[Utah]

[ QUOTE ]
You claimed that the math or our past history won't help us there but your method involves, among other things, how the other players perceive us (=past history) and neural networking (=math).

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is a tricky conversation and we are still not on the same page. The conversation is really suited for a round table discussion and not an internet forum. Let me see if I can summarize and clarify. A problem can be one of 2 things:

1) a problem with a knowable solution. e.g., 2 player game with one round and known factors.
2) a problem without a knowable solution. e.g., which 3^169 UTG preflop strategies do I choose?

For type 1, I dont need to historically measure my game as the problem can be solved directly. I only need to know the game and the factors. For example, if I need to solve 1567+1656 I can do so directly. No objective measures of my past work in math are neccessary. I dont need to know about the times I calculated correctly or incorrectly. I simply solve the problem in the here and now.

For type 2, there are no answers. Thus, there can be no true objective measurements because what can you measure against. All the hands ever played in the history of poker cannot solve the simple problem I laid out above. So, I cannot ever definitively say, it was correct to raise 10,10 in a particular hand. So, we solve with broad based rules and fuzzy logic. But, again, we are solving in the here and now and not with objective measurements.

To the question of neural nets. Well, the math question is a bit silly and completely unimportant. However, please realize that we are not solving the problem with the neural nets. Rather, we are simply providing information. There is simply no math+technology that exists today that can solve the simple UTG problem that I showed above. That is what I meant by math not being able to get you there.

Today, I presented the latest version of the software to a partner and one of our investors/advisors. We spent 2 hours passionately discussing the issues above.

It is not a question on nomenclature. It is a question of approach. btw - both the partner and investor were blown away by what they saw. They were in awe.

Here is the first slide of the presentation. It is simple but effective for discussing the problem. Nothing else matters.

The player before you just bet $100. There is $650 in the pot and one player to act behind you.

Do you: Check / Raise / Fold?

If you call you may be throwing away $100. If you fail to raise you could be throwing away $100. Fold and you may be throwing away $650