4 ms·

I 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

I 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 ago
nit: 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 ago
  Well of course. If you don't know who the mark is then it's likely the mark is you.
  - xapata 10y ago
    I 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 ago
  As 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 ago
  Agreed, 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.
kolbe 10y ago
One thing to support this is the idea that there doesn't seem to be much more to differentiate a winner and a loser at the WSOP than randomness. Among the best players, they are likely so close in skill that winning and event is determined by a slightly weighted coin toss. The other side is that if AI could discover some elements of lie detection that even humans cannot observe. It may not have anything to do with the power of the AI's computing, but more that its hardware can observe outside stimuli that humans cannot, and the AI may be able to integrate it into its strategy (e.g. a facial twitch that cannot even be seen by the naked eye).
- mmanfrin 10y ago
  I think the latter point is the one that could give an AI the edge to bracelet-win at poker. The play itself is too human for an AI to develop the right strategy, but the AI can find sources of truth in the physical actions of human opponents that humans would not be able to see.

jknoepfler 10y ago

nit: 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 ago
Well of course. If you don't know who the mark is then it's likely the mark is you.
- xapata 10y ago
  I 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 ago
As 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 ago
Agreed, 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.

kolbe 10y ago

One thing to support this is the idea that there doesn't seem to be much more to differentiate a winner and a loser at the WSOP than randomness. Among the best players, they are likely so close in skill that winning and event is determined by a slightly weighted coin toss. The other side is that if AI could discover some elements of lie detection that even humans cannot observe. It may not have anything to do with the power of the AI's computing, but more that its hardware can observe outside stimuli that humans cannot, and the AI may be able to integrate it into its strategy (e.g. a facial twitch that cannot even be seen by the naked eye).

mmanfrin 10y ago
I think the latter point is the one that could give an AI the edge to bracelet-win at poker. The play itself is too human for an AI to develop the right strategy, but the AI can find sources of truth in the physical actions of human opponents that humans would not be able to see.