|
|
#151
07-24-2007, 05:41 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Live Updates of the Laak vs Computer Match HERE
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] the computer and the human team plays each set of cards against the same set of cards. So one side cant get a good or bad run of cards. [/ QUOTE ] Yes, but for instance, Phil Laak suddenly decided on Hand 250 that he was going to be aggressive for awhile. Presumably Ali is doing his own thing. What if Phil's side gets a good or bad run of cards at that very moment? Since they have studied this, presumably U. of A. has some reasoning as to why this will not affect things. [/ QUOTE ] i dont think you can think of it like that. I wish that the two people were different (like HU limit specialist), so we could assume that the team would be closer in sync, but testing wise, i think this gives a pretty accurate picture 
|
|
#152
07-24-2007, 05:45 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Live Updates of the Laak vs Computer Match HERE
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] the computer and the human team plays each set of cards against the same set of cards. So one side cant get a good or bad run of cards. [/ QUOTE ] Yes, but for instance, Phil Laak suddenly decided on Hand 250 that he was going to be aggressive for awhile. Presumably Ali is doing his own thing. What if Phil's side gets a good or bad run of cards at that very moment? Since they have studied this, presumably U. of A. has some reasoning as to why this will not affect things. [/ QUOTE ] obviously it will effect things, but the field of statistics is a very robust science in general, you can often violate your own assumptions and still come to valid conclusions. they will almost certainly be able to conclude quite a few things from this sample.
|
|
#153
07-24-2007, 05:50 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Live Updates of the Laak vs Computer Match HERE
This is very interesting. It could have impressive applications for poker tournaments based on player's getting the same hands, like duplicate bridge.
I played a lot of bridge tournaments and got my Life Masters, the highest rank in bridge, forty years ago. Each partnership has the same hands as all the others that sit North South and you are compared based on results against all the others that played that hand. In a version of duplicate poker, you would win a hand even if it was a loser if you lost less money on the hand than all those others that held it. You could set up poker tournaments that lessened but did not eliminate luck. You could set up International matches against teams. Let several teams play the same set of hands Laake played. In bridge, the luck comes from how well your opponents play and flukes such as a lucky guess or strange play.
|
|
#154
07-24-2007, 05:54 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Live Updates of the Laak vs Computer Match HERE
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] the computer and the human team plays each set of cards against the same set of cards. So one side cant get a good or bad run of cards. [/ QUOTE ] Yes, but for instance, Phil Laak suddenly decided on Hand 250 that he was going to be aggressive for awhile. Presumably Ali is doing his own thing. What if Phil's side gets a good or bad run of cards at that very moment? Since they have studied this, presumably U. of A. has some reasoning as to why this will not affect things. [/ QUOTE ] obviously it will effect things, but the field of statistics is a very robust science in general, you can often violate your own assumptions and still come to valid conclusions. they will almost certainly be able to conclude quite a few things from this sample. [/ QUOTE ] I'm just curious as to the quick explanation of the analysis. I do believe them, but I'm curious too. The reason why this is mentioned is that the Limit Hold'em community here has applied enough statistical analysis to have a feel for things. And the conclusion is, that if you are only on one side of things, that it takes hundreds of thousands of hands, and some would say millions, before things are even the slightest bit meaningful. This is mentioned in Morgan Kan's thesis, I got that far. Also, in a hand with 2 people, some players will take random shots on random hands. One poker intuition would be that the luck of the draw on these hands would affect things a great deal and 2000 hands, which maybe consists of 50 of these "shots", where hopefully the opponent has nothing, isn't enough to eliminate luck. Skimming the thesis, it looks like he does things like plot various strategies on a large number of hands to get a sense of the statistics. Then they have some empirical results. It would be nice if somebody can summarize all that, for folks like me who aren't smart enough to understand. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]
|
|
#155
07-24-2007, 06:02 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Live Updates of the Laak vs Computer Match HERE
[ QUOTE ]
Back to the action. Phil is dealt a pair of 6's. Flop comes Kc Ac Ah. Polaris raises, Phil calls immediately. Turn comes 2s and river comes 7s with Laak calling Polaris' bets on both streets. Polaris shows Queen high [/ QUOTE ] Anyone good want to comment on Polaris's river bet?
|
|
#157
07-24-2007, 06:07 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Live Updates of the Laak vs Computer Match HERE
I have never thought it took all that many hands for the expert player to beat the novice in no-limit Texas Hold 'em, with luck being less important than most people think. On any hand, you make a series of decisions, and plays. Each hand is a series of events in which the expert can claim their edge.
