4 ms·

Your article is about actual cheating, not just automated "bot" play

by shasta 16y ago

uptown 16y ago
I know. But presumably a bot is programmed to play consistently well ... otherwise there's no point in automating the process. I'm not saying a bot's performance would approach that of someone that's cheating, but if they can be consistently successful to the point where they can play a game unattended, I suspect their dot would fall towards (or beyond) the edges of most other players.
- shasta 16y ago
  Maybe if it was just playing heads up (1v1), but with technology where it is today, playing better than a group of good humans is apparently a hard problem.
  - jhamburger 16y ago
    Yes, heads-up limit holdem is basically a solved game from an AI perspective.
- BrandonM 16y ago
  The majority of recreational players are really bad. All you have to do is make a bot that is a little bit better and not trivially exploitable. It doesn't matter how good you are, you still lose some. All you have to do to win money in the long run is be "better enough" than the majority of the competition that you can beat the rake. How would you tell the difference between a bot who plays consistently well and a human who does? It's pretty trivial to legitimately put in 10K hands per day. You think that with 250K hands in a month, a human player doesn't start to play consistently well? At that point, there will be long stretches where the players is basically on auto-pilot, a human-powered robot if you will.
  - jhamburger 16y ago
    Honestly one difference that comes to mind is that machines don't go on tilt. I knew quite a few people in the community of winning players and I never came across a single one who didn't admit to playing differently/worse while on an extended losing streak. And that includes the 250K hands a month guy. I think for a bot to be undetectable you would have to actually mimic emotional responses to losing money.
    - BrandonM 16y ago
      I envision a bot as a neural-network-based engine that adjusts its play based on fitting different opponents into different patterns. Honestly, the easiest way to develop a potentially-good bot would be to give it every piece of input and try to evolve a good player, as opposed to trying to develop all the logic manually. Such a bot is guaranteed to have some artifacts which cause it to respond to certain situations and generally play sub-optimally, basically making it look like a human player, anyways.

Your article is about actual cheating, not just automated "bot" play

by shasta 16y ago

Your article is about actual cheating, not just automated "bot" play

I know. But presumably a bot is programmed to play consistently well ... otherwise there's no point in automating the process. I'm not saying a bot's performance would approach that of someone that's cheating, but if they can be consistently successful to the point where they can play a game unattended, I suspect their dot would fall towards (or beyond) the edges of most other players.

shasta 16y ago
Maybe if it was just playing heads up (1v1), but with technology where it is today, playing better than a group of good humans is apparently a hard problem.
- jhamburger 16y ago
  Yes, heads-up limit holdem is basically a solved game from an AI perspective.
BrandonM 16y ago
The majority of recreational players are really bad. All you have to do is make a bot that is a little bit better and not trivially exploitable. It doesn't matter how good you are, you still lose some. All you have to do to win money in the long run is be "better enough" than the majority of the competition that you can beat the rake. How would you tell the difference between a bot who plays consistently well and a human who does? It's pretty trivial to legitimately put in 10K hands per day. You think that with 250K hands in a month, a human player doesn't start to play consistently well? At that point, there will be long stretches where the players is basically on auto-pilot, a human-powered robot if you will.
- jhamburger 16y ago
  Honestly one difference that comes to mind is that machines don't go on tilt. I knew quite a few people in the community of winning players and I never came across a single one who didn't admit to playing differently/worse while on an extended losing streak. And that includes the 250K hands a month guy. I think for a bot to be undetectable you would have to actually mimic emotional responses to losing money.
  - BrandonM 16y ago
    I envision a bot as a neural-network-based engine that adjusts its play based on fitting different opponents into different patterns. Honestly, the easiest way to develop a potentially-good bot would be to give it every piece of input and try to evolve a good player, as opposed to trying to develop all the logic manually. Such a bot is guaranteed to have some artifacts which cause it to respond to certain situations and generally play sub-optimally, basically making it look like a human player, anyways.