Question for Mason

[disjunction]

[ QUOTE ]

My understanding is that their computers do fairly well in heads-up games, but poorly in full ring games. (Someone correct me if this is wrong.) So I don't think they are virtually unbeatable at limit.


[/ QUOTE ]

This was my understanding too, but only based on reading pop literature and the (?)University of Toronto(?) thesis/paper. Note that heads-up hold'em has a smaller number of branching points.

[Jordan Olsommer]

[ QUOTE ]

I disagree with the given, and I'm not sure Mason said this, unless you can be more specific.

[/ QUOTE ]

"I think the example just given [of how easy it is protect your hand in no-limit vs. limit] demonstrates why [no-limit] games have died out. No-limit was too easy to play well (at least many situations seem to me to be veyr straightforward, and if you didn't play well, you were quickly cleaned out...The edge that the expert no-limit player had on weak opponents is just too great, because often little doubt exists as to what the correct decision is, and when a weak opponent does not make the correct decision, he has only a slight chance and is usually severely punished for his error." - Poker Essays, p. 86 (emphasis mine)

"When [the essay 'Limit Versus No-Limit Hold'em'] was first published, it stirred up quite a controversy. My claim that limit hold'em was more complicated than no limit hold'em was more than some people could take." - _Poker Essays_, p. 87 (emphasis mine again)

"Another reason why limit hold'em is more complex is that you often go all-in on an early round when playing no-limit. Any situation where you just look at the cards on fourth and fifth streets has to be much less difficult than when you are either faced with a bet or have the option to put your money in." - _Poker Essays_, p. 88

[Jordan Olsommer]

[ QUOTE ]
Hi Jordan:

My understanding is that their computers do fairly well in heads-up games, but poorly in full ring games. (Someone correct me if this is wrong.) So I don't think they are virtually unbeatable at limit.

Best wishes,
Mason

[/ QUOTE ]

Nope, you're right - I wasn't sure where I'd read that, but straight from the horse's mouth at the U of Alberta Games Group site:

" Q: How good is Poki?

A: The older version of Poki that plays in full 10-player games is better than a typical low-limit casino player, and wins consistently against average opponents; but it is not as good as most expert players. The newer programs being developed for the 2-player game are quite a bit better, and we believe they will eventually surpass all human players, perhaps within a few years, or less."

They also gave you a nice plug too [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

"Q: What are the best books on poker strategy?

A: Most of the best books are by David Sklansky and Mason Malmuth, published by 2+2 Publishing. In particular, look for "The Theory of Poker", and "Hold'em Poker for Advanced Players". For reviews of these and other good references, see Darse's M.Sc. research essay. "

And as far as the search tree for heads up limit holdem, they address that in their FAQ as well:

" Q: How large is the search space for 2-player Texas Hold'em?

A: The imperfect information game tree for limit Hold'em (with a maximum of four bets each per round) has 1,179,000,604,565,715,751 nodes in total, including dominated sequences (ie. folding to no bet). Almost all of these (1,176,023,515,434,768,000) involve all four betting rounds. The breakdown by type of node is:
406,551,932,608,867,500 terminal (fold) nodes,
364,972,815,134,928,000 showdown nodes,
203,275,966,304,433,750 decision nodes for each player, and
923,924,213,052,751 chance nodes.
Eliminating dominated sequences reduces the tree to a mere 1,097,690,218,045,566,601 nodes. (Thanks for asking! [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] "

[PJS]

Mason, I was just wondering if you had any plans for a 4th edition of "Poker Essays"?

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi PJS:

Not at the moment.

best wishes,
Mason