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

DeepStack: Expert-Level Artificial Intelligence in No-Limit Poker

arxiv.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 50 posts

Re: DeepStack: Expert-Level Artificial Intelligence in No-Limit Poker

#31

Post by femto113 »

zitterbewegung wrote: post #29
MikeTV wrote: post #14

> DeepStack becomes the first computer program to beat professional poker players in heads-up no-limit Texas hold'em Whether any others have been made before now is anyone's guess. Botting is a known problem in online poker. If there's a golden goose out there, I'm sure it's being kept under wraps.

You can collude multiple bots or perform other tasks which could make the botting problem in Texas Holdem not equivalent to the same achievement that they present in the paper.

I believe the primary botting "problem" is not rule breaking activity like collusion but the farming of lower-skill players at lower limits than a professional would be willing to play at. A bot will happily rake in a 1x big-blind/hour advantage that a comparably skilled human would consider a complete waste of time. It's my understanding that the real state of the art here is not in the play algorithms (existing bots are more than good enough to beat weaker players) but in avoiding detection by both human and automated monitors.

Re: DeepStack: Expert-Level Artificial Intelligence in No-Limit Poker

#32

Post by bcassedy »

IgorPartola wrote: post #18
bcassedy wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Former poker pro here. Top professionals are building their strategy around game theory. They'll attempt to play in such a way that they aren't exploitable and look to deviate when they've spotted a weakness in their opponent's play. Basically, the game theory optimal strategy is unexploitable. In every situation, the best you can do is break even by also playing the optimal strategy. If you deviate from optimal stra…

Since you are here, I have a few questions about your former job. First, how does one become a pro poker player? Second, does it work like a sport where you get paid from sponsorships, or do you just directly take home what you win? Or a combination of both? Third, is this something that you can do part-time, or does it require full time attention? Fourth, why did you quit?

Sure happy to answer questions.

Note that professional in this context just means made a living through poker. There are a ton of people like myself that earned a good living playing online or in casinos. A small minority received long-term sponsorships.

1. I started playing in high school and college. Like everything else I do I dove in to get better and eventually I was good enough that I was making good money playing online. At that point I started to pursue things full time.

2. For me it was the latter. The very top players in skill and visibility are typically the ones getting sponsorships. Win a big tournament, win at the highest level of online games, or make a tv appearance at a final table and you'll find opportunities for sponsorships. For most players, these sponsorships really just add stability to their income with the bulk still coming from winnings. Though there are the poker personalities who make the bulk of their income from sponsorships and TV deals.

3. You can definitely do it part time at some levels, but to keep up it does require quite a bit of study time to win at meaningful stakes.

4. When the US legal landscape changed in 2011, getting your money out of the sites that were still willing to serve Americans got more challenging. Moving out of the country wasn't an option for me. With the game getting harder all the time due to the proliferation of good strategy material and botting, it seemed like it was time to move on.

Re: DeepStack: Expert-Level Artificial Intelligence in No-Limit Poker

#33

Post by philosopheer »

feral wrote: post #16
philosopheer wrote: post #9

most people (including here on HN) are complete n00bs when it comes to understanding how poker is played and how computers can play it, so just to straighten y'all out at the git-go here: computers are better at bluffing and randomness than humans are. Bluffing is an important optimizing strategy in playing poker well, and it entails tracking the expected value of a pot (which includes cost expectations, don't forget…

No - If the only thing computers couldn't beat humans at was reading tells, they'd win online poker. But they don't yet do that: this paper is about beating humans at heads up, which is a much more limited domain than a full table. If you want to learn about why to bluff I'd recommend reading about using game theory to solve Kuhn poker.

online poker has the tremendous flaw that collusion between players is the most optimum strategy, and there is just noooo way to stop it. Collaborating poker-bots who outsource their peppy poker chatter to Bangalore (your feedback is important to them!) will soon be running all the tables if they aren't already. No, they'll never be the champions, because that suboptimal strategy would lead to discovery, but as a giant grist milling farm grinding out profit, seems irresistable.

I did a quick google review of Kuhn poker and I don't see how any of that would not benefit from the understanding I was attempting to convey in my initial post.

Re: DeepStack: Expert-Level Artificial Intelligence in No-Limit Poker

#34

Post by bcassedy »

femto113 wrote: post #31
zitterbewegung wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can collude multiple bots or perform other tasks which could make the botting problem in Texas Holdem not equivalent to the same achievement that they present in the paper.

