3 ms·
I would expect most competitors will attempt to design a simplified GTO/balanced (un-exploitable) strategy, with some base assumptions what's considered as "goo
by heyitsnick 16y ago
I would expect most competitors will attempt to design a simplified GTO/balanced (un-exploitable) strategy, with some base assumptions what's considered as "good poker". The only way I can see teams approaching a more exploitive strategy is if the tournament was filled with lots of very weak 'house bots' with highly exploitive strategies (like the previous rock-sissors-paper bot competion that was filled with lots of non-GTO house bots that could be predicted and exploited).
No known bots have come close to playing competitively heads up or ring in big-bet games (such as no-limit or PLO) above the micro/lowstakes. However bots already exist that are very strong at limit heads up.
- jaekwon 16y agoWith enough number of hands played and space for storage of history it should be possible to exploit each other, or at least the opportunity is there.
- heyitsnick 16y agoCertainly possible, and teams can utilise off-the-shelf analytics tools to aid in the analysis (if that's allowed); however using this information beyond very simple adjustments (such as preflop) is very difficult. Also any deviation from a balanced strategy will open up the bot to counter-exploitation. As I say if dummy players are in there (playing easily exploitable passive or maniacal strategy) then I think there's good reason to implement an exploitive strat; otherwise the effort probably won't have the payoff amongst other static-strategy players.
- Dn_Ab 16y agoGame theoretically optimal strategies for poker can only be reasonably approximated so there remains room for even these strategies to be exploited.