Fulltilt froze my account with 47 grand in it

[jukofyork]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Pokergirl z
Pre-flop played %
65

grego777
Pre-flop played %
66

Daurgman
Pre-flop played %
68

[/ QUOTE ]

It's very unlikely that these stats in particular came from the same player/bot. If the player's true stat is 65, then after 62K hands they will be within that ~.4 of the 65 95% of the time. It's about a one in ten million event that this player would have a 66 stat. It's virtually impossible for the stat to be 68 over the samples discussed. Of course, this type of analysis assumes things that may not be true such as static game conditions/inability of the bot to adjust. It also assumes that MH or FT didn't round 65.4 to 65 and 65.6 to 66. Even so, I felt it necessary to point out that appearances here maybe deceiving and that it's possible to draw the opposite conclusion from the data then is obvious from just looking at it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Leader,

It seems as if this new batch of bots learned from their old mistakes and are taking precautions. It's well known now that the sites (and many concerned players too) are making stat comparisons as a way of identifying potential bots.

It would be very easy to make the bot configurable so that stats don't converge exactly, even though the underlying logic is essentially the same. Think, for example, of making small adjustments to stealing and defending ranges that will have very little impact on your bottom line.

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree with this. Just looking at PokerAcademy's "Sparbot" it's obvious how this could be accomplished. Basically they created two different "Sparbots":

a) The first "Sparbot" has no preference for choosing a fold, call or raise action in any given state.

b) The second "Sparbot" uses the idea that humans tend to make the most mistakes when faced with aggressive play so if both a call and a raise action have the same EV, then it will always choose the raise, etc.

The two models play quite differently, yet both are still approximating the NE solution and I guess would have quite different stats. You can then combine the mixed F/C/R output (ie: probability triples) of the two systems using a weighted average (eg: 30% SparbotA + 70% SparbotB) to create all sorts of different "hybrid" bots.

Juk [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[jukofyork]

I just found the post explaining how this was accomplished (see here):

[ QUOTE ]
Some questions about Sparbot were raised in another forum,
regarding the aggressiveness settings, and about occasional
bizarre plays by the bot. Here is the reply I posted.

...<mike@a...> wrote:
>
> Sparbot has an aggression bar you can set.
>
> Am I to assume that no matter how you set this aggression bar
> (e.g. either most passive setting, or most aggressive setting),
> it's "objective EV" will be the same (or very very close)?
>
> something tells me the answer is no, because:
>
> I ran a ~25,500 hand simulation of Sparbot (i.e. the bot at the most
> passive setting) vs. Sparbot2 (its aggression bar is approximately
> 66% of the most aggressive you can set it to). The results were
> alarming. Sparbot ended up winning 0.102 sb/hand! Not only that,
> it achieved +EV even when it was in the BB (i.e. out of position)!
>
> Anyone care to explain? Aaron? Darse?


When the linear programming (LP) solutions were computed,
they had the same objective EV. However, the resulting strategy
is only a crude approximation of an equilibrium strategy, and
a good player can find serious flaws and exploit them.

The aggressive solution takes more risks, and is thus more
vulnerable to being soundly beaten. It turns out that when
they play against each other, the more passive Sparbot (the
original version) is well-suited to exploiting the errors of its
cousin. However, the more aggressive version is much more
appropriate against the vast majority of human opponents.

The difference isn't as large as your results suggested, but
yes, one bot does beat the other. One data point against
one particular opponent is neither here nor there.

There are also small residual probabilities of making some
bizarre actions, due to numerical stability issues in the LP
solution. The mixed strategies in certain situations might
have a 0.001% chance of calling with an extremely weak
hand, or of folding a very strong one. The more aggressive
solution had more of these problems than the original, but
we never took the time to clean up the solutions after the
fact, since it has only a slight effect on the bottom line.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Sparbot2 was solved to have the same objective EV as Sparbot1 in the abstract game that we use as a model for real poker (with the additional constraints that it is more aggressive). Since there is a mapping procedure from the abstract game to the real game of Hold'em it is hard to know which one is closer to optimal in terms of the real game (the game that they actually play and that you play against them).

[/ QUOTE ]

Juk [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]