5 ms·

AI beats human poker champions

28 points by nickb 18y ago

llimllib 18y ago
more at http://www.overcomingbias.com/2008/07/poker-vs-chess.html http://www.overcomingbias.com/2008/07/poker-vs-chess.html and http://www.cs.ualberta.ca/~games/poker/man-machine/ http://www.cs.ualberta.ca/~games/poker/man-machine/.
- mattmaroon 18y ago
  "far more people play poker than chess" Is that true? Certainly in the US, but worldwide?
  - deleted 18y ago
    [deleted]
  - coglethorpe 18y ago
    Well, I've heard that many online players are from Sweden, and I think tour players as well. Other countries have poker rooms and allow online gambling openly.
aggieben 18y ago
I would expect this to be true of any probability-based game, particularly where: 1) the distinct human advantage of unquantifiable sensory perception is taken away (i.e., a person can't "read" a computer's body language to make his probabilistic estimations more accurate), thus reducing the game to a number-crunching contest. We haven't been winning those contests since the 40s. 2) enough time is injected into the experiment.
- dangoldin 18y ago
  Well the fact that the machine is using probability and is playing rationally can be used by opposing player.
- gizmo 18y ago
  You have clearly never played poker. Suppose the PC has 2 aces. It knows it has the best hand (worst cast: tie against the last two aces), so it wants to put all the money in. However, the human will just fold because the computer is so predictable. Result: the PC essentially wastes his big hands because of the predictable behavior. So the computer has to start bluffing, and semibluffing, just like humans. However, with every bluff you make you're wasting money (as bluffs are by definition sub-optimal play). So you have to estimate how much you gain in the future by making that bluff. But if the PC uses simple heuristics then the human can once again get the upper hand. E.g. the human can make outrageous bluffs, knowing that the PC knows the bluffs are unprofitable and therefore unlikely. That way the PC will lose once again. Poker is not trivial - and people without any number crunching skills can win from the best number crunchers if they're predictable.
  - aggieben 18y ago
    You have clearly never played poker. What is it with people that think this kind of quip buys some sort of credibility? This is the second time today that someone has started a response with "Clearly, you have never...". I have played poker. I have also baked (reference to other thread). Anyway, I don't buy what you're selling. It doesn't seem that it would be hard to make the computer be unpredictable, unless suddenly humans become good at figuring out the machinations of a pseudo-random number generator instinctively, and in real-time. Make the computer do irrational things at random intervals. The whole point is that a human player, not knowing what cards the computer has, will have little introspection into the computer's intended course of action. I suppose you could tell some things, depending on the rules of the game (i.e., if the computer traded 3 cards in a 5-card hand, you might assume he had a bad hand). Essentially, it seems that you just said "it's easy to beat the computer if it plays stupid". That doesn't have anything to do with this. The computer can be both a perfect number cruncher and entirely unpredictable, and given enough dealt hands, I don't see how you could beat it.
    - gizmo 18y ago
      The remark wasn't meant to establish my credibility, I was just saying you make elementary mistakes. My hunch is you have no experience playing poker. This doesn't necessarily make you wrong, but it doesn't exactly work in your advantage. Are you really saying that the computer doesn't need to use any psychology - and can become "world champion" just by playing a mathematically perfect game with some random bluffs thrown in? You've got to be kidding me. (Just for the record - I'm talking NL hold'em here. If you're talking about 5 card draw you have a point. As that game doesn't have the same opportunity for psychology)
