3 ms·

http://motherboard.vice.com/read/a-poker-playing-supercomputer-just-barely-lost-to-human-pros http://motherboard.vice.com/read/a-poker-playing-supercomput... Lo

by smohnot 10y ago

http://motherboard.vice.com/read/a-poker-playing-supercomputer-just-barely-lost-to-human-pros http://motherboard.vice.com/read/a-poker-playing-supercomput... Lost by $732,713, with $170 million bet... pretty close. But you're right, a victory by a chip will be declared a win

oculusthrift 10y ago
also important to note they made the players play thousands of hands over weeks and many said how they played in a way to shorten the time they had to play. thereby not necessarily showing their "true" skill.
- patrick_haply 10y ago
  > also important to note they made the players play thousands of hands over weeks To your point, I wonder how they account for mental and physical fatigue. To a computer it makes no difference to play thousands of hands over such a long period of time or hundreds of hands over the course of a single day. Humans on the other hand don't have the same attention span as a computer.
  - oculusthrift 10y ago
    not to mention that people play differently with fake money than real money.
    - thefalcon 10y ago
      On the Twitch Stream, Jason Les "promises" that "even though this is not real money" it really matters to him.
dgacmu 10y ago
That's both an unfair slight to the ethics of the researchers involved, as well as inaccurate. They've published in advance their criteria for declaring a victory vs a tie: http://www.cardplayer.com/poker-news/21215-poker-bot-doubles-lead-in-historic-match-against-humans http://www.cardplayer.com/poker-news/21215-poker-bot-doubles... which is: "If after 120,000 hands either Libratus or the humans are one standard deviation above break-even, they will have won the competition with “statistical significance.”" (I'm a professor at CMU, but I have nothing to do with this research or competition.)
- oculusthrift 10y ago
  we mostly mean by the media. Story if they barely lose "Poker bot statistically ties pros". Story if they are one chip up: "Poker bot leads/beats pros"
- andrewprock 10y ago
  One standard deviation is not enough to declare that one strategy is better than another.

by smohnot 10y ago

oculusthrift 10y ago

also important to note they made the players play thousands of hands over weeks and many said how they played in a way to shorten the time they had to play. thereby not necessarily showing their "true" skill.

patrick_haply 10y ago
> also important to note they made the players play thousands of hands over weeks To your point, I wonder how they account for mental and physical fatigue. To a computer it makes no difference to play thousands of hands over such a long period of time or hundreds of hands over the course of a single day. Humans on the other hand don't have the same attention span as a computer.
- oculusthrift 10y ago
  not to mention that people play differently with fake money than real money.
  - thefalcon 10y ago
    On the Twitch Stream, Jason Les "promises" that "even though this is not real money" it really matters to him.

dgacmu 10y ago

That's both an unfair slight to the ethics of the researchers involved, as well as inaccurate. They've published in advance their criteria for declaring a victory vs a tie: http://www.cardplayer.com/poker-news/21215-poker-bot-doubles-lead-in-historic-match-against-humans http://www.cardplayer.com/poker-news/21215-poker-bot-doubles... which is: "If after 120,000 hands either Libratus or the humans are one standard deviation above break-even, they will have won the competition with “statistical significance.”" (I'm a professor at CMU, but I have nothing to do with this research or competition.)

oculusthrift 10y ago
we mostly mean by the media. Story if they barely lose "Poker bot statistically ties pros". Story if they are one chip up: "Poker bot leads/beats pros"
andrewprock 10y ago
One standard deviation is not enough to declare that one strategy is better than another.