4 ms·

How is that not no limit?

notahacker 10y ago
One of the distinctive traits of no limit tournament is that on any given hand a player can be knocked out the game with a big enough bet, which affects how players are likely to play (as might one player amassing a large chip lead ove another if neither player opts to go all in on early hands) Of course it also makes games shorter and introduces a lot more variance, which isn't so good for assessing how well a computer plays.
- Jefro118 10y ago
  This isn't a tournament though, it's more like playing a very long cash game where the stacks are reset on each hand. Whoever has the profit at the end of the cash game will be the winner.
andrewprock 10y ago
In no limit, if you lose a hand you have fewer chips, which changes the applicable strategy. There is no version of no limit where every hand is played with the same number of chips. It is akin to only playing the first 10 moves of a chess game, then resetting.
- Jefro118 10y ago
  This is indeed a version of no limit. What defines it as no limit is that there is "no limit" on the bet sizes. The fact that the chips are reset each hand doesn't mean it isn't no limit. The chess analogy would be more akin to resetting after the flop.
  - andrewprock 10y ago
    On the contrary, no limit is never played where you reset the game after every hand. The fact that this is happening indicates that the strategy is not in fact complete. I expect the strategy would lose a heads up tournament nearly every time.
    - poikniok 10y ago
      I am pretty sure you are trying to level people, nobody can misunderstand a simple concept to this extent.
      - andrewprock 10y ago
        Not at all. Their strategy has almost no practical level in any existing poker game. They've come up with a solution to a variant of poker that no one actually plays. It's a great solution, and at that stack size, I'm sure it's better than nearly every human competitor. But until they solve all stack sizes down to one big blind, their strategy is practically incomplete.
        poikniok 10y ago
        You do realize that the deeper the effective stacks are the harder the game is to solve? It is far easier to approach GTO the closer we get to push fold games, and thus your suggestion is akin to acknowledging that they have landed on the moon, but how about they climb this tree over here. If your username suggests you are who you are, this is a bit bizarre to me that an apparently intelligent engineering manager who has played poker before can be so woefully misinformed. If you want to learn more I suggest posting your thoughts on 2+2, they will gladly explain why your thesis makes no sense.
        andrewprock 10y ago
        Yes, I am who I am, and I've done a little more than "play poker before". While it is true that solving a smaller stack size is cheaper, you have to solve many stack sizes from 1 to N to get good coverage across the space of all play. I've been following this work for over 15 years, and they certainly deserve credit for what they did. But what they have done falls short of the banner headline.

One of the distinctive traits of no limit tournament is that on any given hand a player can be knocked out the game with a big enough bet, which affects how players are likely to play (as might one player amassing a large chip lead ove another if neither player opts to go all in on early hands) Of course it also makes games shorter and introduces a lot more variance, which isn't so good for assessing how well a computer plays.

Jefro118 10y ago
This isn't a tournament though, it's more like playing a very long cash game where the stacks are reset on each hand. Whoever has the profit at the end of the cash game will be the winner.

andrewprock 10y ago

In no limit, if you lose a hand you have fewer chips, which changes the applicable strategy. There is no version of no limit where every hand is played with the same number of chips. It is akin to only playing the first 10 moves of a chess game, then resetting.

Jefro118 10y ago
This is indeed a version of no limit. What defines it as no limit is that there is "no limit" on the bet sizes. The fact that the chips are reset each hand doesn't mean it isn't no limit. The chess analogy would be more akin to resetting after the flop.
- andrewprock 10y ago
  On the contrary, no limit is never played where you reset the game after every hand. The fact that this is happening indicates that the strategy is not in fact complete. I expect the strategy would lose a heads up tournament nearly every time.
  - poikniok 10y ago
    I am pretty sure you are trying to level people, nobody can misunderstand a simple concept to this extent.
    - andrewprock 10y ago
      Not at all. Their strategy has almost no practical level in any existing poker game. They've come up with a solution to a variant of poker that no one actually plays. It's a great solution, and at that stack size, I'm sure it's better than nearly every human competitor. But until they solve all stack sizes down to one big blind, their strategy is practically incomplete.
      - poikniok 10y ago
        You do realize that the deeper the effective stacks are the harder the game is to solve? It is far easier to approach GTO the closer we get to push fold games, and thus your suggestion is akin to acknowledging that they have landed on the moon, but how about they climb this tree over here. If your username suggests you are who you are, this is a bit bizarre to me that an apparently intelligent engineering manager who has played poker before can be so woefully misinformed. If you want to learn more I suggest posting your thoughts on 2+2, they will gladly explain why your thesis makes no sense.
        andrewprock 10y ago
        Yes, I am who I am, and I've done a little more than "play poker before". While it is true that solving a smaller stack size is cheaper, you have to solve many stack sizes from 1 to N to get good coverage across the space of all play. I've been following this work for over 15 years, and they certainly deserve credit for what they did. But what they have done falls short of the banner headline.