181–190 of 407 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Any chance of the code being released or a cepheus style answer key being provided? http://poker.srv.ualberta.ca/strategy
I don't think the poker world would be happy with us if we did that. Heads-up limit hold'em isn't really played professionally anymore, but six-player no-limit hold'em is very popular.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The bot does bluff, and in fact it learns from self-play that bluffing is (sometimes) the optimal thing to do. At the end of the day, bluffing is simply betting when you have a weak hand. The bot learns from experience that when it bets with a weak hand, the opponent (another copy of itself) sometimes folds and it makes more money than if it hadn't bet. The bot doesn't view it as deceptive or dishonest. It just views…
> when it bets with a weak hand, the opponent (another copy of itself) sometimes folds and it makes more money than if it hadn't bet. This makes no sense. If I am betting for thin value with a weak hand, then I make less money when my opponent folds. Does the bot not know whether it is bluffing or value betting?
Value betting and bluffing aren’t defined by the outcome of a hand — action yet to be completed. Poker is a game of hidden information so betting with “thin value” implies that your component of bluffing is larger. You want your opponent to fold more often than not when you have thin value because more often than not you’re actually beat.
QQ can get KK to fold based upon board texture, street, and prior action. But you don’t know the other person is holding KK when you’re betting for “thin value” on the river.
I'm one of the authors of the bot, AMA
I have a few basic questions. I would like to implement my own generic game bot (discrete states). Are there any universal approaches? Is MCMC sampling good enough to start? My initial idea was to do importance sampling on some utility/score function.
Also, I am looking into poker game solvers - what would be a good place to start? What's the simplest algorithm?
Thanks
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it took the community a while to come up with the right algorithms. So much of early AI research was focused on beating humans at chess and later Go. But those techniques don't directly carry over to an imperfect-information game like poker. The challenge of hidden information was kind of neglected by the AI community. This line of research really has its origins in the game theory community actually (which i…
So will this be the end of online poker?
That said, I suppose it would be possible for the bots to become so prevalent that all this sort of opportunity is effectively used up, so the return vs time and risk for a human player is no longer worthwhile. (That already happened long ago for most players, as the initial online poker boom faded and most casual players left.)
On the other hand, all the major platforms have terms prohibiting using bots, so their numbers might be sufficiently limited to prevent that scenario.
I'm one of the authors of the bot, AMA
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The bot does not seem to consider previous hands in its decisions. That is to say, it does not consider who it is playing against. Should this affect how we perceive the bot as “strategic” or not? Bots that play purely mathematically optimally on expected value aren’t effective or interesting. But it feels like this is playing on just a much higher order expected value. It feels like a more down to earth version of t…
The bot bluffs, and understands that when its opponent bets it might be a bluff. I would consider that to be strategic behavior. The fact that its strategy is determined by a mathematical process doesn't change that in my opinion.
There is a cliche about how poker is about playing your opponents and not the cards. Is this AI is only focusing on its cards and ignoring its opponents?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It must be. It is way too hard to prevent humans from using an AI. Some chess services try to check if you're playing "too perfect", but in poker that's harder to do, and there's way more money on the line.
>Some chess services try to check if you're playing "too perfect" [...] That's interesting, could you share an example? Most of my search results are anecdotal Reddit threads about how many people cheat in online chess.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The bot bluffs, and understands that when its opponent bets it might be a bluff. I would consider that to be strategic behavior. The fact that its strategy is determined by a mathematical process doesn't change that in my opinion.
"Strategic" is probably the wrong word, but I think there is a valid question here regarding the approach the AI is taking. One of the key things for a good poker player is having the ability to adapt and adjust their strategy depending on how others at the table are playing. Sometimes you can have the exact same cards in the exact same position and in one game it is smart to fold and in another game it is smart to r…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The bot does not seem to consider previous hands in its decisions. That is to say, it does not consider who it is playing against. Should this affect how we perceive the bot as “strategic” or not? Bots that play purely mathematically optimally on expected value aren’t effective or interesting. But it feels like this is playing on just a much higher order expected value. It feels like a more down to earth version of t…
The bot bluffs, and understands that when its opponent bets it might be a bluff. I would consider that to be strategic behavior. The fact that its strategy is determined by a mathematical process doesn't change that in my opinion.
In the case of poker, it appears that adaptability is not as good as pure mathematical optimization. Humans can adapt their strategy, but it’s basically just worse regardless because this thing has cracked the code.
I’m surprised that you managed to beat pros without adaptability. It’s pretty impressive and says a lot about how we define strategy. If human adaptability is just not as good as machine optimality across all games, we could imagine discovering that an adaptable poker AI can’t outperform this one. It raises a whole lot of interesting questions because lots of criticism towards something like Starcraft AI is that it is strategically stupid and doesn’t adapt. Now the Starcraft Ai is admittedly kind of stupid now, but we may hit a wall on its creativity simply because creativity is, despite human intuition, a dumb idea.
I'm one of the authors of the bot, AMA