mattmaroon 18y ago
They at least used a couple very good heads up limit players this time, rather than Phil Laak and some other guy nobody has heard of.
- ivankirigin 18y ago
  Would you agree with me that they are playing a different game? If you remove the human element, the players can't use one of their skills.
  - jm4 18y ago
    Exactly. When playing against a machine, a human can't use one of his skills but it doesn't apply anymore. There's no need to read an opponent or employ deception because a machine doesn't understand this. Any serious poker player knows that the best strategy for winning is to make your opponent make mistakes while minimizing your own. One of the primary tools for accomplishing this is the use of deception. Once the game is reduced to calculating the odds at any given moment and betting when they're in your favor, even a simple machine should be able to beat a human as long as it makes reliable calculations. It should really come as no surprise that a machine can beat a human at a task that machines are really good at.
    - mattmaroon 18y ago
      It calculates odds by assigning a range of holdings to you based on your play, so deception is still very useful.
      - jm4 18y ago
        Not necessarily. Basically, the only deception available is overplaying or underplaying a hand. There are also other factors that determine whether it's worthwhile to bet. I'm no expert, but I think the size of the ante or current bet relative to the pot is going to make a bigger impact. A human can manipulate some of these factors to affect the way a machine plays, but this is at a great risk and various human mistakes are inevitable. The machine may be tricked into betting or folding when it shouldn't, but it can be counted on to get the arithmetic right every time. I'm not sure the risk is worth the potential reward in this situation. I'm thinking a human is going to make far more mistakes than the machine.
lpgauth 18y ago
Wonder if this was no-limit hold em? If it is it's impressive. If not well the probabilities are not that challenging.
- MaysonL 18y ago
  Duplicate limit hold-em (same hands played at other table, with human and machine reversed)
wallflower 18y ago
> BioTools Inc. (Edmonton, Alberta) has built previous versions of Polaris into a downloadable poker coach called the Poker Academy.
schtog 18y ago
Most people here need to look into what OPTIMAL in a gametheoretic sense means. It doesn't mean optimal in the way people normally use it. A player playing gametheoretically optimal will beat ALL other players. That is however not the same thing as playing the most exploitative poker against every single player. So the perfect bot would beat all the other players in the world, including the best human but if the bot plays the worst pokerplayer in the world and so does the best human player then the best human player might beat the worst human player for more money than the bot would beat the worst human player.
- mattmaroon 18y ago
  Won't a player playing gametheoretically optimal tie with all other players? That's what my math-nerd poker friends all tell me.
  - schtog 18y ago
    In for example roshambo that is the case but not in poker. Poker has dominated strategical choices so someone playing gametheorhetically optimal will beat someone that doesn't. Of course if his opponent is also playing GT-optimally they will tie. Then of course there is rake to consider so if the opponent plays close enough to GT-optimal you might both still lose if the rake is high.
steveplace 18y ago
I'm really surprised no one has yet to mention this: codingthewheel.com is currently going through an explanation on how to build a winning poker bot online. Here's the latest post. http://www.codingthewheel.com/archives/how-i-built-a-working-online-poker-bot-4 http://www.codingthewheel.com/archives/how-i-built-a-working...

