrote: Show nested quote + On June 20 2009 19:17 genjix wrote: wtf r u on about. chess programs crush chess champions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blunder_(chess)#Deep_Fritz_vs._Vladimir_Kramnik did you even read your link you gooftard, he made a blunder that cost him the game that he otherwise had in the bag lol

Super computers starting showing an edge in chessmasters from 2005 to date, before that humans had clearly an edge, plus these are specialized super computers.

On June 21 2009 22:52 Baal wrote: Show nested quote + On June 20 2009 19:03 bigredhoss wrote:   On June 20 2009 15:33 Baal wrote:   On June 19 2009 20:52 bigredhoss wrote:   On June 16 2009 19:44 NeillyJQ wrote:   On June 16 2009 11:59 Sennpu wrote: lol... if you can't beat a bot, quit poker also ignore people who say "if you can't beat a bot, quit poker" because they really have no idea what the fuck they're talking about. the polaris bot has fared pretty well against some of the top LHE HU specialists in the world. since LHE is much simpler on the game theory tree than NLHE, it might be true that there's no bots that could currently beat a good NLHU player, but it's just a matter of time before they figure out how to balance all the variables in NLHE to make a GTO-bot for that game. No, SUPERcomputers still have trouble fighting with grand masters in chess, a game of complete information, making a bot to defeat Poker is much more harder. Not sure what you're saying no to. It's a fact that HU LHE has pretty much been solved by the alberta computer poker research group, and if the polaris bot was a person it would be one of the top 10 or so HULHE players in the world. LIMIT poker....

Right, I said HULHE is solved. And I said there's probably no bot that can currently beat a good HUNLHE player. So again wtf are you saying no to.

anyway though, isnt the point that these sorts of bots would only really WANT to show up in less skilled games by default since they cant really play around in high stakes low traffic games without getting noticed..

so, they'd more likely be mucking around in something much more high traffic that they can just hammer away at quietly?

bump for those who wanted an update to this guys blog

On June 16 2009 11:59 Sennpu wrote: lol... if you can't beat a bot, quit poker

A well programmed shortstacking bot would crush any of us at the tables.