[Rudbaeck]

[ QUOTE ]
Duh, that wasn't what we were talking about either. There is a difference between beating fish (easy, by the definition of fish) and betaing them for the maximum possible amount (which would require huge amounts of HH and specific learning against particular opponents, as opposed to just good poker).

And why were we discussing this? Because a number of posters indicated that huge amounts of HH or "PT" information would be necessary to build a good bot. Not true.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd say it's easier to beat fish for near the maximum than to beat a table where Lederer and Harman are in the middle of the field skill wise for any amount at all. I mean, if it were easier to be a tiny favorite in the Bellagio 4k/8k game than a massive favorite in the Party 2/4 games the happy days would soon be here for many of us. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

A good bot has to adjust to opponents. Does he fold too much on the river? Bluff a bit more. Does he pay off to much on the river. Value bet a bit more. Does he raise preflop with too many hands? Isolate. Does he always slowplay made hands, raising on the turn with those while raising the flop with draws? Adjust, adjust, adjust.

Neither man nor machine can play the same style against every opponent and expect to win any grand sums. Ok, both could probably do it if the rake wasn't so large in the smaller games. But as it is you have to beat the fish in these games for 2BB/100 or so just to break even...

It's obviously easier to beat people if you've already profiled them prior to playing. I added the datamining not with the intention of it being a 'teaching' aid for the bot, but for player profiling. (The very same reason I datamine. If I already got 50+ hands on half the people at the table I obviously have a huge advantage over going in blind.)

A bot capable of winning any significant sum has to profile players. To do so datamining is our best option. Off course this gets updated as the hands from live play pours in.