21 ms·
Upping the Ante: Top Poker Pros Face Off vs. Artificial Intelligence
- andrewclunn 10y agoOh, so playing online with access to statistical tools and analysis, so really the computer advantage for knowing the odds is completely nil. It's really only then competing in the strategy element... very interesting indeed.
- jat850 10y agoI'd consider it unlikely (especially with two-tabling, and that poker players tend to study game theory and understanding of odds offline, not "live" or during gameplay itself) that the players will be referencing or accessing any tools during play. It's just that it's becoming more and more in the toolbox of poker players to gain understanding of Nash equilibrium (conceptually and practically) and other important concepts that they fold into their strategy (based on meta-game, familiarity with the style and strategies of opponents, etc.) More sophisticated players are constantly calculating real and implied odds at all times, without relying on a tool to do so (often there is fuzzing or approximation involved, but it's typically "close enough"), but especially in heads up play it's the more esoteric parts of strategy that are more important. Bluffing, slowplays/trapping, reads and reaction (not always physical as in tells but often habits).
- rhcom2 10y agoPoker HUDs are very common online that give stats for every player (rate they have been calling at, times raised, pots won) and put it next to their icon so it can be easily used on multiple tables. (For example: https://pokercopilot.com/ https://pokercopilot.com/)
- jat850 10y agoYes, but I would place HUDs as somewhat more of a facile level of meaningful analysis - they're often used as a baseline for people who are multitabling and unable to watch a broad range of hands for patterns and habits. I've never relied on a HUD for the full decision-making in a single, particular hand. It's meta-information that is not actionable purely on its own (except maybe in the most ideal set of circumstances, like weeding out a good table vs. a bad one).
- rhcom2 10y agoI think that's fair, certainly they don't give you any meaningful strategy opinions - just basic patterns and stats.
- morkalt 10y agoHUDs don't really provide a "odds" in the way you're thinking; they record things like frequency of voluntarily putting money in pot, raising pre flop, betting/raising/3-betting at different streets...
- danenania 10y agoCalculating odds against hand ranges is too complex to be done by a human in real time while playing, even using calculators made for the purpose. Computers definitely have an advantage there. Assigning hand ranges in the first place is the trickier part for an AI, as it is more rooted in psychology.
- jat850 10y agoThis is a great way of putting it, your last part especially - assigning hand ranges is one of the things many players would probably attribute to gut or feel. Some implicit decision making ability that causes them to prune away vast parts of the possible tree and then make quick decisions on the remaining ones. Often based on knowing opponent history, observing patterns, etc.
- danenania 10y agoYep, being good at this is what separates great players from mediocre. If AI can figure it out, humans are toast.
- jat850 10y agoAgreed. I would say one difference in poker is that strategy can be (and is, constantly) adapted over the life of a competition (and over the span of several competitions). Tempo, adjustments, stack and blind management/inflection points, even opponent avoidance in certain circumstances - I expect some of those to be things that humans may hold an edge to some degree. Those factor in a lot differently in other types of games (tournament play especially). I don't understand AI well enough to know what would be the hardest possible game for AI to conquer.
- philosopheer 10y agoimagine a human player playing solo against a table full of optimally designed AI's that compute perfect statistical and economic odds based on a huge library of prior games including human games. What you are calling "advantages" for the human are no advantage at all. So now add a second human at that table, now the advantages you cite, they work only against that other player. in terms of intial hand evaluation based on "gut", this is similar to chess position evaluation, a key part of master and computer play, a part that's been hard to get right, a part that brute force depth helps to get right, a part that is now completely solved for computers in play against humans. There is nothing particularly challenging about poker that stands in the way here.
- MaxfordAndSons 10y agoSibs have alluded to this but it bears repeating: it's not a matter of simply calculating your "odds". One of the first things a player learns when getting serious about poker is how to calculate their odds of making a given hand, it becomes quite second nature, and even being able to work with floating points rather than rounded approximations would not give the AI a significant advantage. As one sib points out, calculating your odds of winning against a range of hands is significantly more difficult, but again raw computation would not give a significant advantage here as assigning an opponent an accurate range of hands without significant historical data on their play is more or less impossible.
