4 ms·
Does 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 explo
by scotchio 10y ago
Does 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.
- xapata 10y agoYou should consider bluffing on every action. Otherwise it's not random enough. Not all bluffs are wild all-ins with deuce-seven off-suit. Some bluffs are a bet instead of a check, or a bet slightly larger than typical.
- morkalt 10y agoI use the second hand on my watch to help with mixed strategies; sometimes using it to inform size of raise, or the direction of raise/fold, raise/call, and (rarely) call/fold decisions. As such, if you happen to notice me look at my watch, you can deduce I might be raising, or calling, or folding, with a strong, weak, or medium hand that is already made, or on the come; or that I am interested in the time for a reason such as wondering how long i've taken, how long i've been at the table, if i need to leave, if a new dealer might sit and collect time soon, or something else. I get that you're a pedant who wants to be right; but it's not a remotely useful tell unless the person does it only in one type of situation. but nobody who is concerned about how well they mix a mixed strategy is dumb enough to mix only _one_ strategy. edit: and i'm not a pro. i play in mid-stake games with $1-5k buy-ins.
- bronson 10y agoApparently you're also a pedant who wants to be right.
- dfan 10y agoBluffing seems like a human tactic but in fact is completely mathematically justified and is absolutely required for optimal play. A bot that bluffs will destroy a bot that doesn't.
- TwoBit 10y agoSurely your assertion can be tested with bots.
- user5994461 10y agoLast I worked on some maths algo for simple game, there were output the "perfect" probability to do any action, including bluffing or not bluffing.
- petters 10y agoYou can compute perfect strategies for much simpler variants of Hold’em, e.g. Leduc Hold’em. Then you see that bluffing is absolutely required for optimal play.