Poker Bot piece

[Pirc Defense]

[ QUOTE ]

That being said it doesn't and won't exist in our lifetimes.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can't help but think this statement is short-sighted. As noted, it flies in the face of nearly every (applicable) event in history. Someone, sooner than later, will figure out a way to program a bot to play winning poker in a ring game. This thread is going look awfully dumb in a few years, but not for the reason that Jimbo thinks.


[ QUOTE ]
Pirc keeps thinking poker is like chess, it is not and is not comparable.

[/ QUOTE ]

They are different games, to be sure, but whatever difference there is does not prove your contention that never will there exist, in your lifetime, a computer that can "win" in, I guess, a full ring game.

[ QUOTE ]
In fact an exploitable flaw in an otherwise poker bot would be quickly discovered by the majority of it's oponnents and exploited.

[/ QUOTE ]

Come on, Jimbo, this doesn't happen all that often against human players with exploitable flaws, so why should it happen with a computer?

[ QUOTE ]
This flaw may be so deeply ingrained that is is not only impossible to fix but to identify in the first place.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you were the programmer of the program, you think you wouldn't either notice the flaw, or at understand the flaw when pointed out to you (or after several head-scratching losing sessions)? What flaw-type are we talking about? Let's assume a flaw is that it undervalues mid-pair/decent kicker against two opponents. This would show up in hand/play reviews, no? This type of playing error wouldn't be too hard to figure out as well: find the bit of programming that assigns values to hand holdings and tweak.

Jimbo, I'm almost willing to put some money down on this. If we could agree on terms (which will be difficult), would you be willing to bet $100, in support of your belief? Not to be construed as an offer, but I'd say that within five years there will be a program that can beat a 10-person table in limit poker, comprised of players of a skill level that you would expect to find at a $20/$40 game at either Paradise or Party poker. By "beat" I mean earn at least one BB/hr over enough hands to be x% certain that the bb/hour metric is correct. Questions of how the bot would read it's card and such I'm not really addressing. Something like this sound reasonable?

[Sniper]

[ QUOTE ]
PT is a very poor example.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actualy PT is a perfect example, and so are 2+2 books!

[ QUOTE ]
A perfect poker bot that could beat ring games at any reasonable level at all would never be more profitable if it was sold rather than used. It could play hundreds of tables 24/7, never get tired and never make mistakes. In a few weeks it would garner more profit than PT will in it's entire history. There would be no reason at all to sell this perfect bot to others.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your thinking is very flawed and doesn't account for many things, including the psychological need of the programmer to show off his work!

There is no question that a bot programmer will garner more profits, more easily and variance free from selling the program than from only using it.

Morever, the feedback from users will help to propel the advancement of the bot, much more than one person working in isolation could ever hope to achieve.

[ QUOTE ]
That being said it doesn't and won't exist in our lifetimes.

[/ QUOTE ]

Profitable bots already exist and are playing at all online poker rooms.

[ QUOTE ]
Pirc keeps thinking poker is like chess, it is not and is not comparable.

[/ QUOTE ]

Poker is not like chess, but all that means is that the program needs to evaluate alternatives in a situation of imperfect information, just like any human player would have to do.

A computer can however evaluate ALL the information that is available, much faster than a human player can; including in depth opponent analysis.

[ QUOTE ]
In fact an exploitable flaw in an otherwise poker bot would be quickly discovered by the majority of it's oponnents and exploited.

[/ QUOTE ]

Online, you really have no way of knowing if you are playing against a bot or another good player.

[ QUOTE ]
This flaw may be so deeply ingrained that is is not only impossible to fix but to identify in the first place.

[/ QUOTE ]

This statement demostrates a complate lack of understanding of how program development works. A good bot programmer will be evaluating results just as a good poker player would.

[UATrewqaz]

I agree, any process that has logic/math/algorithms/sound principals behind it CAN be mimicked by a computer.

Just because poker is a game of incomplete information does not mean a computer can't play it, and play it quite well.

Every single principal and logical reason you have for playing your hand the way you do can be programmed. The only thing a computer can never have is the ability to read physical tells, however its FAR SUPERIOR ability to pick up tells in betting pattern far outweighs this.