In duplicate bridge, they only play 26 hands a session but each hand is complicated by a series of decisions made with imperfect information just like poker.
|
|
#158
07-24-2007, 06:10 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Live Updates of the Laak vs Computer Match HERE
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] the computer and the human team plays each set of cards against the same set of cards. So one side cant get a good or bad run of cards. [/ QUOTE ] Yes, but for instance, Phil Laak suddenly decided on Hand 250 that he was going to be aggressive for awhile. Presumably Ali is doing his own thing. What if Phil's side gets a good or bad run of cards at that very moment? Since they have studied this, presumably U. of A. has some reasoning as to why this will not affect things. [/ QUOTE ] obviously it will effect things, but the field of statistics is a very robust science in general, you can often violate your own assumptions and still come to valid conclusions. they will almost certainly be able to conclude quite a few things from this sample. [/ QUOTE ] I'm just curious as to the quick explanation of the analysis. I do believe them, but I'm curious too. The reason why this is mentioned is that the Limit Hold'em community here has applied enough statistical analysis to have a feel for things. And the conclusion is, that if you are only on one side of things, that it takes hundreds of thousands of hands, and some would say millions, before things are even the slightest bit meaningful. This is mentioned in Morgan Kan's thesis, I got that far. Also, in a hand with 2 people, some players will take random shots on random hands. One poker intuition would be that the luck of the draw on these hands would affect things a great deal and 2000 hands, which maybe consists of 50 of these "shots", where hopefully the opponent has nothing, isn't enough to eliminate luck. Skimming the thesis, it looks like he does things like plot various strategies on a large number of hands to get a sense of the statistics. Then they have some empirical results. It would be nice if somebody can summarize all that, for folks like me who aren't smart enough to understand. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] [/ QUOTE ] that hundreds of thousands of hands bit is very unrealistic. if you want to prove your winrate within a .1 of a bb/100 then yes. but if you want to simply prove you are a winning player, it takes much less, which is what they will be doing for polaris they will be testing if his winrate is >0 not whether it is the .5bb/100 to 2bb/100 range, which is a different test that would require relatively more evidence to reject the null. and if you want to determine something like your VPIP %, that converges very quickly. of course once you have the numbers they only tell you about your performance given those conditions. it obviously does not prove you are a winning play at a different site, or a different limit, or whether you will be a winning player in a couple of years when the games get harder.
|
|
#159
07-24-2007, 06:15 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Live Updates of the Laak vs Computer Match HERE
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] the computer and the human team plays each set of cards against the same set of cards. So one side cant get a good or bad run of cards. [/ QUOTE ] Yes, but for instance, Phil Laak suddenly decided on Hand 250 that he was going to be aggressive for awhile. Presumably Ali is doing his own thing. What if Phil's side gets a good or bad run of cards at that very moment? Since they have studied this, presumably U. of A. has some reasoning as to why this will not affect things. [/ QUOTE ] i dont think you can think of it like that. I wish that the two people were different (like HU limit specialist), so we could assume that the team would be closer in sync, but testing wise, i think this gives a pretty accurate picture [/ QUOTE ] i dont know much about lack other than that everyone thinks hes a tourney donk. ali beats super high live games and deathdonkey said hes a great player. thats good enough for me.
|
|
#160
07-24-2007, 06:49 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Live Updates of the Laak vs Computer Match HERE
[ QUOTE ]
July 24th - 3:38 PM PST Phil +$1290 (488 hands played) Big Hand. Hand 488 sees Laak dealt pocket Kc Kd. Phil raises - Polaris calls. Flop comes Qh 2h 4d. Phil raises again, and Polaris just calls. Ac hits on the turn and Phil pauses. Tilly chimes in from the crowd saying Polaris may know the ace is a scare card. Phil folds his Kings and and his lead is down to $1290. [/ QUOTE ] I wonder if this is accurately reported. I mean, really?
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
