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

No limit: AI poker bot is first to beat professionals at multiplayer game

nature.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 407 posts

Re: No limit: AI poker bot is first to beat professionals at multiplayer game

#201

Post by noambrown »

slg wrote: post #194
noambrown wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The AI doesn't adapt to the opponents, and that's still an interesting challenge for AI research. That said, at the end of the day, it was making quite a bit of money playing against elite human pros. I think that suggests the cliche is, at least in part, wrong.

Making "quite a bit of money" still leaves open the possibility that the AI is leaving a lot of money on the table by not taking opponents into consideration. Also I would be curious to see how it performs against people that aren't "elite human pros". Would this AI win at a higher rate in a game against average recreational players compared to the rate a pro would win? Lastly it is also possible that the pros simply…

I think the bot would make a lot of money playing against average recreational players, but it's absolutely true that if you can exploit bad players' weaknesses, then you can make more money than what the bot would earn.

We played 10,000 hands over 12 days in the 5 humans + 1 AI experiment. That's quite a long time, and there's no indication that they even began to uncover any weaknesses in that time period. So I'm fairly confident the AI is robust to exploitation, and I think that's a very important quality to have in any AI system.

Re: No limit: AI poker bot is first to beat professionals at multiplayer game

#202

Post by bluetwo »

wallawe wrote: post #102
bluetwo wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First of all, I laughed at the 20-second average per game in self-play, since I ran into the same thing and have been trying to speed up the algorithm but haven't been able to get it faster (without throwing more hardware at it). Second, I haven't read everything, but I believe you are playing a cash-game and not tournament-style. Is that correct? If that is the case, any chance you will be doing a tourney-style vers…

> In Tourney play, the top 2 or 3 players get paid out Or top 2 or 3 thousand... depends on the tournament but it's usually the top 15% ish.

True, I am thinking "sit and go" tournament where you would have 6 players like in this research.

Re: No limit: AI poker bot is first to beat professionals at multiplayer game

#203

Post by Jach »

noambrown wrote: post #6

I'm one of the authors of the bot, AMA

Was Judea Pearl's work relevant for the counterfactual regret minimization, or is there some other basis? I've added CR to the list of things to look into later but skimming the paper it was exciting to think advances are being made using causal theory...

Re: No limit: AI poker bot is first to beat professionals at multiplayer game

#204

Post by colordrops »

BigJono wrote: post #199
oppiz wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess the real threat isn't a "bot" but something in the way of a program that interprets the data on the screen real-time and whose output instructs the player of the "optimal" play, given the circumstances. How the hell would you deter that as a site operator?

Pretty sure I've read a long time back on 2p2 that large consistant winners on certain sites have been asked to submit camera footage of their play with a clear view of screens and inputs. So this is probably something that companies like Pokerstars have been dealing with for years already.

It would be pretty easy to hide something signalling you on what to play from cameras.

Re: No limit: AI poker bot is first to beat professionals at multiplayer game

#205

Post by pk2200 »

cyberferret wrote: post #196

With the advent of AI bots in Poker, Chess etc., what happens to the old adage of "Play the player, not the game". How do modern human players manage when you don't have the psychological aspects of the game to work with? I see on chess channels that grand masters have to rethink their whole game preparation methodology to cope with the "Alpha Zero" oddities that have now been introduced into this ancient game. They…

The chess channels you're visiting are grossly overstating Alpha Zero's impact. AFAICT, it hasn't made any impact on opening theory at all. AZ's strength is in the middlegame, where it appears to be slightly better than traditional engines (like Stockfish) at finding material sacrifices for long term piece activity and/or mating attacks.

Re: No limit: AI poker bot is first to beat professionals at multiplayer game

#206

Post by noambrown »

Jach wrote: post #203
noambrown wrote: post #6

I'm one of the authors of the bot, AMA

Was Judea Pearl's work relevant for the counterfactual regret minimization, or is there some other basis? I've added CR to the list of things to look into later but skimming the paper it was exciting to think advances are being made using causal theory...

The CFR algorithm is actually somewhat similar to Q-learning, but the connection is difficult to see because the algorithms came out of different communities, so the notation is all different.

Re: No limit: AI poker bot is first to beat professionals at multiplayer game

#208

Post by Jach »

meruru wrote: post #198
MikeHolman wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All the major online chess websites have anti-cheat mechanisms. They don't publish details of how they detect cheaters though, and I don't know how good they are. From what I've read, they work by comparing the player's moves against chess engines, and if the player is picking engine's choice too often in positions where there are multiple roughly equal moves, they get flagged.

I always found weird that someone would want to cheat in a game like online chess. I mean, what's the point? Does anyone have insight on what's going on in the head of cheaters?

A few reasons come to mind. One is simply that if you have any metrics (ranking, win/loss ratio, greater site access..) it's going to feel nice to see them improve. Another is that losing at anything can be ego-hurting (similar reason good players sometimes sandbag with new accounts / lower ranks they can't possibly lose to, they need to 'win' more). Or reverse sandbagging/trolling with a bot might be amusing. Another is the cheater may justify it as a self-teaching game, and might not always play the strongest move but see if their move is even in consideration or try to improve ability to see the better moves by having them always pointed out -- but why not just play the bot, or save that for post-game analysis? I like to run my go games through gnugo's annotated analysis at the end (as I'm very weak I assume even the weak gnugo can teach me things), it'd be too troublesome to use it in a live game.

Re: No limit: AI poker bot is first to beat professionals at multiplayer game

#209

Post by root_axis »

meruru wrote: post #198
MikeHolman wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All the major online chess websites have anti-cheat mechanisms. They don't publish details of how they detect cheaters though, and I don't know how good they are. From what I've read, they work by comparing the player's moves against chess engines, and if the player is picking engine's choice too often in positions where there are multiple roughly equal moves, they get flagged.

I always found weird that someone would want to cheat in a game like online chess. I mean, what's the point? Does anyone have insight on what's going on in the head of cheaters?

People enjoy the the feeling of having power over others.
Post reply on HN