Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 f…
There was an interesting IRL poker game a few years ago. The player who was running behind started going all in on every hand without even looking at their hand (with a huge amount of success). Out of curiosity, how does a bot deal with oddities things like this?
No limit: AI poker bot is first to beat professionals at multiplayer game
261–270 of 407 posts
Re: No limit: AI poker bot is first to beat professionals at multiplayer game
#262Earlier 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…
You can't out-think or adapt to a rock-paper-scissors opponent who selects at random. All you can do is also select at random and accept that the two of you have even odds.
Re: No limit: AI poker bot is first to beat professionals at multiplayer game
#263Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's pretty easy for good players to recognize other good players. And since the house takes such a large cut, the only way for pro players to have positive expected value online is to seek out games with poor players. So even if they couldn't recognize the bots as such, they would see them as tough players and avoid them. That said, I suppose it would be possible for the bots to become so prevalent that all this sor…
It's my understanding the big sites have some pretty sophisticated bot detection systems, so in theory a bot that would be successful at beating online poker couldn't be a huge winner, it'd presumably raise too many red flags. However, if it were a near break-even player, with dozens, if not hundreds, of instances running at any given time, it's going to slowly grind out a substantial figure. You'd also have to take…
A successful bot shouldn't get caught for "playing like a bot" because the moment it's actions are that predictable it would presumably no longer be effective.
But it will get caught for operating like a bot. So, don't run it 24hrs a day. Sites also randomize things to keep bots at bay, even card imagery.
If your performance and success drops whenever they randomize something that gives the bot false inputs, then you might get caught.
Inputting all of the poker events manually would be really tedious I'd imagine.
Of course, if you're winning millions, they can interview you about your poker history and how you got so good.
It sounds like easy money, but probably not.
Re: No limit: AI poker bot is first to beat professionals at multiplayer game
#264I'm one of the authors of the bot, AMA
Are there any ethical considerations relating to the prospect of use of this bot for cheating in real-money games? Either from your internal team or after public replication?
Re: No limit: AI poker bot is first to beat professionals at multiplayer game
#265Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's pretty easy for good players to recognize other good players. And since the house takes such a large cut, the only way for pro players to have positive expected value online is to seek out games with poor players. So even if they couldn't recognize the bots as such, they would see them as tough players and avoid them. That said, I suppose it would be possible for the bots to become so prevalent that all this sor…
It's my understanding the big sites have some pretty sophisticated bot detection systems, so in theory a bot that would be successful at beating online poker couldn't be a huge winner, it'd presumably raise too many red flags. However, if it were a near break-even player, with dozens, if not hundreds, of instances running at any given time, it's going to slowly grind out a substantial figure. You'd also have to take…
It would probably be possible to figure out the types of detection being performed by the poker sites and use adversarial training methods to train a machine learning solution to mimic human input patterns. Or, more pragmatically, have the bot analyse the state of the game and give orders for a human to perform at their own natural pace.
Re: No limit: AI poker bot is first to beat professionals at multiplayer game
#266Blog post: https://ai.facebook.com/blog/pluribus-first-ai-to-beat-pros-... Science article: https://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2019/07/10/scie...
>> Pluribus is also unusual because it costs far less to train and run than other recent AI systems for benchmark games. Some experts in the field have worried that future AI research will be dominated by large teams with access to millions of dollars in computing resources. We believe Pluribus is powerful evidence that novel approaches that require only modest resources can drive cutting-edge AI research. That's the…
Re: No limit: AI poker bot is first to beat professionals at multiplayer game
#267Earlier 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…
The reason is simple: with table stakes, your maximum win for a hand is constrained by your own stack size.
Re: No limit: AI poker bot is first to beat professionals at multiplayer game
#268Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's my understanding the big sites have some pretty sophisticated bot detection systems, so in theory a bot that would be successful at beating online poker couldn't be a huge winner, it'd presumably raise too many red flags. However, if it were a near break-even player, with dozens, if not hundreds, of instances running at any given time, it's going to slowly grind out a substantial figure. You'd also have to take…
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?
Re: No limit: AI poker bot is first to beat professionals at multiplayer game
#269Earlier quoted context omitted.
