Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

CMU's Libratus builds substantial lead in Brains vs. AI competition

cmu.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 123 posts

Re: CMU's Libratus builds substantial lead in Brains vs. AI competition

#11

Post by keldaris »

asher_ wrote: post #9
product50 wrote: post #8

Honestly, this doesn't look to be a true test of who is better at poker. Poker is not like chess - a lot of emotions are involved in reading another players' cues (if he is touching his face, whether he is talking nervously, how quickly does he call all in etc.). Making all this computerized seems to take the spirit of poker away. It is like playing online poker which is an entirely different ball game vs. real poker…

Why is it unfair? Both the human and computer players are unable to make reads on the other based on physical cues.

It's not that it's unfair, it's just a considerably different game than human vs. human poker. It would, however, be very interesting to see if the software can reveal exploitable tendencies in the players' behavior that even other top players would be unlikely to discover.

Re: CMU's Libratus builds substantial lead in Brains vs. AI competition

#12

Post by utnick »

product50 wrote: post #8

Honestly, this doesn't look to be a true test of who is better at poker. Poker is not like chess - a lot of emotions are involved in reading another players' cues (if he is touching his face, whether he is talking nervously, how quickly does he call all in etc.). Making all this computerized seems to take the spirit of poker away. It is like playing online poker which is an entirely different ball game vs. real poker…

I'm not a great poker player, but I read a lot about them. And most great poker players say reading peoples emotions/cues/or tells isn't reliable or a big deal.

So in that sense , online poker is very similar to live poker, the strategy doesn't change very much

Re: CMU's Libratus builds substantial lead in Brains vs. AI competition

#14

Post by kevinalexbrown »

product50 wrote: post #8

Honestly, this doesn't look to be a true test of who is better at poker. Poker is not like chess - a lot of emotions are involved in reading another players' cues (if he is touching his face, whether he is talking nervously, how quickly does he call all in etc.). Making all this computerized seems to take the spirit of poker away. It is like playing online poker which is an entirely different ball game vs. real poker…

> Making all this computerized seems to take the spirit of poker away. It is like playing online poker which is an entirely different ball game vs. real poker.

Maybe, but it seems like impressive performance nonetheless.

Re: CMU's Libratus builds substantial lead in Brains vs. AI competition

#15

Post by oculusthrift »

utnick wrote: post #12
product50 wrote: post #8

Honestly, this doesn't look to be a true test of who is better at poker. Poker is not like chess - a lot of emotions are involved in reading another players' cues (if he is touching his face, whether he is talking nervously, how quickly does he call all in etc.). Making all this computerized seems to take the spirit of poker away. It is like playing online poker which is an entirely different ball game vs. real poker…

I'm not a great poker player, but I read a lot about them. And most great poker players say reading peoples emotions/cues/or tells isn't reliable or a big deal. So in that sense , online poker is very similar to live poker, the strategy doesn't change very much

i'm very into poker. you're right about the tells but what is important is knowing the other players. you can tell what type of players and how aggressive or "soft" they tend to be. you know if they would tend to call or raise a weak hand in certain situations.. etc. it definitely matters

Re: CMU's Libratus builds substantial lead in Brains vs. AI competition

#16

Post by usaphp »

oculusthrift wrote: post #15
utnick wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not a great poker player, but I read a lot about them. And most great poker players say reading peoples emotions/cues/or tells isn't reliable or a big deal. So in that sense , online poker is very similar to live poker, the strategy doesn't change very much

i'm very into poker. you're right about the tells but what is important is knowing the other players. you can tell what type of players and how aggressive or "soft" they tend to be. you know if they would tend to call or raise a weak hand in certain situations.. etc. it definitely matters

Well a human would know those players by playing against them or watching replays of their games, I am pretty sure AI can do the same and will have a better memory of what are the habits of each individual player it played against or saw their game replays.

Re: CMU's Libratus builds substantial lead in Brains vs. AI competition

#17

Post by newmanships »

product50 wrote: post #8

Honestly, this doesn't look to be a true test of who is better at poker. Poker is not like chess - a lot of emotions are involved in reading another players' cues (if he is touching his face, whether he is talking nervously, how quickly does he call all in etc.). Making all this computerized seems to take the spirit of poker away. It is like playing online poker which is an entirely different ball game vs. real poker…

Those physical cues are such a small small part of poker. There's a reason the top players are all online players. Poker is a game of math first and foremost.

Re: CMU's Libratus builds substantial lead in Brains vs. AI competition

#18

Post by xapata »

utnick wrote: post #12
product50 wrote: post #8

Honestly, this doesn't look to be a true test of who is better at poker. Poker is not like chess - a lot of emotions are involved in reading another players' cues (if he is touching his face, whether he is talking nervously, how quickly does he call all in etc.). Making all this computerized seems to take the spirit of poker away. It is like playing online poker which is an entirely different ball game vs. real poker…

I'm not a great poker player, but I read a lot about them. And most great poker players say reading peoples emotions/cues/or tells isn't reliable or a big deal. So in that sense , online poker is very similar to live poker, the strategy doesn't change very much

Acting is a good strategy against weak opponents. I would never try to "Hollywood" against a good opponent, but then I'd never get involved in a big hand against one either.

Against a fish, yeah, I'll ham it up and they eat that stuff. If they're on the edge of a decision, some good acting can push them the direction you want.

I guess I'm agreeing with you -- a pro would never pay attention to my "tells".

Re: CMU's Libratus builds substantial lead in Brains vs. AI competition

#20

Post by phaus »

product50 wrote: post #8

Honestly, this doesn't look to be a true test of who is better at poker. Poker is not like chess - a lot of emotions are involved in reading another players' cues (if he is touching his face, whether he is talking nervously, how quickly does he call all in etc.). Making all this computerized seems to take the spirit of poker away. It is like playing online poker which is an entirely different ball game vs. real poker…

Physical tells are almost entirely Hollywood nonsense. When a professional player talks about getting a read on someone, they are talking about probabilities combined with the opponent's position at the table and a history (even a short history) of that player's betting/play patterns.
Post reply on HN