Live data from Hacker News

The Steely, Headless King of Texas Hold ’Em

nytimes.com

31–40 of 99 posts

Re: The Steely, Headless King of Texas Hold ’Em

#31

The article says the machine can't be beaten. And then points out that a pro has consistently won against it. This article is filled with bold claims by people that want to sell the idea IMHO. I'm not buying it because even limit texas Hold'Em has never been solved mathematically by super computers, let alone a single machine. Limit Hold'Em is close to being solved but if you check out the last match of pros against…

(Putting this as its own thread because it's so large and slightly off-topic).

I've thought long and hard on this, it's one of my life goals to create a piece of software that could mimic good players in texas hold-em, and I think I might have found a way to do just that using big data, hand histories, neural-networking, and a ton of input by actual players. Or at least a good start.

How would I accomplish this? Well a very high-level overview below. Basically it starts out extremely stupid and grows as a player:

1. Dump hand histories from pros into a large database. The number of hand histories would run into the billions. Users could dump online logs in bulk or create one-offs using input software.

2. Create an input system for a single user to choose a random hand-history and then classify it using tags. For instance tags might help categorize the player's style, the opponent's style, the "street" of play they are tagging, common name for the situation (Facing donk-bet on flop after raising pre-flop), etc. I would leave this fairly flexible and allow users to create new tags. Think similar to Galaxy Zoo but a little less rigid.

3. Using these tags/classifications the system would create a poll and present it to users with a question. What would you do in this particular situation? Where that situation is point in time of a hand history.

4. Eventually the computer player would then have a huge number of situations to use as examples with input from humans on how to proceed. This obviously will be very fuzzy and that's where, IMHO, the strength of the bot actually lies. The system would not lead to a rigid "Do X when Y occurs". It would decide from a large range of choices that have been entered by humans in the polls described above, leaning towards the most common answers first, but trying outliers also.

5. Use a neural network to create pathways based on previous successes.

How would this work once it's all together? An example:

The computer player is dealt AJ off-suit while being last to act on the dealer button. It would ask the database for a set of situations where AJ was dealt to players in the same position. It would then choose one of them and look at the results of the polls. How do most people with the highest success rate play this hand in this particular spot? Choose a random path to take based on that data. Observe and record outcome. This data becomes the true empirical data that the system will eventually rely on. If the situation has been encountered before in it's own play it will look at that and use it or it might choose randomly like it did above from the polling data. Eventually the weight of the empirical data it has collected might outweigh the data from the polls and it will "know" the right move based on its previous pathway choices. If this move is recognized by the opponent and exploited the results would dictate that the system falls back on another random choice. As the data set grows and the system plays the game, it could hypothetically be tuned to play consistently well.

The main hurdle is actually user-input. There would need to be incentive for users to enter the data they think is correct. The system is also open to manipulation through input data so that would need to be thwarted. And then on top of that the system would have to play an enormous amount of hands to create known successful pathways. But I think the sheer randomness and human-like qualities of the system would create a truly awesome experience.

(Joking) Now, does anyone have the $1M+ USD I need to fund this? I promise I'll pay you back. ;)

Re: The Steely, Headless King of Texas Hold ’Em

#32

The article says the machine can't be beaten. And then points out that a pro has consistently won against it. This article is filled with bold claims by people that want to sell the idea IMHO. I'm not buying it because even limit texas Hold'Em has never been solved mathematically by super computers, let alone a single machine. Limit Hold'Em is close to being solved but if you check out the last match of pros against…

Just a note, you don't have to mathematically solve a game in order to win it.

Re: The Steely, Headless King of Texas Hold ’Em

#33

In his book Super System, Doyle Brunson wrote that a computer would never be able to play elite poker because you played the man, not the cards or the game. He greatly underestimated the power of modern computing it appears. Personally, I'd rather see resources go into a robot that can cook for me but development follows the money I suppose.

I was worried this type of misinformation would be extrapolated from the article. The game the computer plays, is limit hold-em. This game is much more mathematical since bluffs are limited to a big blind.

Although Super System was written for all different types of poker, he is referring to no-limit holdem which still involves playing the player, with heavy math elements as well, but still much more psychology involved. Hence the name, you can bet any amount at any time changing the dynamic entirely. There is still no computer that is efficient at winning no-limit hold-em.

