3 ms·
Noone said it wasn't. Fact is a gametheoretically optimal player will beat all players than dont play gametheoretically optimal. So yes you are right that a pe
by schtog 18y ago
Noone said it wasn't. Fact is a gametheoretically optimal player will beat all players than dont play gametheoretically optimal.
So yes you are right that a perfectly playing bot might not beat a really weak player for as much as the best human players would but that is not the question here.
The question is whether a bot can beat the best human players and if it plays GT-optimal and the human doesn't, well then the bot will win.
And it doesn't matter if human players can still beat the weak players for more.
If people find out they are playing against robots they will quit playing (well I'd assume they would).
The goal of malicious bots wouldn't be to beat the highstakes-games but rather fishing out the small ponds.
And then the pyramid falls and you will have to get a real job;)
- mattmaroon 18y agoIsn't it incredibly difficult to build a bot that plays gametheoretically optimal, other than in rather simple situations (like large portions of a heads up limit match)? My friends who understand such things tell me not to worry about it just yet. And nothing can make me get a real job.
- schtog 18y agoIt might be, I am not THAT knowledgeable about gametheory and poker-AI, I was just straightening out the concepts. From what I understand 3-player poker is much more like 9-player poker than HU and NL is much more complicated than limit.