I would love to know where they got their training data or if there's one publicly available.
CMU's Libratus builds substantial lead in Brains vs. AI competition
21–30 of 123 posts
Re: CMU's Libratus builds substantial lead in Brains vs. AI competition
#22Unless things have changed significantly from the previous version (Claudico), this is not really no limit hold'em, as the stack sizes are reset every hand.
Re: CMU's Libratus builds substantial lead in Brains vs. AI competition
#23Re: CMU's Libratus builds substantial lead in Brains vs. AI competition
#24I would love to know where they got their training data or if there's one publicly available.
This is not neural net. It uses an algorithm called counterfactual regret minimization to compute the Nash equilibrium of the game, no data required.
Re: CMU's Libratus builds substantial lead in Brains vs. AI competition
#25Wonder how long it will be until there is a crowdsourced AI winning the World Series of Poker?
Are non-human players allowed to play?
Re: CMU's Libratus builds substantial lead in Brains vs. AI competition
#26Honestly, 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…
Only bad players have readable tells.
Re: CMU's Libratus builds substantial lead in Brains vs. AI competition
#27Honestly, 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.
This is not true at all. If you play online vs live then yes. But physical tells are absolutely still thing, and Im not talking the way you crack an oreo.
Re: CMU's Libratus builds substantial lead in Brains vs. AI competition
#28Honestly, 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.
Not a poker expert, but I've seen videos of pro-poker players demonstrating their reading ability with random people picking cards.
Re: CMU's Libratus builds substantial lead in Brains vs. AI competition
#29I wonder if the players tried colluding: coordinate their bets to fake a weakness so the AI start to adopt a poor strategy, then up the bets and stop the feign. I don't see how the AI can protect itself against that.
Re: CMU's Libratus builds substantial lead in Brains vs. AI competition
#30[deleted]