World Series of Poker Robots

[pokeraz]

Found this interesting and hadn't seen it mentioned.

WSOPR (http://www.informationweek.com/story/showArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=E0LPHESUZER2OQSNDBCCK HSCJUMEKJVN?articleID=165701734)

Thoughts?

[Zetack]

[ QUOTE ]
Found this interesting and hadn't seen it mentioned.

WSOPR (http://www.informationweek.com/story/showArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=E0LPHESUZER2OQSNDBCCK HSCJUMEKJVN?articleID=165701734)

Thoughts?

[/ QUOTE ]

Crap, as if I didn't have to worry enought about with online bots, now they're gonna put up real life bots. I wonder if they'll be hard to detect...


--Zetack

[rwanger]

Being a programmer, I have to believe that computers will absolutely be able to outperform humans in poker, at some point. Not that this isn't already happening.

But imagine if Lederer could create a program that plays just like he does. It would then be better than Lederer, because it would have perfect memory, calculations, etc.

The trick will be getting it to play like Lederer.

It's certainly a more interesting problem to solve than chess. For those of you who don't know, for games of perfect information, you can create AI without knowing the good strategies yourself. After each turn, you calculate the score to see who is ahead. Then you figure out what the score will be after every possible move. If you look ahead far enough, you see what the best move is, without even knowing "why". Why? Because it gives you the highest score.

It's totally different with poker though.

So with their perfect memory, they should get better over time against a given opponent. You'd have to CONSTANTLY mix it up to play well against it.


As a side note, I always thought it was cheating that Deep Blue was allowed to analyze Gary Kasparof's past games. It'd be like sitting down at a poker table with someone you've never seen, only they have perfect memory of every hand you've ever played.

[PokerSlut]

[ QUOTE ]
As a side note, I always thought it was cheating that Deep Blue was allowed to analyze Gary Kasparof's past games. It'd be like sitting down at a poker table with someone you've never seen, only they have perfect memory of every hand you've ever played.

[/ QUOTE ]

You mean, sort of like the way people use PokerTracker and GameTime+ to record every hand their opponents play and make decisions based on that information?

[weknowhowtolive]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
As a side note, I always thought it was cheating that Deep Blue was allowed to analyze Gary Kasparof's past games. It'd be like sitting down at a poker table with someone you've never seen, only they have perfect memory of every hand you've ever played.

[/ QUOTE ]

You mean, sort of like the way people use PokerTracker and GameTime+ to record every hand their opponents play and make decisions based on that information?

[/ QUOTE ]Haha. That was awesome. I feel the same way.

[sekrah]

[ QUOTE ]
Being a programmer, I have to believe that computers will absolutely be able to outperform humans in poker, at some point. Not that this isn't already happening.

But imagine if Lederer could create a program that plays just like he does. It would then be better than Lederer, because it would have perfect memory, calculations, etc.

The trick will be getting it to play like Lederer.

It's certainly a more interesting problem to solve than chess. For those of you who don't know, for games of perfect information, you can create AI without knowing the good strategies yourself. After each turn, you calculate the score to see who is ahead. Then you figure out what the score will be after every possible move. If you look ahead far enough, you see what the best move is, without even knowing "why". Why? Because it gives you the highest score.

It's totally different with poker though.

So with their perfect memory, they should get better over time against a given opponent. You'd have to CONSTANTLY mix it up to play well against it.


As a side note, I always thought it was cheating that Deep Blue was allowed to analyze Gary Kasparof's past games. It'd be like sitting down at a poker table with someone you've never seen, only they have perfect memory of every hand you've ever played.

[/ QUOTE ]


Disagree with your post..

Computer programs will never be able to replicate ANY human being, much-less Howard Lederer.

I would like you to explain to me how a computer program is going to read an opponent.. Maybe if you hook-up heart beat and brain-wave monitors to the computer that it can analyze, but I highly doubt any player is going to let them do that.

As to Deep Blue cheating? How so?! The top professional chess grandmasters spend dozens of hours studying and preparing for an opponent before they go head-to-head.

[weknowhowtolive]

"But imagine if Lederer could create a program that plays just like he does. It would then be better than Lederer, because it would have perfect memory, calculations, etc."

Psh...i wish. My OCZ PC4400 blew in one day.

[KJ o]

[ QUOTE ]
Computer programs will never be able to replicate ANY human being, much-less Howard Lederer.

[/ QUOTE ]

Depends on what you mean by "replicate" of course, but change to "play a style of poker that bears some resemblance to the style used by Lederer, and is also a style that beats most experts most of the time", that will be possible. (Disclaimer: It may be that computers play in a way that is pretty different from how humans play, so maybe they won't play "like Lederer" in any sense of the word. But they *will* beat experts in ten-fifteen years.)

[ QUOTE ]
I would like you to explain to me how a computer program is going to read an opponent.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would like you to explain to me why reading an opponent is necessary for playing world-class poker - in particular since the computer itself doesn't give any kinds of tells that are exploitable.

[Angrymoog]

[ QUOTE ]


So with their perfect memory, they should get better over time against a given opponent. You'd have to CONSTANTLY mix it up to play well against it.



[/ QUOTE ]

Resistance is futile....we are Borg......we are...ALL-IN
You will add your chipstack's diversity to our own.

[flo]

folding is futile...