6 ms·

Surely nobody is surprised? Perfect knowledge of probabilities, no emotion and immune to bluffing.

by MaggieL 10y ago

random_rr 10y ago
Uh... that's a very dismissive comment for quite the breakthrough! Congrats to the human players and the AI team for a great showmatch.
throw_away 10y ago
"Capable of bluffing" would perhaps be the surprising thing.
- xapata 10y ago
  To "bluff" in this case is defined as putting in more money than would be smart if all cards were played face-up. The AI is easily capable of bluffing and in fact should do so frequently.
DennisP 10y ago
It's not immune to bluffing, it's just better at it than humans are. Bluff too much, and your opponent can just call you whenever he has a strong hand, winning more often than not. Don't bluff enough, and your opponent can fold whenever you bet, knowing you probably do have a strong hand. Find the right balance, and your opponent can't exploit you. With no-limit hold'em this is extremely complicated, and until recently the best humans have always beaten the best bots.
sanswork 10y ago
Nothing is immune to bluffing.
jasonwatkinspdx 10y ago
> immune to bluffing There's no such thing. An algorithm playing straight hand value based on probabilities is more susceptible to bluffing, not less. And this is no limit, where a single hand can swing all the chips. Any poker AI that isn't a loser is going to have some pretty sophisticated modeling of the opponent.
- algorias 10y ago
  Having a poker AI that plays deterministic strategies is an obviously terrible idea, for the precise reason you mention. It makes much more sense for the strategy space to be the set of probability distributions over game moves (i.e. mixed strategies). I think that the optimal mixed strategy for each hand is immune to bluffing (over many hands it will have larger expected winnings against a bluffer). If that wasn't the case, there would exist no Bayes-Nash equilibrium for the game, contradicting Nash's theorem.
  - hnkain 10y ago
    It would be surprising to me if a completely deterministic strategy wasn't within some very close margin of an optimal strategy. For example, if you think you should raise with JJ 1/3 of the time and call the rest of the time in some spot, then you can raise JcJd and JhJs and call with the other jacks. This can give your opponent slightly more information about your range in some cases (for example, if they hold a J themselves), and of course you can only approximate correct frequencies, but it's highly unlikely (in my opinion at least) that such a deterministic strategy would be terrible.
    - xapata 10y ago
      Conversely, I'd be very surprised if any deterministic strategy were remotely good. I've played against people with reasonable tight-aggressive strategies who were a bit too deterministic. They get crushed. It'd be far too easy to recognize when they have a good hand and fold and to push them off all their marginal hands.
      - DCF 10y ago
        Which really shows how the game has gotten so much harder. Ten years ago someone playing a fundamentally solid deterministic strategy could print money online. And in many low stakes casino games that is probably still true.
  - jasonwatkinspdx 10y ago

Surely nobody is surprised? Perfect knowledge of probabilities, no emotion and immune to bluffing.

by MaggieL 10y ago

Surely nobody is surprised? Perfect knowledge of probabilities, no emotion and immune to bluffing.

Uh... that's a very dismissive comment for quite the breakthrough! Congrats to the human players and the AI team for a great showmatch.

throw_away 10y ago

"Capable of bluffing" would perhaps be the surprising thing.

xapata 10y ago
To "bluff" in this case is defined as putting in more money than would be smart if all cards were played face-up. The AI is easily capable of bluffing and in fact should do so frequently.

DennisP 10y ago

It's not immune to bluffing, it's just better at it than humans are. Bluff too much, and your opponent can just call you whenever he has a strong hand, winning more often than not. Don't bluff enough, and your opponent can fold whenever you bet, knowing you probably do have a strong hand. Find the right balance, and your opponent can't exploit you. With no-limit hold'em this is extremely complicated, and until recently the best humans have always beaten the best bots.

sanswork 10y ago

Nothing is immune to bluffing.

jasonwatkinspdx 10y ago

> immune to bluffing There's no such thing. An algorithm playing straight hand value based on probabilities is more susceptible to bluffing, not less. And this is no limit, where a single hand can swing all the chips. Any poker AI that isn't a loser is going to have some pretty sophisticated modeling of the opponent.

algorias 10y ago
Having a poker AI that plays deterministic strategies is an obviously terrible idea, for the precise reason you mention. It makes much more sense for the strategy space to be the set of probability distributions over game moves (i.e. mixed strategies). I think that the optimal mixed strategy for each hand is immune to bluffing (over many hands it will have larger expected winnings against a bluffer). If that wasn't the case, there would exist no Bayes-Nash equilibrium for the game, contradicting Nash's theorem.
- hnkain 10y ago
  It would be surprising to me if a completely deterministic strategy wasn't within some very close margin of an optimal strategy. For example, if you think you should raise with JJ 1/3 of the time and call the rest of the time in some spot, then you can raise JcJd and JhJs and call with the other jacks. This can give your opponent slightly more information about your range in some cases (for example, if they hold a J themselves), and of course you can only approximate correct frequencies, but it's highly unlikely (in my opinion at least) that such a deterministic strategy would be terrible.
  - xapata 10y ago
    Conversely, I'd be very surprised if any deterministic strategy were remotely good. I've played against people with reasonable tight-aggressive strategies who were a bit too deterministic. They get crushed. It'd be far too easy to recognize when they have a good hand and fold and to push them off all their marginal hands.
    - DCF 10y ago
      Which really shows how the game has gotten so much harder. Ten years ago someone playing a fundamentally solid deterministic strategy could print money online. And in many low stakes casino games that is probably still true.
- jasonwatkinspdx 10y ago