5 ms·

Oh, 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

Oh, 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 ago
I'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 ago
  Poker 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 ago
    Yes, 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 ago
      I think that's fair, certainly they don't give you any meaningful strategy opinions - just basic patterns and stats.
morkalt 10y ago
HUDs 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 ago
Calculating 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 ago
  This 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 ago
    Yep, being good at this is what separates great players from mediocre. If AI can figure it out, humans are toast.
    - jat850 10y ago
      Agreed. 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 ago
        imagine 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 ago
Sibs 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.

jat850 10y ago

I'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 ago
Poker 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 ago
  Yes, 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 ago
    I think that's fair, certainly they don't give you any meaningful strategy opinions - just basic patterns and stats.

morkalt 10y ago

HUDs 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 ago

Calculating 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 ago
This 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 ago
  Yep, being good at this is what separates great players from mediocre. If AI can figure it out, humans are toast.
  - jat850 10y ago
    Agreed. 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 ago
      imagine 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 ago

Sibs 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.