master level bot created?

[Sciolist]

[ QUOTE ]
Head. Sand.

[/ QUOTE ]

Useless. Response. Got any reason for saying that? Yes? care to enlighten us?

[Innocentius]

[ QUOTE ]
Let me make this comparison between poker and chess and the use of computers.

if you take the worlds greatest chess player and have him play against an average joe chess player, he will win 10 times out of 10.

However, the greatest poker player can easily lose to an average poker player (especially online). Look at the world series of poker as an example. The best players in the world havent won in 4 years. Its random new guy after random new guy. And at the WSOP the great players have the added benefit of reading players. If you took the best 5,000 chess players and had them compete in a big tourney the best players would win each and every time.

there is clearly no comparison between chess "bots" and poker "bots."

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think this argument is convincing. First of all, chess isn't as exact a science as you imply. Good players get defeated by worse players all the time. But I agree that the variance is much smaller than in poker.

This however, does not mean that you cannot program a bot to play as well as a human. Of course the bot could still get its virtual ass kicked in any one session, but it would win in the long run against worse opponents. By your argument, you couldn't even talk about good poker players, since they don't win every time. What I mean is that I am not convinced that you cannot program a bot to play poker as well as the best human players.

[Innocentius]

[ QUOTE ]


Would a computer be able to assimilate those two words and understand what he meant? I suspect not. And that's the difference between poker and chess. In chess every possible outcome can be analysed if you have enough computing power. In poker there are a lot of unknowns and context is important.



[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, in chess, every possible variation could be analyzed, if you have enough computing power. But this is irrelevant to the discussion, since noone has that kind of computing power, and noone will in a forseeable future. This is not how chess engines defeat grandmasters. They use computer power, yes, but they also have to use heuristics to value positions. Engines do not play perfect chess, just very very good chess.

[Mr Gee]

I think there are two different points here:

1. Can you develop a poker program that can beat humans?

2. If so would you get huge numbers of these bots playing online poker and ruining the game for us?

I don't think we need to worry about the first question too much, because poker sites do not and will not tolerate bots. If Party can already scan your hard drive when it wants, and check your running processes, you'd have to be pretty dedicated and tech savvy to stand a chance at avoiding detection. Some bots may get through, but not in large enough numbers to have any serious effect on the game.

[primetime32]

[ QUOTE ]

I don't think this argument is convincing. First of all, chess isn't as exact a science as you imply. Good players get defeated by worse players all the time. But I agree that the variance is much smaller than in poker.

This however, does not mean that you cannot program a bot to play as well as a human. Of course the bot could still get its virtual ass kicked in any one session, but it would win in the long run against worse opponents. By your argument, you couldn't even talk about good poker players, since they don't win every time. What I mean is that I am not convinced that you cannot program a bot to play poker as well as the best human players.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe good players get beat by worse players, but great players would not lose to you or me. It just wouldnt happen. Could you imagine bobby fisher losing a chess match to me? It simply wouldnt happen in 100 games.

but if you or me played against the best poker players in the world, we would win a few times.

The chess board is very complex, but it there are limited number of moves and calculations. If you move to a certain spot, the computer can calculate your next most probable move. In poker, the game can change when the flop or turn or river hit. The computer won't know whats coming and would have a much harder time adjusting to the ever changing situations. not to mention a full table of players and having to adjust to each and every players differences. Chess is heads up, so its easier for a computer to adjust.

With poker you have players getting up and new players coming in. So not only does poker have more variables heads up, it has a greater level of difficulty when playing against a full ring.

There is no doubt that programs can be made to win at poker. I just don't think it will ever be good enough to dominate the game like deep blue was able to dominate chess.

[StellarWind]

[ QUOTE ]
unlike other games where computers have proven to be equal or supieror(sp?) to humans, i.e. chess and backgammon, poker has a large factor of "human" element. computers will never be able to match the human element. they cant think, only process.

[/ QUOTE ]
That's ironic because good poker players don't think very much. They make almost all decisions very quickly using a trained ability to recognize patterns. Neural net programs often do well at this type of application. I wonder if it would be possible to design one that read large numbers of hand histories played by an expert and learned to imitate his play.

From a game theory perspective there is such a thing as mathematically correct poker play that cannot be beaten in the long run. The mathematics is too complicated to work out exactly for complicated games like hold'em, but there is no reason that programs could not eventually be developed that would defeat any human opponent in the long run using game theory.

Of course beating expert players is not solely what it's all about. You would also want your computer poker player to analyze opponents past play, identify leaks, and modify its own play to exploit them. The computer's potential to remember and analyze thousands of hands will be a big plus here.

In summary, expert computer poker is hard and it isn't solved yet, but there is no special reason why it can't be done.

[Wyers]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Head. Sand.

[/ QUOTE ]

Useless. Response. Got any reason for saying that? Yes? care to enlighten us?

[/ QUOTE ]

For Sciolist and mattw;

I think the poster was inferring that he preferred to be oblivious to the possible threat of poker bots... out of sight, out of mind.

I don't think there was any sinister or malicious intent in his post.

Ease up.

[theblitz]

[ QUOTE ]
Head. Sand.

[/ QUOTE ]
See:

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/critters/ostrich.html

Right at the bottom.

[CRF250X]

I wasn't trying to be an ass. I just get a kick out of comments like this:

[ QUOTE ]
computers will never be able to match the human element. they cant think, only process.

[/ QUOTE ]

For the record, I have no fear of bots at the moment. Not because I'm a good player (because I'm not) but simply because I doubt there are very many good bots out there. The reasons for this have been discussed over and over on these boards already. However, I think that believing computers will never be able to "think" is a bit naive.

CRF250X

[meow_meow]

FWIW, I'm pretty sure DN has played a significant amount of HU against this bot.

Also, I agree with posters who pointed out that winning money at low/mid level online poker doesn't take much complex thought. Beating 1/2 limit or 25NL for a reasonable amount could be achieved with a very small instruction set and no complex play at all.