Live Updates of the Laak vs Computer Match HERE

[mrjetguy]

[ QUOTE ]
this is ridiculous. Its like putting george bush in a chess match vs deep blue and declaring him the representative of mankind.

[/ QUOTE ]
Pretty much. Except that Laak will use his make a crazy face and stare-down opponent reading abilities against the computer.

[betgo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
this is ridiculous. Its like putting george bush in a chess match vs deep blue and declaring him the representative of mankind.

[/ QUOTE ]
Pretty much. Except that Laak will use his make a crazy face and stare-down opponent reading abilities against the computer.

[/ QUOTE ]
I wonder if Laak zips his face inside his sweat shirt when the computer is staring him down.

[Sintax]

FYI ALL,

5 years ago, Phil Laak and the Computer had a similiar match. Phil won the match, but estimated he had less than a 5% edge.

Proccessing power and memory limitations played a big part in the ability of the AI to run. Now 5 years both the technology and research have advanced tremendously.

I believe the computer has the slight edge this time around, and will win the tournament. In another 5 years the computer will be mostly unbeatable with maybe a dozen players or so standing a chance.

[klownage]

lol limit poker.

[threeonefour]

[ QUOTE ]
FYI ALL,

5 years ago, Phil Laak and the Computer had a similiar match. Phil won the match, but estimated he had less than a 5% edge.

Proccessing power and memory limitations played a big part in the ability of the AI to run. Now 5 years both the technology and research have advanced tremendously.

I believe the computer has the slight edge this time around, and will win the tournament. In another 5 years the computer will be mostly unbeatable with maybe a dozen players or so standing a chance.

[/ QUOTE ]


i think power is much less of an issue in this case, than it is for say Chess. this is because Chess has been researched seriously by PHDs for years (like 40-50 years), whereas poker has gotten very little attention. i think most of the weaknesses of the program are almost certainly on the software side for now, and basically could be overcome very easily just by pouring more man hours and research dollars into the project.

there are literally thousands of chess engines that have been built from the ground up. i doubt there are even a a couple dozen functional poker engines that are beyond their initial development phases.

nothing should actually be that hard to calculate when it comes to poker anyway. you don't need to search 100 million board positions. you could probably run a million pokerstove type calculations in a second or two. i think coming up with an algorithm to determine your opponents range given his play is the most difficult problem. that isn't specifically difficult from the number crunching side but rather from algorithm development side. once you have a range, figuring out your equity and what your action should be based on that equity shouldn't be that hard.

[Sintax]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
FYI ALL,

5 years ago, Phil Laak and the Computer had a similiar match. Phil won the match, but estimated he had less than a 5% edge.

Proccessing power and memory limitations played a big part in the ability of the AI to run. Now 5 years both the technology and research have advanced tremendously.

I believe the computer has the slight edge this time around, and will win the tournament. In another 5 years the computer will be mostly unbeatable with maybe a dozen players or so standing a chance.

[/ QUOTE ]


i think power is much less of an issue in this case, than it is for say Chess. this is because Chess has been researched seriously by PHDs for years (like 40-50 years), whereas poker has gotten very little attention. i think most of the weaknesses of the program are almost certainly on the software side for now, and basically could be overcome very easily just by pouring more man hours and research dollars into the project.

there are literally thousands of chess engines that have been built from the ground up. i doubt there are even a a couple dozen functional poker engines that are beyond their initial development phases.

nothing should actually be that hard to calculate when it comes to poker anyway. you don't need to search 100 million board positions. you could probably run a million pokerstove type calculations in a second or two. i think coming up with an algorithm to determine your opponents range given his play is the most difficult problem. that isn't specifically difficult from the number crunching side but rather from algorithm development side. once you have a range, figuring out your equity and what your action should be based on that equity shouldn't be that hard.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, the particular problem has been at "adaptive" play by the computer and analyzing and calculating its opponents possible moves based on hundreds or thousands of previously played hands. Anyone with a large db on PT will know that it can bring an older machine to a crawling halt.

When the "bot's" AI is dynamic changed with each new hand played, the hardware is definately a limitation. Of course it is not prohibitive and if the UAB had millions of dollars to throw at the program it wouldn't even be an issue, but with moderate funding and 5 year old technology, yes, its a limitation.

[ibluffoldladies]

Is it over?
Have...Have the computers won?

[disjunction]

[ QUOTE ]
Is it over?
Have...Have the computers won?

[/ QUOTE ]

After 425 hands Ali is up by a single bet, and they won't say how Phil Laak is doing until later.

[gumpzilla]

[ QUOTE ]

No, the particular problem has been at "adaptive" play by the computer and analyzing and calculating its opponents possible moves based on hundreds or thousands of previously played hands. Anyone with a large db on PT will know that it can bring an older machine to a crawling halt.

[/ QUOTE ]

This seems like a very easy thing to work around though, especially for HU play. Considering how people generally use PT for little more than 3 numbers - VPIP, PFR, AF - you could get a pretty good baseline read just keeping track of those stats. If you get rid of the hand histories and most of the legions of other stats, this wouldn't be that hard to follow. And yes, people obviously are going to have other reads that aren't based on just those numbers, but I bet there are ways around that, too.

[Sintax]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

No, the particular problem has been at "adaptive" play by the computer and analyzing and calculating its opponents possible moves based on hundreds or thousands of previously played hands. Anyone with a large db on PT will know that it can bring an older machine to a crawling halt.

[/ QUOTE ]

This seems like a very easy thing to work around though, especially for HU play. Considering how people generally use PT for little more than 3 numbers - VPIP, PFR, AF - you could get a pretty good baseline read just keeping track of those stats. If you get rid of the hand histories and most of the legions of other stats, this wouldn't be that hard to follow. And yes, people obviously are going to have other reads that aren't based on just those numbers, but I bet there are ways around that, too.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL, not laughing at you, but that could be where a lot of the confusion between bots and human performance lies. The idea of programming a bot is not to mimick how a human would use PT. The bot is going to look at a flop, analyze all possible holdings its opponent could have, go back to the database and compare all the hands the opponent has played with those starting cards. Its going to compare how the opponent has played on similar boards. Its going to use every bit of information a human cannot simply recall or calculate on the fly. Parsing a large database hundreds of times on a single street just to make one decision can bog down a machine.