Can a bot settle the luck/skill argument?

[TreyWilly]

There's an article here about how a bot programmed by the University of Alberta will play Phil Laak and Ali Eslami for 50K over 2,000 hands.

Kind of disturbing. Hope Laak and Eslami crush it. Whatever.

But the article got me thinking about what a successful bot could do for the luck/skill argument. If programmers could successfully build a computer that could play optimally and crush the best human opponents, wouldn't that prove that poker was, in fact, a game where skill dominates?

Such a development would be bittersweet, of course. I don't want such a bot to exist. But the exhibition could possibly lead the way for more states to accept the luck/skill argument, and thus create more B&M options.

Just a thought ...

[DrewOnTilt]

I don't think that we need to bring bots into the legal debate at this point, for obvious reasons. The whole issue of "luck vs skill" is irrelevant to the fundamentalists, anyway.

[nc001]

For bad players, poker is LUCK. They are gambling.

For good players, poker is skill. Predatory in nature and based on one's knowledge of stats and human behavior.

Evangalists most likely dislike that bad players are gambling and being victimized.

[J_B]

[ QUOTE ]

Evangalists most likely dislike that bad players are gambling and being victimized.

[/ QUOTE ]

If poker players are spending time/money on poker that is less $$$ for them.

[Dire]

The top roshambo bots would beat any humans who tried to 'play against' them. Doesn't mean anybody's going to be convinced paper rock scissors is a game of skill all the sudden.

[TreyWilly]

[ QUOTE ]
The top roshambo bots would beat any humans who tried to 'play against' them. Doesn't mean anybody's going to be convinced paper rock scissors is a game of skill all the sudden.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why not?

To put it another away, if a bot can crush poker over the long run, that pretty much proves poker IS NOT a game of luck, doesn't it?

I guess this holds true for PRS as well, but so what? If one was sharp enough to spot his opponents' tendencies, and those opponents continued to play him for money, it is plausible one could become a pro at roshambo. It's silly, but that doesn't mean it isn't valid.

Bots can't exploit luck.

[hotbacon]

[ QUOTE ]


Bots can't exploit luck.

[/ QUOTE ]

But humans can?

[TreyWilly]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


Bots can't exploit luck.

[/ QUOTE ]

But humans can?

[/ QUOTE ]

Damn.

[TreyWilly]

OK. What I'm suggesting (still hashing it out) is that the possibility of programming a computer to beat a game proves that game can be beat.

Are humans who beat the game also proof? Yes. But a computer could prove to be a better model for showing this. You can't program a computer to beat craps or roulette. If the deck is shuffled after each hand, you can't program one to beat blackjack.

You can program a computer to beat chess, poker and -- yes -- roshambo. Comparing data of games a computer can beat to data of games a computer can't beat could help convince some that poker is a skill game.

Put simply: If a computer can beat it, tangible skill is a factor. If a computer can't (such is the case with lotteries) then it must be subject mostly to chance.

Forgive me if I'm repeating myself here, but I'm on little sleep and this idea has arrived and left about a dozen times.

[govman6767]

Ask Mr Gatorade he "thinks" he is the bot master