[disjunction]

[ QUOTE ]
Hey guys,

I've been following the posts in this forum over the last couple days, and I'm glad the initial response to the humans victory tonight is not that "of course the humans won". To be clear, I think the humans really benefited from a lot of information revealed by the bot team. If this was a fully competitive match, the humans might've been in tough since they wouldn't have known that the bot that they played in the last match was an equilibrium non-learning bot.

I hope you all enjoyed my blogging, and I'm also rather flattered that people are looking at my thesis. If you have questions about DIVAT, feel free to ask.

Morgan

[/ QUOTE ]

Morgan,

Thanks for the great updates. I've been on these forums for a few years and the subject of bots come up a lot. I think the attitude tends to be the opposite of what you say. People tend to underestimate how tough the poker problem is for an AI. This frustrates me both as an AI grad student like yourself, and it also frustrates me as a poker player. I think I was pretty much the only person predicting a human win. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] If you would have won, everyone would have said, "Of course the bot won, I could write a bot too that would win if I had the time and inclination". And that is annoying.

A loss to 2 great players doesn't mean you guys didn't do great work. The competition is more of a referendum on the poker domain than on the particular bot. There are so many aspects to it, and just skimming the papers, it seems like there is a lot of interesting material. And of course the lessons learned in the poker domain will be of use to AI in general. Keep up the good work!

Edit: Oops, I meant UNDERestimate. Fixed.