|
|
|||||||
| View Poll Results: Who starts? | |||
| Cadillac Williams (Bal) |
   
|
26 | 70.27% |
| Willis McGahee (at NE) |
  
|
11 | 29.73% |
| Voters: 37. You may not vote on this poll | |||
 |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#171
10-05-2007, 07:20 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Will computers dominate poker as they did with chess?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] If the research advance, and the forms of poker that exist today do not decline in the next many years, then "helpers" will be sold in the form of physical hardware calculators. [/ QUOTE ] Good response - worst-case scenario (IMO) is that if a poker deep blue is created (and you just KNOW that there are people out there who will not stop until one IS created), then simply another new competitive computer endeavor will emerge. How far away is a poker deep blue, or even a junior poker deep blue?? [/ QUOTE ] I don't see this happening for any thing other than the narrowly defined types of duplicate HU FL HE currently being explored by the UofA. If fixed limit headsup holdem were solved tomorrow that does not mean that all of holdem dies. RIIT 
|
|
#172
10-06-2007, 04:03 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Will computers dominate poker as they did with chess?
we shouldn't underestimate complexity even of limit hold'em poker.
at first it seems to be a lot simpler than no limit because you can't bet any amount you want. but to figure out one nash equilibrium (of the many) you can take some assumptions about the bet sizes that you will make and your opponent will likely make. then it will get much simpler and probably somwhat comparable to fixed limit, exept that your stack size must be taken into account just to say: there are 4 betting rounds where each player can take 3 to 4 actions, there are roughly 52*51 holecards and 48*47*46 flops 45 turns and 44 rivers. its gonna be a pain in the ass to figure out mixed strategies even for HU limit... especially because you can give up an edge preflop to gain it again postflop and so on and so on...
|
|
#173
10-06-2007, 06:26 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Will computers dominate poker as they did with chess?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] If the research advance, and the forms of poker that exist today do not decline in the next many years, then "helpers" will be sold in the form of physical hardware calculators. [/ QUOTE ] Good response - worst-case scenario (IMO) is that if a poker deep blue is created (and you just KNOW that there are people out there who will not stop until one IS created), then simply another new competitive computer endeavor will emerge. How far away is a poker deep blue, or even a junior poker deep blue?? [/ QUOTE ] Guess from my side is 4-7 years. But you cannot really say, for sure there is a way to go. That's what makes poker interesting - for players and researchers (apart from winning money of course [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] P.S. RIIT - duplicate matches are done only to reduce variance, they don't affect the strategy. It's there to show simply the better bot, and not "the luckiest player/bot this weekend". This of course doesn't work in practice (open money tournaments, live tourneys or mixed human+bots).
|
|
#174
10-06-2007, 11:57 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Will computers dominate poker as they did with chess?
Here is actual hard data of a real money bot doing it's thing. I don't think bots will ever "dominate"; but there's no doubt they can be aggressive if that's what their owners want.
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showfl...=0#Post12385903 RIIT
|
|
#175
10-06-2007, 09:21 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Will computers dominate poker as they did with chess?
No, because you need to have a willing opponent. You need somebody to gamble with you. Who is going to gamble big bucks against a computer?
Will the motorcycle overtake track and field events? The computer is a tool. If it is not the best player in the world now it is only because the best player have not been able to articulate exactly what makes them good. As soon as they are able to express this in a way that computers understand then it is all over. Computers did not overtake us in chess by sheer computing power. Chess and computer experts were eventually able to define exactly how a computer should evaluate a position where neither side has a material advantage. At this point the game is over. The computer can look at many more positions and score them the exact same way a human master would and choose the line that leads to the best position. In poker all you would need is a database of several million hands played by world class players. The computer can then analyze and find which lines in which situations produce the best results. It then plays optimally and randomizes optimally. No tells to pick up.
|
|
#176
10-07-2007, 04:38 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Will computers dominate poker as they did with chess?
@ emerson:
not really. the chess computers used a pretty simple position evaluation algorithm which cuts down the tree of possible moves you have to calculate, but it still needs a lot more sheer computing power and calculates moves that every world class player can imediatly judge without thinking a second. there are some drawbacks to this strategy thats why the computers need "help" from chess players. your pokerexample is even less correct. to find the optimal solution it is not needed and not useful to analyze hands of the top players. you need to find the parity conditions that have to hold in an optimal play and then solve every variable. optimal play has nothing to do with analyzing hands. because top players are able to change strategys very quikly, this is actually the ability that probably today makes the difference between good and top players.
|
|
#177
10-07-2007, 12:46 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Will computers dominate poker as they did with chess?
Poker is not a game of luck over the longrun, so contrasting the two games by looking at luck vs. skill is plain silly IMO.
Poker is a game where constant learning is involved. The game literally evolves as you play. No one can say that they have mastered the game, though there are a few who are damn close. I believe that within 20 years, we will have nitpicked the game and broken it down enough to have a program that can beat the best over 10k hands most of the time. This will be horrible for the game in the online sense. The reason I'm not worried about bots right now is because they are still worse "players" at the moment. Above average players can figure out bots' styles and work to beat them. I have a feeling that it will just get harder and harder to beat them until that dark day comes...
|
|
#178
10-07-2007, 03:44 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Will computers dominate poker as they did with chess?
[ QUOTE ]
In poker all you would need is a database of several million hands played by world class players. The computer can then analyze and find which lines in which situations produce the best results. It then plays optimally and randomizes optimally. No tells to pick up. [/ QUOTE ] Tendency tells. The computers would be better than tendency tells than any human. Wont need millions of hands either.
|
|
#180
10-10-2007, 09:36 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Will computers dominate poker as they did with chess?
[ QUOTE ]
To summarise, if you assume sites will ban any obvious non-human play (like 24 hours), and they follow seriously on multiaccounting and other cheats, bots are not an issue by itself. Nowadays, bots are build as you build your strategy. So a lot of bots are losing one, I believe the ratio is the same as winning vs losing players. [/ QUOTE ] Hevad Khan was banned. He was suspected of being a bot because he was playing 30 to 40 SnGs simultaneously. He had to prove to the site that he was human.
|
|
|
|
Linear Mode