Re: The Steely, Headless King of Texas Hold ’Em

#34
post #20

In his book Super System, Doyle Brunson wrote that a computer would never be able to play elite poker because you played the man, not the cards or the game. He greatly underestimated the power of modern computing it appears. Personally, I'd rather see resources go into a robot that can cook for me but development follows the money I suppose.

Personally, I'd rather see resources go into a robot that can cook for me... I'd settle for a robot that makes me a salad. That's one of the projects I might work on, once my current project, a robot that grows me a salad (automicrofarm.com), is successful.

Awesome project!

Re: The Steely, Headless King of Texas Hold ’Em

#36
post #32

The article says the machine can't be beaten. And then points out that a pro has consistently won against it. This article is filled with bold claims by people that want to sell the idea IMHO. I'm not buying it because even limit texas Hold'Em has never been solved mathematically by super computers, let alone a single machine. Limit Hold'Em is close to being solved but if you check out the last match of pros against…

Just a note, you don't have to mathematically solve a game in order to win it.

I agree that it can win, but so can pros and they make mistakes everyday. But I'm saying that a mistake-free strategy cannot be found without some kind of mathematical breakthrough. Unlike say chess, where clear pathways to a checkmate can be calculated using mathematics, no matter how the opponent plays. It's impossible to do that, right now, using computers, when the opponents are human and unpredictable and don't always follow the optimum strategy. Also poker is an information-sparse environment where you can't always win with a certain strategy because you simply don't have enough information, such as the other player's hole cards.

Re: The Steely, Headless King of Texas Hold ’Em

#37

The article says the machine can't be beaten. And then points out that a pro has consistently won against it. This article is filled with bold claims by people that want to sell the idea IMHO. I'm not buying it because even limit texas Hold'Em has never been solved mathematically by super computers, let alone a single machine. Limit Hold'Em is close to being solved but if you check out the last match of pros against…

(Putting this as its own thread because it's so large and slightly off-topic). I've thought long and hard on this, it's one of my life goals to create a piece of software that could mimic good players in texas hold-em, and I think I might have found a way to do just that using big data, hand histories, neural-networking, and a ton of input by actual players. Or at least a good start. How would I accomplish this? Well…

The major online poker sites would already have a corpus of billions of hands played by successful and unsuccessful players.

Re: The Steely, Headless King of Texas Hold ’Em

#38

In his book Super System, Doyle Brunson wrote that a computer would never be able to play elite poker because you played the man, not the cards or the game. He greatly underestimated the power of modern computing it appears. Personally, I'd rather see resources go into a robot that can cook for me but development follows the money I suppose.

"Playing the man" is merely an abstract reference to maths in Poker that a lot of old timers in these (slightly out of date) books couldn't quite put their finger on. Super System was a good book for its time, but I think there's a lot of better books out there now (Harrington on Holdem for example). A simple example, common stats software for poker will record what % of hands an opponent raises on the button if it's…

Not true. "Playing the man" is a concrete reference to knowing what this person will react to. Hand history reveals a lot, but body language, timing, etc all get involved as well.

Re: The Steely, Headless King of Texas Hold ’Em

#39
post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>You are joking, aren't you? No, I'm not. >You are telling me that nobody would program a secret algorithm, standing to win loads of money, to tilt the chances at the right moment? No I didn't make that generalized statement. What I did say was that in this particular case that hypothesis is of low probability: 1) The people building the machines don't make money on poker playing, but by selling them to casinos 2) Th…

Sorry, not convinced. All that control and regulation applies to more important parts of society, and it does not work (NSA). So, according to you, I, Mr. unbeatable hold'em player, can go to this machine, bet a million dollars and be sure that, in that perfect moment when I know I am going to crush it, it will not play tricks against me? When I lose, how do I know? How can I be sure that it has not dealt itself favo…

You must be an absolutely miserable person. I'm terribly sorry.

Re: The Steely, Headless King of Texas Hold ’Em

#40
post #28

Assuming the machine is stateless, why can't the space of hole cards be mapped out and and strategies/responses enumerated? But ultimately, the whole enterprise just seems distasteful: "Look, there was a 24-year-old who had beaten it for a while. Now he’s broke. And I think this machine had something to do with his demise."

That's gambling addiction in a nutshell.
Post reply on HN