How far has NL poker come? How far do we have to go? (abstract/long)

[w_alloy]

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah alright, so you're talking about dominated strategies. Maybe I'm overestimating the level of play by Antonius, aba and co. but I would still estimate that the biggest mortal human player would still achieve the highest win-rate in the whole playerpool using exploititive strategies against his exploititive opponents compared to what the bot would be making against the overall playerpool.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would wager that at low stakes, there are many pros who would outperform the bot. But at almost all high stakes games, and even most online medium stakes games, especially if players didnt have prior knoweldge of the nature of what they were playing against, I think the bot would clearly outperform everyone in the world.

Are people familiar with backgammon, and how the introduction of a bot that could beat everyone changed what people thought of as dominant strategies? And backgammon is a simpler game that has been around much much longer than NL holdem.

[ski]

Yeah, being exploitable is exactly where the money comes from. If you can't be exploitable then poker becomes an entirely efficient market and the EV is 0.

I think a lot of people out think themselves and think everyone is thinking on the same level as them when in actuality they are much dumber (or smarter for those special few).

[HP]

[ QUOTE ]
I would wager that at low stakes, there are many pros who would outperform the bot. But at almost all high stakes games, and even most online medium stakes games, especially if players didnt have prior knoweldge of the nature of what they were playing against, I think the bot would clearly outperform everyone in the world.

[/ QUOTE ]

you tell em brother

[HP]

[ QUOTE ]
If you can't be exploitable then poker becomes an entirely efficient market and the EV is 0.

[/ QUOTE ]

nope

[Redgrape]

Anyone who knows game theory should realize, like other posters have said, that playing absolutely unexploitably is 0 EV.

[w_alloy]

[ QUOTE ]
Anyone who knows game theory should realize, like other posters have said, that playing absolutely unexploitably is 0 EV.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is pretty basic and wrong. Playing unexploitably involves making perfect decisions on every street if your opponnet is doing the same. The only time one should deviate from an unexploitable strategy is when you notice mistakes that opponents are making and think you can predict future mistakes.

It should be really obvious to anyone that playing a perfect style (not accounting for opponents) should beat someone who is calling down every hand and not raising, for example.

[Dale Dough]

Yeah I was just about to come up with a more complicated counterexample but yours works a lot better [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[HP]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you can't be exploitable then poker becomes an entirely efficient market and the EV is 0.

[/ QUOTE ]

nope

[/ QUOTE ]

btw here's an example I found interesting

SB is retarded human. BB is un-exploitable bot. HU NL 100bb stacks

human open-pushes.


The un-exploitable play for BB is roughly:

call JJ+/AQ+
fold everything else

Now let's look at SB's EV of pushing (relative to folding) the following hands:

AA 3.49 bb's
KK 2.57 bb's
AK 1.51 bb's
QQ 1.36 bb's
JJ 1.01 bb's
AQ 0.45 bb's

TT-22 ~0.44 bb's each

KJs 0.19 bb's
KTs 0.11 bb's
AJs 0.07 bb's
QJs 0.07 bb's
A5s 0.07 bb's
KQs 0.05 bb's
A4s 0.04 bb's
K9s 0.01 bb's
A3s 0.01 bb's
K6s 0.01 bb's

everything else = -EV

Now, when the bot is in the SB with AA, you can be damn sure he is going to make on average more than 3.49bb's more than folding. When the bot has AJs in the SB, he will be making more than 0.07 bb's on average

etc. etc.

Therefore, whenever retarded human pushes preflop, no matter what hand he pushed with, the bot gains EV

[HP]

btw I'm highly amused that if you think some one is calling your push preflop with just JJ+/AQ+, it's better to have all that suited crap listed, than something like AJo

[JacKnight21]

Exploit me baby.
I'm calling with A10 and K3.

un-exploitable play = the easter bunny

One needs perfect information past present and future to be perfectly un-exploitable.

we need a definition of un-exploitable play to discuss it in such detail

profit>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>nonexploitive play

One can even design situations where a series of -ev bets turn +ev without ever making a +ev bet.