Poker Bot piece

[Pirc Defense]

[ QUOTE ]
There are probably very few bots playing currently and most of them probably play a very tight, break-even'ish game.

[/ QUOTE ]

But that's really the point, no? If "most of them...play a...break-even'ish game" then they're already better than the average poker player. That's no small accomplishment. And this "industry" is in its infancy. Wait until some realy money is thrown at the problem.

So crystal clear.

[ QUOTE ]
Most of the people here who would be good enough to write a profitable bot strategy are WAY more profitable simply playing themselves.

There are probably very few bots playing currently and most of them probably play a very tight, break-even'ish game.

[/ QUOTE ]

Next you'll be suggesting that someone needs to be able to play checkers well in order to write a winning checkers program - which is not true. It's handy to be able to test your work though.

The fact is that computers don't have the intuition or learning capability that humans have, but they also have discipline, patience, and undying staminal. The things that make being a professional gambler unattractive -really. The need to play a lot, the need to keep things in mind. Moreover, the learning ability of a human is often a liability since winning longshots effectively trains players to stay in too much.

With strong theory, and correct implementation, the computer can be superior to a human player.

While I think that a good bot could do well in limit holdem, such programs will never be able to beat good/excellent players in no limit holdem or 7 card stud. Both games involve more than just simple logic and probability. The intuition factor is too big in these games for a computer program to excel above the good players. These games are not chess.

[Pirc Defense]

[ QUOTE ]
While I think that a good bot could do well in limit holdem, such programs will never be able to beat good/excellent players in no limit holdem or 7 card stud. Both games involve more than just simple logic and probability. The intuition factor is too big in these games for a computer program to excel above the good players. These games are not chess.

[/ QUOTE ]

Intuition, at least in this sense, is way overrated. What is intuition? Knowing without knowing why you know? Can it be implemented in a computer? If not, can a program emulate intuition enough so that it appears to have intuition? If so, then it's enough to be a successful poker bot.

I see very little inherent in an on-line limit game that can't be represented quite accurately by probablities and discrete rules. Who's to say that isn't how we're operating, anyway? What we call intuition can very well be just the end result of massive and fast, but still mundane computation, which I differentiate from cognition.

As an aside, if anyone is interested in the above paragraph, I wrote an article in the FEB 1993 edition of The World and I titled "The Artificiality of Artificial Intelligence," that covers the computation/cognition and syntax/semantic dichtomy, though it's not terribly technical as it was published in a general readership magazine.

As another poster kindly pointed out, I know a little of what I'm talking about, and yes, Jimbo is absolutely on the wrong side of this discussion.

[Matt Flynn]

Interesting discussion.

I was surprised by the consensus that no limit holdem would be harder to defeat than limit. Limit is more complicated mathematically. Also, no limit heuristics and play variation would be easier to write. It would still be very time-consuming to do well. The lack of good heuristic reading skills would be compensated for by tiltlessness and identifying opponent game flaws. Most no limit players have major flaws identifiable over a few thousand hands or less. A simple example is the legions of players who never raise out of the blinds or reraise big preflop without AA or KK. There are many more.

Copies of a good bot would obviously end up on dozens of computers, accounting for thousands of hours of table play a week at little cost and with minimal concern for detection if one did not get too greedy. A sophisticated team could easily defeat methods like type-the-word, using humans to surveil dozens of computers. Bots exist now and in number. I do not think they are winning significantly at the 5-10 and up level - at least not shorthanded. There aren't a lot of players good enough to crush those games, and only a small subset of those could write mirroring rulesets.

Matt

[KidPokerX]

To be honest, playing against a computer - or even multiple ones for that matter - is not that frightening.
Call me crazy, but with a fair amount of change-ups, strong pattern observation, and excellent game-play even a computer is beatable. I am no computer scientist, but I'm relatively sure there is nothing out there that truelly has artificial intelligence. Most of us know that humans cannot create anything that other humans cannot destroy - unless someone can prove me wrong, it has never been done and probably never will be. I am positive that a human player can always beat a machine (simply because a human created one).
Simply put, being scared of a bot will be more detrimental to your game than the bot itself.

[Pirc Defense]

[ QUOTE ]
Call me crazy, but with a fair amount of change-ups, strong pattern observation, and excellent game-play even a computer is beatable.

[/ QUOTE ]

Change-ups? What does this mean? Are you saying that you are going to make strange plays that will confuse the bot? This just doesn't make any sense. If it's a strange play, then it's probably -EV. Secondly, as soon as the bot figures out that the strange play was made, then it merely notes that, on occasion, you make strange plays. All is fair in love and war, however, and the bot can make strange plays against you as well. Would you expect a bot to 3-bet on the river with a busted hand? What if you found out that it did? That you folded the best hand? You might tilt, the bot never will. Even so, to the bot it's just more data for it to chew on, which segues to...

...Strong pattern observation? Computers are superb at this. They can see patterns that we can't (and humans can see patterns that bots can't, as of now), and would be especially good at figuring out a pattern from a huge database like PokerTracker. We're at a decided disadvantage here.

Excellent game play? Well, obviously the better the human is, the more trouble the bot will have.

But your "excellent game play" point is one that is deeper than it seems. I feel that within the next five or so years, bots will exist that will be able to beat the average $20/$40 player at, say, Party Poker. On average, these are not the best players in the world. Even this achievement puts bots in the very high upper percentile of poker ability, and it would be hard to argue otherwise. Not too long after this milestone is achieved, then the best players in the world are aimed at, and I can't think of a good argument why they, too, will not eventually be bested by the best of the bots.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm relatively sure there is nothing out there that truelly has artificial intelligence.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is very true, and we're not even really close. True artificial intelligence, though, is not needed for a bot to be successful at poker. It just takes good programming by somebody that understands poker.

[ QUOTE ]
Simply put, being scared of a bot will be more detrimental to your game than the bot itself.

[/ QUOTE ]

That would definitely make things more difficult for you. The more I think about the problem, the more this makes sense. You're facing a machine, one that can't help but think logically and perfectly. When it raises on the turn, or the river, you've got to be thinking it doing so for a reason. But, wait, what if the programmer sets it up to bluff every so often (which he/she would, of course?) Is he bluffing? How bad would I look if a freakin' bot bluffed me off of a hand?!? Lots of psychology going on, and not at all unlike what Kasparov went through when he first played against Deep Blue. The guy was a wreck, and I can see definite parallels to poker.

[Sniper]

[ QUOTE ]
I am positive that a human player can always beat a machine (simply because a human created one).

[/ QUOTE ]

This is wrong!

[ QUOTE ]
Simply put, being scared of a bot will be more detrimental to your game than the bot itself.

[/ QUOTE ]

On the other hand, this is correct! To a good poker player, a bot that plays well, is just another good opponent.

Excellent thread; Intelligent(for the most part) and lively debate on a very intriguing and important topic. Both sides had interesting arguments, however only the premises provided by Pirc Defense, Sniper, and the like withstood all critical analysis, ultimately demonstrating the soundness of their argument. Just wanted to put in my two cents and give props to those aforementioned for their intelligent and informed commentary.

-MyLieYourLullaby

I hear of this bot, that only plays headsup (limit), and is virtually impossible to beat... Forget the name of it though...

I think it was (vex) bot, it actually learns and exploits your weakness