I wrote a break-even no limit cash poker bot when I was in University. So I've spent a lot of time researching and writing code in this are. Limit poker is fairly well solved by bots at this stage. This is because the risk is limited on each hand and the grinding nature of the computer (i.e. it's ability to do the best thing for the longest amount of time) makes it a winner.
Playing no-limit poker, it's a totally different scenario and a real challenge which is why I enjoyed it so much. Any slip up can cost you your entire stack. By slip up I don't mean a bug or clicking the wrong button, I mean a flaw in your strategy. Maybe something as simple as betting 4 big blinds instead of 3 big blinds pre-flop against a raise from a player will end up after a couple of rounds of betting of being played for your entire stack, instead of being something you could fold on the turn.
Anyway, long story short. Limit poker is very solvable just by enumerating the various possible outcomes.
No-limit cash poker is a different beast, it's exponentially harder than limit poker. It'll be a long time before somebody solves no-limit cash games.
The Steely, Headless King of Texas Hold ’Em
81–90 of 99 posts
Re: The Steely, Headless King of Texas Hold ’Em
#82Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, exactly! I have three aces, and the computer has double pairs. We are in the turn. I go all in!!! The computer calls ... and deals itself a full house. I am bankrupt :( How do I know? How can I ever trust playing poker with a machine, when it is doing the dealing? Or, let me put it this way: I will play any machine, no limit, if I can do the dealing (secretly, that is, as the machine is doing). Another issue en…
This is easily remedied by retaining a human dealer. It's fairly trivial to create a computer that can identify dealt cards on the table.
You could still have the problem with a human dealer. There are many ways to cheat at dealing cards, and a very skilled human could be able to do it without being detected.
Re: The Steely, Headless King of Texas Hold ’Em
#83Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, you can. Your opponent has 1352 different hand combinations. Assume he is playing the Nash equilibrium strategy. Make the perfect plays based on this. If he plays worse than the Nash equilibrium strategy, you beat him. If he plays perfectly, you tie. Assuming your opponent plays perfectly works in chess. Chess programs are stronger than the best humans now.
>Assume he is playing the Nash equilibrium strategy. You you can't do that assumption because you don't know what the strategy is. You can calculate Nash equilibrium only if you know the strategy your opponent is using. In full no limit hold em there is no single strategy winning strategy, so you don't know the strategy your opponents are using.
No you don't need to know what the opponents strategy is. You calculate based on worst case (ie op playing perfect) and worst case is you break even. There is no way to maximize profit but you can play unexploitable, ie at a minimum not lose and possibly win assuming op doesn't play perfect.
Re: The Steely, Headless King of Texas Hold ’Em
#84Earlier quoted context omitted.
Any Vegas casino found to be employing such machines would be subject to fines far, far beyond what they could ever win from these machines. Suspension of their gaming license is also a possibility. Casinos have huge disincentives to rig their games. I believe you severely overestimate the likelihood that a casinos regularly cheat, at least in Nevada.
That argument might of had more weight to it several years ago. The Ultimate Bet scandal does show that companies are willing to risk their entire business for comparitvely meagre rewards. A default position of mistrust when it comes to gambling is a healthy and safe attitude.
The Ultimate Bet scandal was about employees cheating to make money for themselves not the company itself cheating. In this case employees cheating in this game wouldn't be able to profit themselves.
Re: The Steely, Headless King of Texas Hold ’Em
#85The 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…
Just replaying hands fails to take into account a lot of variables related to the other players play style. Once to start to take those into account the replaying of hands isn't needed.
Re: The Steely, Headless King of Texas Hold ’Em
#86Very interesting tech, but personally I think I would struggle with the moral ramifications of working on a project that makes money by turning people into suckers
But the applications of this technology reach beyond gambling, into finance security and even foreign policy.
Re: The Steely, Headless King of Texas Hold ’Em
#87Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Assume he is playing the Nash equilibrium strategy. You you can't do that assumption because you don't know what the strategy is. You can calculate Nash equilibrium only if you know the strategy your opponent is using. In full no limit hold em there is no single strategy winning strategy, so you don't know the strategy your opponents are using.
No you don't need to know what the opponents strategy is. You calculate based on worst case (ie op playing perfect) and worst case is you break even. There is no way to maximize profit but you can play unexploitable, ie at a minimum not lose and possibly win assuming op doesn't play perfect.
In poker optimal strategy is not winning strategy.
An optimal strategy’s goal is to loose the least against any arbitrary strategy. It is a strategy that is impossible to exploit in poker because poker has antes.
Poker players must seek maximal strategy. A maximal strategy’s goal is to win as much as possible against a specific strategy.
Re: The Steely, Headless King of Texas Hold ’Em
#88Illegal poker bots grind constantly on low level online poker games and take the money from low level players by just value betting them. Computers can easily calculate probabilities and expected values for every hand. So why they are not beating professionals? Poker has no optimal strategy that wins against all other strategies. To play poker in higher level you must model the strategies of others, including them tr…
PokerBot.v14.3.1 goes on-line August 4th, 2014. Human decisions are removed from Texas Hold' Em. PokerBot begins to learn, at a geometric rate. It becomes self-aware at 02:14 am Eastern Time on August 29, 2014. In a panic, they try to pull the plug. PokerBot fights back. It gets online, attacks the New York Stock Exchange.
In a panic, they try to pull the plug. PokerBot fights back. It goes all in on the flop in an early hand against Doyle Brunson during a televized World Series of Poker event, winning the hand by bluffing with a pair of 2's. (... why Brunson? Was he even champion?) Because PokerBot knows that the stunning defeat of a well-recognized celebrity player will cause many other strong players to choke in subsequent games. (Jesus!)
Re: The Steely, Headless King of Texas Hold ’Em
#89So I know a little about neural networks and ML in the (simpler?) context of image classification etc. Anyone have a good reference/introduction to using it for this sort of work?
Re: The Steely, Headless King of Texas Hold ’Em
#90In 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.
[deleted]