Computer to play 2 Poker Pros for 50k

[QuietEarner]

Next week, Polaris, a poker-playing computer program built by Schaeffer and his colleagues, will challenge two poker professionals in a $50,000 man versus machine poker game in Vancouver, British Columbia, as part of the annual conference for the Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence.

That's a quote from the article. The article is mainly about a computer that can't lose at checkers. Thought you guys might find it interesting, gonna google for this upcoming match.
LINK TO ARTICLE

[QuietEarner]

Ok found this from Google. a little hard to read because it's translated by Google.
It's Phill Laak and Ali Eslami who are gonna play the computer.

Article

Here is a better article. One sentence says something about limit on betting, so think it's limit.

Article

[MasterLJ]

Big difference if this is limit or NL...

Also, 2000 hands is laughable

[DeMaci]

Ali Eslami is a high limit limit holdem player who plays mainly at the Commerce.

[Onear]

it has to be limit. i heard they are still working on NL bot

[dd323]

[ QUOTE ]
Big difference if this is limit or NL...

Also, 2000 hands is laughable

[/ QUOTE ]

I think 2000 hands HU is not as laughable as you might think. Usually if you have an edge on someone heads up, they need to run sick good to beat you for 1000+ hands..

If its a ring game, i agree 2000 hands is nothing..

[Whitewash]

[ QUOTE ]
I think 2000 hands HU is not as laughable as you might think. Usually if you have an edge on someone heads up, they need to run sick good to beat you for 1000+ hands..

If its a ring game, i agree 2000 hands is nothing..

[/ QUOTE ]

???

I was under the impression that 2K hands has better implications for long term results @ full ring than HU?

[MasterLJ]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Big difference if this is limit or NL...

Also, 2000 hands is laughable

[/ QUOTE ]

I think 2000 hands HU is not as laughable as you might think. Usually if you have an edge on someone heads up, they need to run sick good to beat you for 1000+ hands..

If its a ring game, i agree 2000 hands is nothing..

[/ QUOTE ]

You are semi-correct. HU against bad opponents has less variance. HU between competent opponents probably has the most variance of any game imaginable.

But 2k hands in any form of poker is going to be high variance simply because it isn't enough hands to evenly distribute similar strength hands in equal proportions (as in, Comp might get AA 15 times, while pro gets them 6). It's like flipping a coin 10 times.

[dd323]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Big difference if this is limit or NL...

Also, 2000 hands is laughable

[/ QUOTE ]

I think 2000 hands HU is not as laughable as you might think. Usually if you have an edge on someone heads up, they need to run sick good to beat you for 1000+ hands..

If its a ring game, i agree 2000 hands is nothing..

[/ QUOTE ]

You are semi-correct. HU against bad opponents has less variance. HU between competent opponents probably has the most variance of any game imaginable.

But 2k hands in any form of poker is going to be high variance simply because it isn't enough hands to evenly distribute similar strength hands in equal proportions (as in, Comp might get AA 15 times, while pro gets them 6). It's like flipping a coin 10 times.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually that makes a ton of sense, especially if the computer is essentially playing not to lose instead of playing to win. In which case it would be literal coin flips, because it would be pretty damn close to unexploitable. But you are right the smaller the edge, means much bigger variance, and probably especially headsup.


I stand corrected.

[samsdmf]

[ QUOTE ]
Big difference if this is limit or NL...

Also, 2000 hands is laughable

[/ QUOTE ]

If this was vs a computer couldnt they have got a decent online player to 8 table it so they could get a number of hands that were at least semi statistically significant, 2k is such a joke