- scotchio 10y agoDoes the AI ever bluff? Edit: Yes. > During last year’s contest, the pros noticed Claudico was making some all-too-obvious bluffs that they were able to exploit.
- danenania 10y agoCertainly. Bluffing at an optimal/unexploitable frequency is something that is quite difficult for humans to do, but is easier with access to a RNG. Some pros use systems where they look at the second hand of a clock to decide whether to bluff or not, as a proxy for randomness.
- philosopheer 10y agogotta remember to look at the clock when you are not bluffing too, otherwise you are teaching your opponents how to "tell" time.
- milcron 10y agoThey look at the clock to decide whether or not to bluff, so this is already taken care of.
- bronson 10y agoExcept, if you don't look, the table knows you aren't considering bluffing. It's still a tell.
- 21 10y agoNo it's not. There are other sources of randomness around - color of card on table, ... Don't assume pro players are so stupid as to fall in such a simple trap.
- Twirrim 10y agoThat's not the point they were making. The point was that if you're going to look at the clock and use the second hand to help you make decisions about whether or not to bluff, look at it at other times too when you're not making a decision, so that looking at the clock doesn't become a tell.
- lintiness 10y ago"Jason Les, Dong Kim, Daniel McAulay and Jimmy Chou ..." are the pros? not exactly ivey.
- jat850 10y agoThey're heads-up pros. Ivey and many other well-known names are not heads up specialists like these competitors. They'd likely have an edge over almost any "recognizable" name player.
- lintiness 10y agoi'm informed and know next to nothing about two of the names. there are plenty of guys out there the poker world recognizes as better players.
- jat850 10y agoJason Les and Dong Kim both played in the previous competition, with Doug Polk (arguably the best heads up player in the world). They're reasonably in the discussion, and other factors such as interest and availability possibly factored in.
- sekasi 10y agoyou're missing part of the point. The $200k pool of money for an actual 'celebrated' poker player is absolutely not worth the time and effort. Hence why you get a few tiers down in terms of player skill. Still valid tests though, you can't only compare it to the top 1%
- splonk 10y agoIt's not a few tiers down in skill, it's a few tiers down in fame. Each of the four players named is likely a favorite over Ivey in this format. Being a specialist counts for a lot here.
- 10y ago
- Iuz 10y agoDoug Polk, a pro that was on the first challenge just talked about this on his channel: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gz9FJfe2YGE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gz9FJfe2YGE
- conistonwater 10y agoI watched that, and I think his understanding of what a "statistical tie" is is extremely dodgy (https://youtu.be/gz9FJfe2YGE?t=10m43s https://youtu.be/gz9FJfe2YGE?t=10m43s). What's up with that? Edit: he does make a good point later on that playing thousands of games is exhausting, which would affect the reliability of the comparison between the AI and the pros. I don't know anything about poker, but it sounds plausible. Presumably this means they should make the AI so good that it can demonstrate its greatness quicker than a human gets tired.
- DavidSJ 10y agoChalk it up to poker being something you can be skilled at without really having much mathematical understanding, and throw in a little "common sense" (i.e. anti-intellectualism), and you get comments like that.
- eutectic 10y agoThe charitable interpretation of his argument is that the outcome is only a statistical 'tie' if you accept the arbitrary significance threshold of p=5%. Even relatively weak evidence is still evidence. Unfortunately, some of the examples which he claims don't pass this significance threshold actually do. This does not help his credibility.
- conistonwater 10y agoFWIW, the win rate was -91mbb/g, and so they reported the probability of being equal in skill somewhere between 5% and 10%, hence the "tie". The introduction to the other poker paper on HN now (https://arxiv.org/pdf/1701.01724v1.pdf https://arxiv.org/pdf/1701.01724v1.pdf), by a different team, from Alberta, is rather less gracious and says it was a "huge margin of victory". I think that whatever the interpretation, his video makes it clear he didn't understand any of this.
- return0 10y agoIt's unfair and rather cruel to pit humans vs computers. How about we use the AI to design a poker variant that is unbeatable by another AI ?
- jat850 10y agoUnfair and cruel to whom?
