simple game theory question

[nickabourisk]

The main author Martin Zinkevich (who came up with the new method) has since moved to work for Yahoo so unfortunately, he's not here anymore. The others, however, are all still here (although the Godfather and creator of the group, Darse Billings, is about to move to work for Full Tilt Poker). I attend their weekly Poker Group meetings.

Regarding the second question, on the next paragraph, he mentions exactly what you are talking about (what he meant by four betting rounds was that on each street, there is also betting, as some research previously has omitted one round of betting due to computational resource constraints):

[ QUOTE ]
Early poker abstractions [2, 4] involved limiting
the possible sequences of bets, e.g., only allowing three bets per round, or replacing all first-round
decisions with a fixed policy. More recently, abstractions involving full four round games with the
full four bets per round have proven to be a significant improvement [7, 6]. We also will keep the
full game’s betting structure and focus abstraction on the dealt cards.

[/ QUOTE ]

[Paxinor]

@ nickaboutrisk:

i just briefly looked over the paper but what is really new about and superior about that solution?

is it correct that you trade memory that a LP Solution needs with CPU power, but you won't reach a really optimal state because it is just an approximation (of the optimum of the approximated game)?

there might be the advantage that you calculate a sequential nash equilibrium that you won't always get if you use the Koller algorithm but i don't know (just flew through the pages of your paper) but there is a paper somewhere how to correct that...

anyways it doesn't perform really better than the Koller algorithm so therefore its not really a progress?