Re: Computer Programmers solve checkers.
 

[ QUOTE ]
Of course, in a multi way game there's no way a computer would win due its inability to predict wierd implicit alliances.


[/ QUOTE ]

The more players there are the less the bots lose.

Re: Computer Programmers solve checkers.
 

[ QUOTE ]
I do know the difference between perfect information and imperfect information games.

[/ QUOTE ]

Games like chess are games of incomplete information and the trees are many more and huge than they are at poker that's a game of complete information as the trees are only up to the showdown and there's only a couple of different simple moves to think about every street; it takes a second to compute the best line up to the showdown in a poker game while one does never get there in a chess game at this time.

What one sees with the eyes is not complete information; and what one doesn't see with the eyes is not incomplete information. When both sides see as much it's a game of complete or non-complete information depending if it can be calculated up to the end and say the line that was taken was the best all the way to the end.

P.S. If the computer wins or draws the heads up limit holdem match vs. the two pros on Monday/Tuesday (next week; http://campustechnology.com/articles/49023/ ), it could be because their software graphics are so bad that it's hard to play one's best game. I know from experience, though I have never played against a bot I couldn't beat huge both heads up and shorthanded.

Re: Computer Programmers solve checkers.
 

The reason it sucked is precisely because it did the +EV play (in terms of its hand's pure value) every time. This is an exploitable strategy. If the computer never bluffs, it's not going to get maximum value for its big hands against a decent player. Instead, it should take into account how often its opponent will fold to a bet/bluff and how much is in the pot, and then throw in an appropriately-sized bluff bet randomly a certain percentage of the time to mix things up. According to game theory, there's an optimum bluffing frequency (and bet size) for each opponent, which makes it impossible for your opponent to beat you in the long run. (See Sklansky's Theory of Poker for why this works.)

Re: Computer Programmers solve checkers.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I made a computer opponent that did the EV+ play every time and it sucked. Easily exploitable.

[/ QUOTE ]The reason it sucked is precisely because it did the +EV play (in terms of its hand's pure value) every time.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is better known as not making the +EV play, e.g., failing to recognize and make profitable bluffs.

This is the 2+2 theory forum. Elsewhere, let the ignorant masses say poker is nothing but psychology, but at least here, we should be able to accept the idea that bluffing might be mathematical, as was analyzed in papers by Borel and von Neumann in the earliest modern work on game theory.

Don't blame the failures of your program on the inadequacy of +EV poker.

Re: Computer Programmers solve checkers.
 

My bot was primitive and simple, but based on exhaustive simulations at each street, and it sucked pretty hard, but this is due to it's simpleton nature betting and calling when it was >50% to win the hand and not taking ranges or history into account.