4 ms·
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 matt
by 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 agoHonestly 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 agoI 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.