3 ms·
That depends on what you mean by "correct". Sure, you could theoretically find Nash equilibrium of poker and by playing the equilibrium strategy, you can ensure
by mormegil 10y ago
That depends on what you mean by "correct". Sure, you could theoretically find Nash equilibrium of poker and by playing the equilibrium strategy, you can ensure you won't lose. But that does not mean this is the best strategy to use at a given table against the given opponents, who (being imperfect humans) almost certainly do not play the equilibrium strategy themselves. And, by playing a proper nonequilibrium strategy, suited to the specific players, you can win more.
- andrewprock 10y agoThe usual way these games are solved is to create an "abstract" game which is tractable, find the Nash equilibrium, and map state in the real game back to the "abstract" game. In the limit, the solutions for a well designed "abstract" game will converge to that of the real game.
- mormegil 10y agoYou are explaining how current algorithms try to find the (approximate) Nash equilibrium (and those algorithms are far from perfect; as noted in the recent DeepStack paper, current abstraction-based programs are beatable by over 3000 mbb/g, which is four times as large as simply folding each game). But my point is that even the (exact) equilibrium strategy would not necessarily be the best strategy against given non-equilibrium-playing players.
- andrewprock 10y agoYes, you are correct on every point. Opponent modeling and exploitation is significantly more difficult than coming up with a Nash equilibrium to an abstract game.