- new_hackers 10y agoWhy the computers of course
- freebeeme 10y agoOnline Pokerbots are nasty, Rotating gameplay shut up most of them.
- necessity 10y agoI'm guessing they're training the AI independently for each player, with that in mind I wonder how good it would perform when matched against a different player. Knowing your opponent's playing style is one of the main things you have to master in poker. This is specially difficult as playing style will vary as the game goes, and sometimes solely by the player's will (to trick you) and not by some information derived from the game. I can see a bot performing reasonably well on this task for a specific player despite all the difficulties, but for the general case it seems like a huge challenge (as it is for humans).
- conistonwater 10y agoThe article says they're computing (approximating) the mixed Nash equilibrium, which means it doesn't depend on the opponent's style.
- necessity 10y agoI noticed that, I just presumed they did some training.
- splonk 10y agoWithout having looked into the details of this particular bot, they're almost always trained against themselves. It would be very surprising to me if they bootstrapped with any hands from live players.
- xapata 10y agoIf it's just looking for equilibrium, it won't make any money. It also does live analysis of end-game situations, so I'm guessing it'll make use of U of Alberta's research into deviating from equilibrium to exploit leaks in the opponent's play.
- spectrum1234 10y agoIt will if the human is not playing perfectly. Which of course they aren't because they are human. The question is if the computer is playing close enough to equilibrium/optimal compared to the humans.
- IamHWengineer 10y agoi wonder why Durr (tom dwan) and Isildurr (viktor blom) are not in the mix.
- curun1r 10y agoProbably because playing 30,000 hands each for a chance to win a share of $200k is spectacularly not worth it for those guys.
- osti 10y agoAnd Durrr is known for not finishing his challenges...
- MaxfordAndSons 10y agoDwan is something of a reclusive/shady figure these days. Also it's unlikely he's currently playing anywhere close to his skill peak/ the skill level of the four selected - once a poker pro has achieved a level of fame commensurate to his, they can live comfortably for the rest of their days bleeding wealthy amateurs who get their kicks from playing (and losing) high stakes cash games against pros. Don't know about Blom - probably just insufficient action for him (couldn't tell from the article, but it seems likely they're playing play money cash games, with fixed prizes for players who end ahead).
- Mikeb85 10y agoBecause both play massive cash games where you can make/lose $200K in a night, and not have to play 30k hands...
- prawn 10y agoThey gave Isildur a ring but he didn't handle it very well.
- rampage101 10y agoIt's really unlikely the computer will win this. If it does it will be a big shock to the poker community. The pure Nash Equilibrum strategies do not work that well against thinking opponents.
- petters 10y agoDo you mean that they are using a pure strategy? I seriously doubt that. But yes, that would not be a good idea since optimal play is a complicated mixed strategy.
- splonk 10y agoNobody who's been paying attention in the poker community would be shocked by this. HULHE has already been a AI win for a few years. HUNLHE is basically just a matter of time. Nash equilibrium strategies specifically do work better against thinking opponents - the usual complaint about them is that they don't maximally exploit "bad" opponents.
- tekromancr 10y agoFor anyone else who was lost: HULHE - Heads-up Limit Hold'em HUNLHE - Heads-Up No-Limit Hold'em
- petters 10y agoPersonally, I think it would be much more interesting to see an AI compete in a multi-player game with, say, ten human pros at the table. Not just heads-up.
- blazespin 10y agoAll you'd discover is that poker is a very very volatile game and the number of tournaments it would have to play in to prove anything would be beyond time available. It's worth noting that most poker pros will constantly re-buy in early rounds in big tournaments. It's a general recognition that it takes money, not skill to survive. Being at the later tables helps them maintain their fame, which is really their business. Of course, if you're playing against amateurs or drunks, you can always win. But usually at the real tournaments they are few and far between.
- mmanfrin 10y agoIt's a general recognition that it takes money, not skill to survive. This is complete bullshit. Rebuys in the first round only help to insulate you from the chaos of the first round, where there tend to be a lot of wild players who gamble. Tournaments go on for 20, 30, 40+ rounds. The fact that people have won multiple championships and that many people continue to reach the final tables is evidence against the notion that it's just about money.