I believe the primary botting "problem" is not rule breaking activity like collusion but the farming of lower-skill players at lower limits than a professional would be willing to play at. A bot will happily rake in a 1x big-blind/hour advantage that a comparably skilled human would consider a complete waste of time. It's my understanding that the real state of the art here is not in the play algorithms (existing bot…

Correct. When I last played for income in 2012, the site I played on had 1-2 bots at virtually every table from the $10 buyin cash games all the way up to the $200 buyin games. Around the time I stopped playing it came out that there was a botting ring that had been winning at $1000 buyin games for some time.

Most of their income does come from the weaker players at the table, but many of these bots were good enough to breakeven or do slightly better against the pros at the table too.

Re: DeepStack: Expert-Level Artificial Intelligence in No-Limit Poker

#35

Post by grizzles »

osti wrote: post #13

To be fair, none of the so called pros are considered big names in today's no limit heads-up games. They should probably challenge ppl like WCGRider, Jungleman etc. next. On another point, CMU just can't seem to catch a break, their thunder continuously being stolen by UofAlberta in poker research, first in limit, now no limit. UofA clearly tried to publish this before the CMU poker challenge that's supposed to begin…

Doug Polk is WCGRider.

Re: DeepStack: Expert-Level Artificial Intelligence in No-Limit Poker

#36

Post by IgorPartola »

bcassedy wrote: post #32
IgorPartola wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since you are here, I have a few questions about your former job. First, how does one become a pro poker player? Second, does it work like a sport where you get paid from sponsorships, or do you just directly take home what you win? Or a combination of both? Third, is this something that you can do part-time, or does it require full time attention? Fourth, why did you quit?

Sure happy to answer questions. Note that professional in this context just means made a living through poker. There are a ton of people like myself that earned a good living playing online or in casinos. A small minority received long-term sponsorships. 1. I started playing in high school and college. Like everything else I do I dove in to get better and eventually I was good enough that I was making good money play…

Thanks! One more question for you and @jat850:

So with the online games, etc. is the point just that you are better than the next guy to join the game so you just end up winning against players that are not as good? How reliable is something like that? It's true that a sucker is born every minute, but is it really feasible to make a living off it vs just staying income-neutral (e.g. win some, lose some, not really make any profit)?

Re: DeepStack: Expert-Level Artificial Intelligence in No-Limit Poker

#37

Post by IgorPartola »

jat850 wrote: post #30
IgorPartola wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since you are here, I have a few questions about your former job. First, how does one become a pro poker player? Second, does it work like a sport where you get paid from sponsorships, or do you just directly take home what you win? Or a combination of both? Third, is this something that you can do part-time, or does it require full time attention? Fourth, why did you quit?

Not who you're replying to, but I can give a few answers, having also played professionally for some time. 1. Lots of means this can happen. "Professional poker player" is generally taken to mean "derives primary source of income from playing poker" or sometimes "spends the majority of their time playing poker". There's no exact qualification. 2. Not generally sponsorship driven, although there are some modes of spon…

Thanks! Replied to a sibling comment to yours with one more question.

Re: DeepStack: Expert-Level Artificial Intelligence in No-Limit Poker

#39

Post by osti »

grizzles wrote: post #35
osti wrote: post #13

To be fair, none of the so called pros are considered big names in today's no limit heads-up games. They should probably challenge ppl like WCGRider, Jungleman etc. next. On another point, CMU just can't seem to catch a break, their thunder continuously being stolen by UofAlberta in poker research, first in limit, now no limit. UofA clearly tried to publish this before the CMU poker challenge that's supposed to begin…

Doug Polk is WCGRider.

I'm aware lol. Im a fan of his videos.

Re: DeepStack: Expert-Level Artificial Intelligence in No-Limit Poker

#40

Post by valarauca1 »

bcassedy wrote: post #34
femto113 wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe the primary botting "problem" is not rule breaking activity like collusion but the farming of lower-skill players at lower limits than a professional would be willing to play at. A bot will happily rake in a 1x big-blind/hour advantage that a comparably skilled human would consider a complete waste of time. It's my understanding that the real state of the art here is not in the play algorithms (existing bot…

Correct. When I last played for income in 2012, the site I played on had 1-2 bots at virtually every table from the $10 buyin cash games all the way up to the $200 buyin games. Around the time I stopped playing it came out that there was a botting ring that had been winning at $1000 buyin games for some time. Most of their income does come from the weaker players at the table, but many of these bots were good enough…

Most these bots are likely using standard well established techniques.

Strategic play, card counting, etc. A handful of heuristics make you an above average player and will get you thrown out of a casino. They'd be trivial to program.

I guess all that is novel here is a bot learned these techniques on its own.

Post reply on HN