|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Poker AI: An Essay on the Topic
That's funny, I was thinking exactly the opposite. Where the topic of discussion is "where are we going with this in the future", I don't see that a reply of "we aren't there now and other people will be somewhere else" adds anything of value to the conversation.
The statement that those who could make a winning bot could make more money designing other kinds of program (which is how I interpret the spinning straw into gold comments) in my view overlooks the essence of the spirit of invention. Society has advanced because of people responding to their own muse, not that of other people or what other people think would be more profitable. Few Nobel laureates started down their path to the prize by saying, "Yeah, this is it. This is what's going to make me rich." Broadway is full of some of the greatest actors in the world, who could have made more money in film. Medical progress has been the result of scientists who chose not to make more money by developing a better diet pill, or a pill that helps people quit smoking. While a poker bot certainly isn't something that will make the world a better place, it is a fascinating problem of the highest order. If we're focusing on a bot that uses artificial intelligence (as opposed to just a really well written program) then in my view poker is the perfect platform -- it strikes a very nice balance between game theory and the inherent flaws in human behaviour. My view is that given the problem posed -- a bot that can beat the crap out of the online games that currently exist -- the current processor speeds, storage capacities, and memory size are more than sufficient that such a thing is possible, particularly given how much time the sites give each player to make a decision before timing him out. 'hoof |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Poker AI: An Essay on the Topic
I am surprised at many of your responses which relate to application of computer technology, particularly as you are in the field yourself.
Considering the computing power and algorithms recently put to use against the world chess master, and drawing, the only thing stopping the same happening in poker is focus and access to the leading edge technologies that IBM have employed. And then again, who would know if someone is not already doing it. They certainly wouldn't publicise it, and they wouldn't be be showing players winning millions. It would be a gaggle of golden geese hatching several small golden eggs, a few hundred $'s at a time. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Poker AI: An Essay on the Topic
It is precisely because I am in the industry and it's applications to gaming that I hold my opinion. Programming Big Blue to bring chess Grand Masters to a draw was certaily quite an achievement.
If you spend enough money most anything can be accomplished, most anything other than a successful poker bot that is. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] I did state that it will occur someday, just not today. To adequately argue this point a pure definition of winner needs to be accepted. I simply am using the one quoted by Mason Malmuth (1 BB per hour winner in mid limits and higher). If you wish to offer me your definition as being more liberal my response would likely change. EDITED BELOW: Actually now I seem to recall that Mason's definition might have been for an expert. If so I must reconsider my position. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Poker AI: An Essay on the Topic
If that's what MM says, and it's OK for you, then I suggest you both need to get out more. That's old B&M thinking. All that expertise; all that practice and the best you can do is $40 or $60/hr. There are so many online games that are much easier than that where a more reasonable goal is more like 3-5 BB/hr.
Actually, BB/hr is not a good way to measure success. $/hr is the only thing that matters. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Poker AI: An Essay on the Topic
Brianmarc -- put me in the camp of believing that it's possible (given the present state of computer science) to design a bot that would beat most ring games, even at high limits. In other words I think a well-programmed computer would play poker as well as the best ring-game players in the world (although it would play differently). The only way to beat it would be through cheating (i.e. collusion).
You just have to consider the PsOpti program designed by Darse Billings et al., which beat The Count at headsup limit holdem. The Count is the winningest shorthanded limit holdem player online. And PsOpti did not use opponent modeling. Think of how good a program would be if it did. As for no-limit and pot-limit, I tend to think that a computer could play these well too, although it might require more power. The one part of your post I didn't understand was this: [ QUOTE ] Three: Since your win rate requirement can be much lower than when you are playing in person, the bot can play much more patiently than any human player ever could. Since all current poker theory is based on squeezing the maximum out of every situation (i.e., to be as efficient as possible), an approach not driven by this consideration, in effect, allows for the creation of a hitherto unknown style of expert player. [/ QUOTE ] Why would you not want to have the highest possible win rate? I can think of a few reasons, e.g. create deception, reduce variance, not-get-caught, but in general it seems to me they wouldn't be worth it. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Poker AI: An Essay on the Topic
Translated in into strategy, the bot could afford to pass up opportunities that the regular player could not. one simple example: require a premium on pot odds to go for a draw.
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Poker AI: An Essay on the Topic
Brian,
Here is a Yahoo discussion group you might like to join which will be better able to answer your questions. PokiPoker Group |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Poker AI: An Essay on the Topic
[ QUOTE ]
Translated in into strategy, the bot could afford to pass up opportunities that the regular player could not. one simple example: require a premium on pot odds to go for a draw. [/ QUOTE ] But why? Just to reduce variance? |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Poker AI: An Essay on the Topic
to simplify programming or avoid possible counterstrategies (assuming not headsup)
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Poker AI: An Essay on the Topic
I've been working on such a project on/off for about a month.
Designing an AI pre/flop and flop strategy based on EV calculations and heuristics is pretty trivial. Turn and river actions are even more straightforward. I find the most difficult portion to design is the "tracker". The toughest part (and it's a major problem) is the difficulty in finding "maniacs", "calling stations", etc. and finding a precise adjustment to the bot's default play in these scenarios. |
|
|