28 points by nickb 18y ago

more at http://www.overcomingbias.com/2008/07/poker-vs-chess.html http://www.overcomingbias.com/2008/07/poker-vs-chess.html and http://www.cs.ualberta.ca/~games/poker/man-machine/ http://www.cs.ualberta.ca/~games/poker/man-machine/.

mattmaroon 18y ago
"far more people play poker than chess" Is that true? Certainly in the US, but worldwide?
- deleted 18y ago
  [deleted]
- coglethorpe 18y ago
  Well, I've heard that many online players are from Sweden, and I think tour players as well. Other countries have poker rooms and allow online gambling openly.

aggieben 18y ago

I would expect this to be true of any probability-based game, particularly where: 1) the distinct human advantage of unquantifiable sensory perception is taken away (i.e., a person can't "read" a computer's body language to make his probabilistic estimations more accurate), thus reducing the game to a number-crunching contest. We haven't been winning those contests since the 40s. 2) enough time is injected into the experiment.

dangoldin 18y ago
Well the fact that the machine is using probability and is playing rationally can be used by opposing player.
gizmo 18y ago
You have clearly never played poker. Suppose the PC has 2 aces. It knows it has the best hand (worst cast: tie against the last two aces), so it wants to put all the money in. However, the human will just fold because the computer is so predictable. Result: the PC essentially wastes his big hands because of the predictable behavior. So the computer has to start bluffing, and semibluffing, just like humans. However, with every bluff you make you're wasting money (as bluffs are by definition sub-optimal play). So you have to estimate how much you gain in the future by making that bluff. But if the PC uses simple heuristics then the human can once again get the upper hand. E.g. the human can make outrageous bluffs, knowing that the PC knows the bluffs are unprofitable and therefore unlikely. That way the PC will lose once again. Poker is not trivial - and people without any number crunching skills can win from the best number crunchers if they're predictable.
- aggieben 18y ago
  You have clearly never played poker. What is it with people that think this kind of quip buys some sort of credibility? This is the second time today that someone has started a response with "Clearly, you have never...". I have played poker. I have also baked (reference to other thread). Anyway, I don't buy what you're selling. It doesn't seem that it would be hard to make the computer be unpredictable, unless suddenly humans become good at figuring out the machinations of a pseudo-random number generator instinctively, and in real-time. Make the computer do irrational things at random intervals. The whole point is that a human player, not knowing what cards the computer has, will have little introspection into the computer's intended course of action. I suppose you could tell some things, depending on the rules of the game (i.e., if the computer traded 3 cards in a 5-card hand, you might assume he had a bad hand). Essentially, it seems that you just said "it's easy to beat the computer if it plays stupid". That doesn't have anything to do with this. The computer can be both a perfect number cruncher and entirely unpredictable, and given enough dealt hands, I don't see how you could beat it.
  - gizmo 18y ago
    The remark wasn't meant to establish my credibility, I was just saying you make elementary mistakes. My hunch is you have no experience playing poker. This doesn't necessarily make you wrong, but it doesn't exactly work in your advantage. Are you really saying that the computer doesn't need to use any psychology - and can become "world champion" just by playing a mathematically perfect game with some random bluffs thrown in? You've got to be kidding me. (Just for the record - I'm talking NL hold'em here. If you're talking about 5 card draw you have a point. As that game doesn't have the same opportunity for psychology)

mattmaroon 18y ago

They at least used a couple very good heads up limit players this time, rather than Phil Laak and some other guy nobody has heard of.

ivankirigin 18y ago
Would you agree with me that they are playing a different game? If you remove the human element, the players can't use one of their skills.
- jm4 18y ago
  Exactly. When playing against a machine, a human can't use one of his skills but it doesn't apply anymore. There's no need to read an opponent or employ deception because a machine doesn't understand this. Any serious poker player knows that the best strategy for winning is to make your opponent make mistakes while minimizing your own. One of the primary tools for accomplishing this is the use of deception. Once the game is reduced to calculating the odds at any given moment and betting when they're in your favor, even a simple machine should be able to beat a human as long as it makes reliable calculations. It should really come as no surprise that a machine can beat a human at a task that machines are really good at.
  - mattmaroon 18y ago
    It calculates odds by assigning a range of holdings to you based on your play, so deception is still very useful.
    - jm4 18y ago
      Not necessarily. Basically, the only deception available is overplaying or underplaying a hand. There are also other factors that determine whether it's worthwhile to bet. I'm no expert, but I think the size of the ante or current bet relative to the pot is going to make a bigger impact. A human can manipulate some of these factors to affect the way a machine plays, but this is at a great risk and various human mistakes are inevitable. The machine may be tricked into betting or folding when it shouldn't, but it can be counted on to get the arithmetic right every time. I'm not sure the risk is worth the potential reward in this situation. I'm thinking a human is going to make far more mistakes than the machine.

lpgauth 18y ago

Wonder if this was no-limit hold em? If it is it's impressive. If not well the probabilities are not that challenging.

MaysonL 18y ago
Duplicate limit hold-em (same hands played at other table, with human and machine reversed)

wallflower 18y ago

> BioTools Inc. (Edmonton, Alberta) has built previous versions of Polaris into a downloadable poker coach called the Poker Academy.

schtog 18y ago

Most people here need to look into what OPTIMAL in a gametheoretic sense means. It doesn't mean optimal in the way people normally use it. A player playing gametheoretically optimal will beat ALL other players. That is however not the same thing as playing the most exploitative poker against every single player. So the perfect bot would beat all the other players in the world, including the best human but if the bot plays the worst pokerplayer in the world and so does the best human player then the best human player might beat the worst human player for more money than the bot would beat the worst human player.

mattmaroon 18y ago
Won't a player playing gametheoretically optimal tie with all other players? That's what my math-nerd poker friends all tell me.
- schtog 18y ago
  In for example roshambo that is the case but not in poker. Poker has dominated strategical choices so someone playing gametheorhetically optimal will beat someone that doesn't. Of course if his opponent is also playing GT-optimally they will tie. Then of course there is rake to consider so if the opponent plays close enough to GT-optimal you might both still lose if the rake is high.

steveplace 18y ago

I'm really surprised no one has yet to mention this: codingthewheel.com is currently going through an explanation on how to build a winning poker bot online. Here's the latest post. http://www.codingthewheel.com/archives/how-i-built-a-working-online-poker-bot-4 http://www.codingthewheel.com/archives/how-i-built-a-working...