4 ms·

I wonder about an AI being as reluctant to go bankrupt as is a human. Maybe that reluctance is abstracted away by the betting evaluation.

• xapata 9y ago
  Yeah, that's a major flaw in their research design. In their 120k-hand competition they reset the players' bankroll after each hand in order to have the same number of hands for each trial. This dramatically changes the payoff for aggressive play. The humans were too cautious against the bot, as their experience was in an environment when going bust could end your session. In real play, going bust* doesn't just lose your current stack, but also all future possible winnings. In their experiment, going bust only loses that stack. Kind of like being a soldier rather than a general, or founder rather than a VC. * Yes, you can buy in again, but eventually you've exhausted your bankroll.
  • splonk 9y ago
    I don't believe this meaningfully affects a top HUNL cash player, who tend to have auto-rebuy set anyways and at least think that they're bankrolled for most games they play. If anything, it might help them a bit by letting them continuously play at the stack size they have the most experience with.
    • xapata 9y ago
      Bankrolled to what extent? The analysis after the experiment showed that the bot pushed small edges far harder than the humans did. Little else differed. That's consistent with my theory.