Will computers dominate poker as they did with chess?

[jogsxyz]

[ QUOTE ]
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.


[/ QUOTE ]

10K hands is short term for poker. Even 100K hands is only medium term.

[indianaV8]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wonder how he proved to the WSOP authorities that he is human ;-))

[craig1120]

Note: I haven't learned about game theory and am only vaguely familiar with much of what has been discussed in this thread, but for those saying that a bot that plays optimally can't be beat HU I have a question:

Say, a human is playing a bot heads up. The bot is playing theoretically optimal and the human is as well until the river. Up until the river strategies are equal. In a hypothetical hand the bot knows that the range he is facing on the river is 20% value bet, 50% check, 30% bluff. Therefore, the bot is calling 60% of the time he is bet into with his "bluff catching range". All bets are pot sized bets. Since the human knows his bluffs in this spot are never going to be called less that 60% of the time and he needs them to work 50% of the time to break even he decides to never bluff in this spot. How is the bot going to be +EV in this match assuming he doesn't adapt and continues to play game theoretically optimal?

[pzhon]

[ QUOTE ]
Note: I haven't learned about game theory...

Say, a human is playing a bot heads up. The bot is playing theoretically optimal ...
Since the human knows his bluffs in this spot are never going to be called less that 60% of the time and he needs them to work 50% of the time to break even he decides to never bluff in this spot.

[/ QUOTE ]
"Theoretically optimal" implies that the bot can't be exploited by making a change like that. If you are really interested, you should learn about game theory.

[craig1120]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Note: I haven't learned about game theory...

Say, a human is playing a bot heads up. The bot is playing theoretically optimal ...
Since the human knows his bluffs in this spot are never going to be called less that 60% of the time and he needs them to work 50% of the time to break even he decides to never bluff in this spot.

[/ QUOTE ]
"Theoretically optimal" implies that the bot can't be exploited by making a change like that.

[/ QUOTE ]
Well then I guess I don't think that there exists a "theoretically optimal" way to play NL holdem..

[pzhon]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Note: I haven't learned about game theory...

Say, a human is playing a bot heads up. The bot is playing theoretically optimal ...
Since the human knows his bluffs in this spot are never going to be called less that 60% of the time and he needs them to work 50% of the time to break even he decides to never bluff in this spot.

[/ QUOTE ]
"Theoretically optimal" implies that the bot can't be exploited by making a change like that.

[/ QUOTE ]
Well then I guess I don't think that there exists a "theoretically optimal" way to play NL holdem..

[/ QUOTE ]
Well then, your intuition is wrong in this context. Not everything in game theory is obvious, and it might make sense to study it instead of just guessing.

[Paxinor]

@ craig: as pzhon said.

there is optimal play and its not "theoreticaly optimal" its optimal in practice

the WHOLE point of an optimal strategy is that WHATEVER your opponent choses to do, he will lose or break even...

nash proved that in 1950, if you'd like look into it and study it.

but they don't hand out those nobel prices for some crap, and nash got one for that.

you should read the hole thread, there is a lot of interesting information about it

you cannot just read it, guess and be right... it is counterintuitive at first, but you are really behind in the level of discusion if you argue: "you know that he does this and that so you can exploit him..."