The poker playing programs we have now are the equivalent of the big room filling computers reading huge banks of cards just to play pong of 40 years ago.

There WILL be highly compitent poker playing programs in the future. THe question is how long will it take to make them? Limit will probably be much sooner than NL, but even that can be "cracked"

The bot won't always win of course, due to variance, but it will be a +EV machine... literally.

[Pirc Defense]

[ QUOTE ]
Every single principal and logical reason you have for playing your hand the way you do can be programmed. The only thing a computer can never have is the ability to read physical tells, however its FAR SUPERIOR ability to pick up tells in betting pattern far outweighs this.

The poker playing programs we have now are the equivalent of the big room filling computers reading huge banks of cards just to play pong of 40 years ago.

There WILL be highly compitent poker playing programs in the future. THe question is how long will it take to make them? Limit will probably be much sooner than NL, but even that can be "cracked"


[/ QUOTE ]

Wow. Perfectly put. It's so obvious, isn't it? There's simply no argument I've heard that makes any sense, saying that bots will not ever be able to beat human players. Just silly.

[Jimbo]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm almost willing to put some money down on this.

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If we could agree on terms

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Not to be construed as an offer

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
over enough hands to be x% certain

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Something like this sound reasonable?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd almost consider considering but not quite if the offer was really an offer and not really nothing to consider considering at all if only there was really something to consider agreeing upon.

Pirc, you should play a "real" e4 defense, like the Sicilian, if you want to be taken seriously. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

Btw, IBM cheated like mofos in their match against Kasparov.

[Pirc Defense]

[ QUOTE ]
I'd almost consider considering but not quite if the offer was really an offer and not really nothing to consider considering at all if only there was really something to consider agreeing upon.

[/ QUOTE ]

Losing respect for you by the post, Jimbo.

You game for a bet or are you just blabbing? Your position is ridiculous.

[Jimbo]

[ QUOTE ]
Losing respect for you by the post, Jimbo.


[/ QUOTE ]

I am crushed. A chess player who sees Bots under the bed at night is losing respect for me. How low can I go?


[ QUOTE ]
You game for a bet or are you just blabbing? Your position is ridiculous.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course I am but you made no proposition at all. In fact you clearly wrote "This is not an offer. What type of response do you expect with all that doubletalk you included in your psuedo-challenge?

[Pirc Defense]

[ QUOTE ]
I am crushed. A chess player who sees Bots under the bed at night is losing respect for me. How low can I go?

[/ QUOTE ]

You've really got it wrong. First you attempt to discredit me by calling me a chess player. I'm really not, but then what would be the harm if I was. Strike one.

Second, you accuse me of seeing bots under the bed at night. Why are you trying to sensationalize this thing? It's really not that big of a deal, man. Like the majority of other activities that have a lot of similarities to poker, computers are either better than us now, or getting better soon. Keep in mind I'm making no claims whatsoever on bots' effect on on-line poker, and I've no desire to scare-monger. There's enough of that going around, but I tend to not take much notice of it. So, strike two.

[ QUOTE ]
Of course I am but you made no proposition at all. In fact you clearly wrote "This is not an offer. What type of response do you expect with all that doubletalk you included in your psuedo-challenge?

[/ QUOTE ]

Weasel, much? Clearly what I did is say, "hey, it's a bit hard to define exactly what we're talking about here, but I'm willing to put a token amount on my position, provided we can agree on the terms." I then offered an example of terms that might make sense for this type of wager. Pseudo challenge? Whatever.

Obviously, it is very hard to come up with terms that would adequately define our wager. It's important to get these things straightened out before the wager is finalized (law school has a way of teaching one about these things.)

So, instead of reacting to everything I say, why not proactively offer your own version of what you think appropriate wager terms would be.

I'm telling you now that you are on the wrong side of this proposition. How you can't see it is beyond me.

Has anyone actually used a bot. I looked at the website winholdem.com that sells them and they are actually very inexpensive. I think one could be programmed to play a very good game of limit holdem as limit is a game where the math of poker is the most important thing. They also can be set to collude with other bots.

This brings me to my next questions. How many of these things are out there playing? Is anyone making an effort to stop them? What effort is being made? Are there any other articles that have been written about bots?