3 ms·
First of all, I laughed at the 20-second average per game in self-play, since I ran into the same thing and have been trying to speed up the algorithm but haven
by bluetwo 7y ago
First of all, I laughed at the 20-second average per game in self-play, since I ran into the same thing and have been trying to speed up the algorithm but haven't been able to get it faster (without throwing more hardware at it).
Second, I haven't read everything, but I believe you are playing a cash-game and not tournament-style. Is that correct? If that is the case, any chance you will be doing a tourney-style version?
[For those who don't play, in cash, a dollar is a dollar. In Tourney play, the top 2 or 3 players get paid out, so all dollars are not equal, as your strategy changes when you have only a few chips left (avoid risky bets that would knock you out) or when you are chip leader (take risky bets when they are cheap to push around your opponents).]
Also, curious how much poker you folks play in the lab for "research".
- wallawe 7y ago> In Tourney play, the top 2 or 3 players get paid out Or top 2 or 3 thousand... depends on the tournament but it's usually the top 15% ish.
- bluetwo 7y agoTrue, I am thinking "sit and go" tournament where you would have 6 players like in this research.
- icelancer 7y agoIs there much to do here? ICM bots have this space covered pretty effectively.
- Phillipharryt 7y agoBut ICM is only a model that helps you evaluate information in the tournament, players will use it often to cap their bets or as a tipping point on a call, but I've never seen it used as a complete basis of play.
- noambrown 7y agoWe're doing cash games in this experiment. At the end of the day, this is about advancing AI, not about making a poker bot. Going from two-player to multi-player has important implications for AI beyond just poker. I don't think the same is true for cash game vs tournament. There's a cash game almost every night at the FBNY office! I don't usually play though -- I'm not nearly as good as the bot.