151–160 of 407 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm really confused about why stock for the company that makes PokerStars hasn't moved at all today: https://www.google.com/search?tbm=fin&q=TSE:+TSGI#scso=_wqsn... The fact that there's a published recipe for a superhuman bot that can be trained for $150 and run on any desktop computer sounds like an existential threat to their business. The main mitigating factor I can think of is that you'd need to also adversaria…
You know, now that we're talking about it I'm wondering if someone hasn't already come up with a better bot and has just been silently using it to win money online. I'm sure the sites have been crawling with bots as long as they've been around, some better than others. As long as it doesn't drive away too many customers I doubt the sites care. They still take a rake on bot games. However better AI could change that a…
I'm one of the authors of the bot, AMA
The trick is how to create natural mouse click movements or keyboard inputs. This is the part that I'm most shaky on but the pokr.live API works by sending screenshots which it will translate into player actions at the table
disclaimer: pokr.live API is a WIP
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I couldn't find it confirmed in the primary or secondary article, but I would bet the bot is just playing cash at a fixed stack depth rather than a tournament; just like in the wild, bots are much more of a problem in online cash than online tournaments. Dynamically adjusting strategies by stack depth, number of players, and pay jumps, would probably be several orders of magnitude more complex.
Smaller stack sizes reduce possibilities and thus reduce complexity. Pay jumps result in chips having different utility to each player which forces some situational playstyles to be more optimal. I would guess that this also reduces the complexity of the game. Since tournaments don't often spend much time with stacks much deeper than 100bb, I would guess that tournaments would be more easily solved. Though tournament…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I also suspect it would not be able to maintain a ~40bb/100 hand win rate. The thing about human players is, while the best are capable of learning and employing truly balanced GTO strategies, in practice they rarely adhere to these because other humans (even good pros) will still have exploitable flaws in their strategies, and attempting to exploit these will be more profitable than sticking to the unexploitable str…
Yeah, that is kinda what I was trying to tease out. These 10K hands are nothing compared to the XM of hands these pros have already played. It would be interesting to see how well they did after 1M hands. I'm sure the bot would likely still have an edge but I'd assume the players would adjust their strategy and but less confused by the random sized bets. I was also confused by the sample videos where everyone had $10…
I'm one of the authors of the bot, AMA
How long until a slightly worse version of this model is reverse engineered and appears at every table in online poker?
I'm wondering how long until poker games will require a captcha on every round
So, is this the end of online poker? Will it just become increasingly sophisticated bots playing each other online?
How do we know that online poker has ever been a fair game? Has anyone ever done a statistical study of verified real players to determine whether their collective historical winnings match what would be expected in a fair game? It seems like it would be much too easy for the operators to skim money in any one of a thousand ways. I've never understood the trust people place in online gambling in general.