3 ms·
Yeah, that is kinda what I was trying to tease out. These 10K hands are nothing compared to the XM of hands these pros have already played. It would be interest
by snarf21 7y ago
Yeah, that is kinda what I was trying to tease out. These 10K hands are nothing compared to the XM of hands these pros have already played. It would be interesting to see how well they did after 1M hands. I'm sure the bot would likely still have an edge but I'd assume the players would adjust their strategy and but less confused by the random sized bets.
I was also confused by the sample videos where everyone had $10K at the start of each of the demo hands. It was unclear to me if that just the simulation of the hands or actual game play. If everyone starts every hand with $10K, then the feat seems less strong as going all-in has less risk.
- splonk 7y agoStacks are reset to 10k at the beginning of each hand, so they can use every hand to train a single model with the same starting state.
- MFLoon 7y agoThe fixed stack size doesn't really discount anything to me - it makes sense as an experimental control; and it's a cash game so there's no additional risk to going all in regardless of stack size. But yea the sample size is definitely too small imo; when tested the heads up version of the bot some years ago they had it play a bigger sample (50 or 100k iirc?).
- bostik 7y agoIn online poker (at least with 100BB stacks) it's customary to top up between hands if you're below full stack. The reason is simple: with table stakes, your maximum win for a hand is constrained by your own stack size.