Apocalypse Next? Don't Worry About UIGEA. Worry About BOTS!

[KipBond]

[ QUOTE ]
The problem with a computer is that it will always be, to one degree or another, predictable. If you can write the progaram, someone else can figure out the program. And, as we all know, understanding your opponent's program is 90% of being able to beat him.

[/ QUOTE ]

A good program will assign probability distributions to a wide array of actions it will take based on the statistics it has gathered on the opponent(s). If it does this correctly, it is not only unpredictable, it's actually maximizing it's EV in the process.

[Skallagrim]

Once I figure out your computer is going to reraise my continuation bets 30% of the time....its predictable and I can devise the correct response. Once I realize its taking my "statistics' I can manipulate my play to make it think I plan to do A when I really plan to do B.

Until it can reprogram itself its only a question of how hard it is to figure it out (which will get harder and harder, I agree.... but there is still the quantum leap to make).

[ike]

[ QUOTE ]
Once I figure out your computer is going to reraise my continuation bets 30% of the time....its predictable and I can devise the correct response. Once I realize its taking my "statistics' I can manipulate my play to make it think I plan to do A when I really plan to do B.

Until it can reprogram itself its only a question of how hard it is to figure it out (which will get harder and harder, I agree.... but there is still the quantum leap to make).

[/ QUOTE ]

If machine learning counts as reprogamming itself the quantum leap has already been made.
And if you think that knowing how your opponent was making his decisions would necessarily make him easy to play against, you don't understand game theory.

[Skallagrim]

Not in the mood at present for a highly technical discussion, but there is a big difference between machine learning, and machine programming.

Also, I didnt say it would be 'easy" to beat a computer by figuring out its program, I just said thats how its done.

And I dont know where you are coming from, but the last time I checked understanding your opponents decsion making process and acting accordingly was the essence of applied game theory.

[gaboonviper]

Sniper & Leapfrog:

I do APOLOGIZE that this post does not have my usual end of the world tone to it. I guess the combination of the poker world quieting down(at least for now), and me playing over at NVG, has made me too civilized. I will try to do better next time. I appreciate your understanding.

[KipBond]

[ QUOTE ]
Once I figure out your computer is going to reraise my continuation bets 30% of the time....its predictable and I can devise the correct response. Once I realize its taking my "statistics' I can manipulate my play to make it think I plan to do A when I really plan to do B.

[/ QUOTE ]

It won't continuation bet 30% of the time. It will continuation bet against a certain make-up of opponent(s) given a certain board, and a certain hand, certain stack sizes, certain image of recent play, a certain distribution of the time: e.g: between 20-50% of the time. So, it comes up with an optimal range to continuation bet given all those factors, then tosses a random number to see if it should continuation bet *that* time.

This is exactly what a professional player tries to do, but is limited in several ways so relies on "instinct" a lot. They thought a computer could never beat a grand master at chess. They were wrong.

[krupatime]

hahahahah

No limit is too complex. I highly doubt there are winning NL bot are out and if there are they aren't for sale. The owners would be stupid to release them. Put any bot at my nl table and i will crush it.

Limit bots? possible... none for sale that win. it's a scam...i would also crush them. It is no easy task to creat a winning bot at poker. If anyone made a winner they would not sell it.

I am not worried in the least about bots.

[Sniper]

[ QUOTE ]
Sniper & Leapfrog:

I do APOLOGIZE that this post does not have my usual end of the world tone to it. I guess the combination of the poker world quieting down(at least for now), and me playing over at NVG, has made me too civilized. I will try to do better next time. I appreciate your understanding.

[/ QUOTE ]

No prob Viper, just trying to educate...

There is a doomsday scenario here, but it doesn't revolve around bots killing fish. It revolves around Fish purchasing Decision Support profiles, and once again changing the texture of the game, as this goes mass market. I expect this to happen in a post-regulation scenario.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
Eng, fwiw, I do see a Legislative connection here, don't you?

Have you read Tuff_Fish's proposal for legislation?

Viper has more reading to do...

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, Tuff Fish's proposal was the first thing that came to my mind. I didn't reply with regards to regulation because there's no solution right now.

With IGREA, there are feasible ways to combat bots via regulation (like making sites financially responsible for damage caused by bots). Without, making bots illegal in the U.S. seems like a nonstarter. Still, at least we're discussing it legislatively.

[PokrLikeItsProse]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Eng, fwiw, I do see a Legislative connection here, don't you?

Have you read Tuff_Fish's proposal for legislation?

Viper has more reading to do...

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, Tuff Fish's proposal was the first thing that came to my mind. I didn't reply with regards to regulation because there's no solution right now.

With IGREA, there are feasible ways to combat bots via regulation (like making sites financially responsible for damage caused by bots). Without, making bots illegal in the U.S. seems like a nonstarter. Still, at least we're discussing it legislatively.

[/ QUOTE ]

Where is Tuff Fish's proposal?

I don't see anything feasible in terms of regulation of online gambling (something I greatly desire) without setting up an internet gambling commission.