[deleted]
CMU's Libratus builds substantial lead in Brains vs. AI competition
91–100 of 123 posts
Re: CMU's Libratus builds substantial lead in Brains vs. AI competition
#92Earlier quoted context omitted.
Chess, Go, Poker... All feel like variations on the same theme. While it's obvious there is innovation being done, I want to see something more challenging. Something with more dimensionality and integration of several types of input. How about a machine that can beat someone at Smash Bros, a game with varied characters, complex comboing mechanics, and a nontrivial computer vision task? Or--more difficult by a few or…
Poker is somewhat different due to incomplete information and its highly stochastic nature. It's easy to infer incorrect action-payoff relationships from observing hundreds or even thousands of hands. Like the stock market, the cards can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent.
There are no fundamental algorithmic differences between chess and poker. The incomplete information aspect of it only increases the size of the nodes in a game tree, as each node must now track all possible private states for each public state. Beyond that, there are no fundamental algorithmic differences. There are algorithms that have been devised to handle such large game trees to speed convergence (regret minimization for example), but beyond that it's just a bigger game.
Re: CMU's Libratus builds substantial lead in Brains vs. AI competition
#93Unless 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.
How is that not no limit?
In no limit, if you lose a hand you have fewer chips, which changes the applicable strategy. There is no version of no limit where every hand is played with the same number of chips.
It is akin to only playing the first 10 moves of a chess game, then resetting.
Re: CMU's Libratus builds substantial lead in Brains vs. AI competition
#94That is very unconvincing as 49k hands is really nothing and not enough to iron out variance unless the edge is really big (which doesn't seem to be the case). Any serious poker player will tell you that. They should play 1-10 million hands (depending on the edge) in order to get a decent idea of where this is going.
Yes, I'm wondering if anyone is tracking the relative strength of each player's hands. In the end, the bot should be declared the "winner" only if its winnings were disproportionately high in relation to the strength of its hands.
The usual way they reduce variance in these man vs. machine poker showdowns is to do "pairs" play. You have two humans playing simultaneously in isolated locations. The decks for both humans are the same, but player 1 and 2 are swapped for one human. That way, the bot strategy has to play both hands.
It does totally eliminate variance, but they also take that into account and correct for it when looking at final outcomes usually. Right now the bot is up by something like 800K over 60K (out of 120K) hands. If that rate continues, it will win by around 1.6M or 400K per human. The blinds are 50/100, so that would equate to roughly 33 millibets (thousandths of a big blind per hand). That isn't too far off from standard win rates in bot vs. bot tournaments [1].
I'd say it's likely that the results of this tournament will be a statistically significant win for the bot.
[1] http://www.computerpokercompetition.org/downloads/competitio...
Re: CMU's Libratus builds substantial lead in Brains vs. AI competition
#95Earlier quoted context omitted.
Poker is somewhat different due to incomplete information and its highly stochastic nature. It's easy to infer incorrect action-payoff relationships from observing hundreds or even thousands of hands. Like the stock market, the cards can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent.
There are no fundamental algorithmic differences between chess and poker. The incomplete information aspect of it only increases the size of the nodes in a game tree, as each node must now track all possible private states for each public state. Beyond that, there are no fundamental algorithmic differences. There are algorithms that have been devised to handle such large game trees to speed convergence (regret minimi…
The fundamental difference is the way poker is played repeatedly, tracking winnings over a long period. Winning a single hand is meaningless.
Chess can be modeled with each game serving as a single observation. Poker must consider each player's entire lifetime as a single observation. Not simply a hand, but all hands that player has ever played, including what that player knew about all opponents ever faced. This quantitative increase in data creates a qualitative difference.
Poker is less like chess and more like repeated rock-paper-scissors.
Re: CMU's Libratus builds substantial lead in Brains vs. AI competition
#96Earlier quoted context omitted.
How is that not no limit?
In no limit, if you lose a hand you have fewer chips, which changes the applicable strategy. There is no version of no limit where every hand is played with the same number of chips. It is akin to only playing the first 10 moves of a chess game, then resetting.
This is indeed a version of no limit. What defines it as no limit is that there is "no limit" on the bet sizes. The fact that the chips are reset each hand doesn't mean it isn't no limit.
The chess analogy would be more akin to resetting after the flop.
Re: CMU's Libratus builds substantial lead in Brains vs. AI competition
#97Earlier quoted context omitted.
How is that not no limit?
One of the distinctive traits of no limit tournament is that on any given hand a player can be knocked out the game with a big enough bet, which affects how players are likely to play (as might one player amassing a large chip lead ove another if neither player opts to go all in on early hands) Of course it also makes games shorter and introduces a lot more variance, which isn't so good for assessing how well a compu…
This isn't a tournament though, it's more like playing a very long cash game where the stacks are reset on each hand. Whoever has the profit at the end of the cash game will be the winner.
Re: CMU's Libratus builds substantial lead in Brains vs. AI competition
#98Earlier quoted context omitted.
also important to note they made the players play thousands of hands over weeks and many said how they played in a way to shorten the time they had to play. thereby not necessarily showing their "true" skill.
> also important to note they made the players play thousands of hands over weeks To your point, I wonder how they account for mental and physical fatigue. To a computer it makes no difference to play thousands of hands over such a long period of time or hundreds of hands over the course of a single day. Humans on the other hand don't have the same attention span as a computer.
not to mention that people play differently with fake money than real money.
Re: CMU's Libratus builds substantial lead in Brains vs. AI competition
#99Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Something with more dimensionality and integration of several types of input. like using a few degrees of freedom and little strength to chop onions and some vegetable, crack eggs, whisking them, pour a bit of oil into a pan and lighting a stove, pour the omelette, flip it onto the plate, throw the eggshells in the trash unless it's too full (and take the trash out if it is) and wash the chopping board and pan with…
We make up for hand weakness with hand dexterity, slow vision processing with incredibly rich feature sets and powerful cameras, and reliable actions with previsioning and prediction on every task. The human system is pretty incredible.
Yes, this is the kind of task computers should "compete with" - using weak and semireliable motor functions and cheap cameras (no infrared or laser vision etc) and making up for it with "smarts" - the way humans do.
Re: CMU's Libratus builds substantial lead in Brains vs. AI competition
#100Trying to play GTO is an interesting (and very profitable) approach but ultimately it's not the most profitable approach. It makes sense for the AI to be constructed that way because the matches it's likely to play are against good opponents. Most profit in poker comes from playing against not so great opponents though. Against those you usually play extremely exploitable on purpose. That being said, the AI seems pre…
It's tough to decide what skill in poker really means. Is it that the AI can win against a good player or that the AI can earn money from bad players faster than other good players?