I did this with great success. For reference, I once folded top boat to quads (he showed) to a river all in raise in PLO to a dude who had a 100% win showdown when raise river stat over several thousand hands. Other stats confirmed he was a nit, so it was an easy fold. Iirc, this was PLO 200 or PLO 400 — I never saw anyone that nitty at the PLO 1000 or PLO 2000 tables. FWIW, I did a lot more than “look for an opening…
do you still play online? I used to railbird FT back then, watching patrick antonius/sahamies/durr/jungleman etc. exciting times. How many hours did you put in for you to be good?
No longer online. I quit with UIGEA. I hate Bill Frist.
> I used to railbird FT back then, watching patrick antonius/sahamies/durr/jungleman etc. exciting times.
I never played with those folks. For reference (and maybe I was vague, and maybe I show my age), plo 200 is 1/2 blinds plo, and 2000 plo is 10/20 blinds plo. My heyday was when 10/20 blinds were the max. When they created the 50/100 and higher limits, they killed the 10/20 blind (former max) games. I never played over 25/50, because I didn’t consider myself properly rolled for it. That said, in retrospect, I should have gone modified Kelly criterion and take shots at the higher stakes — some of those dudes were total donks.
I did play against huck seed on FT (nit), and I played against Doyle and Todd on Players Only (I think their room was a skin). They also played tight, but they may have been doing required hours. People donated to them religiously with light calls.
> How many hours did you put in for you to be good?
I would argue that I am still not “good”. There’s a hierarchy in the poker world, and you don’t feel comfortable until you’re at the top — and even that is fleeting.
To answer your question, though, I was profitable at 5/10 and 10/20 after maybe 1000 table hours (usually 4-8 tables) and 500-700 study hours. Note that this was when poker was super soft, and note that I am a specialist in learning (degrees, experience, and whatnot), so I learn things like new games more quickly than most people. My job lent itself to a lot of study away from the table, so I availed myself of that time.
I remember several breakthroughs for my game:
1. I had a dream one night in which I finally understood the bidirectionality of plo8. This was the game that I built my bankroll on (after cashing in a few free rolls). That took me to plo8 100 ($0.50/$1 blinds) in short order. After that, I just grinded to 200 and 400 plo and plo8.
2. I remember getting crushed by a LAG player in plo 400 one night. I went to four plo 50 tables and played 12 hours straight playing with a 55% or so VPIP. I broke even in that session, but it helped me understand LAG players a lot better. In retrospect, that session helped me understand how to exploit LAGs really well, and that paid off a lot at higher stakes. It also helped my SLAG game a lot.
3. The next big leap was realizing that there were three lines to exploit in poker — players who are too weak (fold too much), too passive (call to much), and too aggressive (bet/raise too much). Being able to exploit these tendencies is optimal. Being able to induce these tendencies is insanely profitable. The above is easy to say, but not always so easy to do.
4. The last phase of my development was understanding “gears”. Changing gears is the ability to switch between being passive/aggressive and tight/loose depending on the context. Most people change gears predictably — for example, if they lose a big hand, they tighten up (or some players loosen up). I played my best when I was able to adjust to the texture of the game and play the way that my opponents least expected me to play and/or wanted me to play. It’s a lot of psychology, but when I mastered this, I felt like I owned the table. No one could read me, and I read them like an open book. This is the high that skilled poker players live for, imho.
To close, I twice considered becoming a pro poker player. Once before UIGEA, and once after.
Before UIGEA, I didn’t because I realized that I was only good for about 20 top notch hours per week, and I could play those hours after work. Furthermore, the tables were only juicy for maybe 30 non-consecutive hours, so I didn’t feel like i was missing much. I was also worried about the non-legalization of poker in the US, so I wanted to keep my day job.
After UIGEA, I thought about moving to Thailand or Canada, but I (rightly) thought that games would get much worse without the US market. My earn would have been a solid $100-200k based on some of my former peers, but that’s not terribly exciting money for me. Anyone who can make $100k or more in online poker can make way more than that by being a programmer or by doing some sort of tech business (SaaS, e-commerce, consulting, etc.) or financier.
Ok, that’s a wall of text. Feel free to ask follow ups.
Re: No limit: AI poker bot is first to beat professionals at multiplayer game
#270I'm one of the authors of the bot, AMA