- blazespin 10y agoWrong. The rebuys let you build up a big bankroll as you feed your table. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_World_Series_of_Poker_Main_Event_champions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_World_Series_of_Poker_... Notice how there is never any repeat winners? (Well, except maybe Chan and one other.) Try sitting down at a table in vegas and play tight. Watch as everyone leaves. They just can't make enough money, you just lose it all to the rake.
- xapata 10y ago
- mmanfrin 10y agoI feel that Poker is one of those games that an AI could develop a winning strategy for, but not the most winningest. If you deployed this AI on pokerstars, it would win you money. If you deployed it at the WSOP, it would not win a bracelet.
- jknoepfler 10y agonit: as a former professional poker player, the skill level required to be a long-term winning player at a high-stakes cash game is considerably higher than the skill requirement to win a single high-stakes tournament. (I would not voluntarily sit at a high-stakes cash table without knowing there were a mark present, I would voluntarily play most WSOP tournaments)
- teej 10y agoWell of course. If you don't know who the mark is then it's likely the mark is you.
- xapata 10y agoI think "fish" is more typical. Though I suppose in Rounders it was "sucker". Still the best poker movie, despite depicting the actual poker play badly. https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Rounders_(film) https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Rounders_(film)
- splonk 10y agoAs another former pro and high stakes player, I agree, and I don't think anyone thinks it's particularly close. I'd even go so far as to say that the skill it takes to be a long term winning player at cash games is higher than that to be a long term tournament winner.
- GCA10 10y agoAgreed, and that's speaking as a stubborn amateur. In tournaments, the escalating blinds point you toward pretty straightforward strategies at different junctures. You're in the shallow end of the pool. In a cash game, you're always in the deep end.
- CoryG89 10y agoSeems unfair. Hard to read the face of an AI to tell if it's bluffing or not.
- KODeKarnage 10y agoThe 90's called. They want their poker strategy back. Poker is not about reading your opponents "tells". That is a myth perpetuated by Hollywood and ... professional poker players. While there definitely could be some value in using psychological manipulation to best your "live" opponent, gaining some advantage via a physical tell is a crap shoot at best except against the absolute worst players or the biggest mark.
- xapata 10y agoI did play with a guy for several sessions who would consistently shake his leg whenever he had a good hand. I felt so bad for him (after busting him a few times) that I told him about it so he'd fix the shaking.
- iopq 10y agoAny online poker pro will tell you that 120,000 hands is nothing. You can win over the first 120,000 hands and lose over the next 120,000 hands or break even. This is because the margins are low and the variance is very high. Someone winning 2 big blinds per 100 hands (with 80 bb variance) will win between 7901bb and -3141bb 95% of the time.
- asher_ 10y agoThis x 1000. Also, it appears they are playing a tournament, which increases the variance significantly. I actually think tournament play is less suited to measuring AI performance than a cash game, because you're basically playing a series of different games as the tournament progresses that may not be generalizable because the decision math changes based on blinds and stack size unlike a cash game. > To ensure that the outcome of the competition is not due to luck, the four pros will be paired to play duplicate matches — Player A in each pair will receive the same cards as the computer receives against Player B, and vice versa. One of the players in each of these pairs will play on the floor of the casino, while his counterpart will be isolated in a separate room. This technique won't work for the same reason mentioned above. Hands in tournament poker are necessarily not independent events.
- spectrum1234 10y agoDoes anyone else find it fascinating that AI can beat Go and Chess but not poker (no limit)? I played poker professionally for 7 years (until banned in US) and am still amazed by this.
- wapz 10y agoI feel a big difference is Google was behind the Go AI.
- arikrak 10y ago> In spite of the diversity of strategies one can design, it is important to remark that the heads-up limit Texas hold'em variation has been claimed to be "essentially weakly solved" in January 2015 by the Cepheus poker-playing bot.[1] This means that on average the program is so good that a human would have no chance of ever edging ahead of it, even if the two played 60 million hands.[2] The bot can be played online at poker.srv.ualberta.ca, and users can even query strategies from the software https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heads_up_poker https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heads_up_poker
- Tenoke 10y agoThis is for No Limit which is a whole different class of problem.