4 ms·

I may be ignorant but I still don’t understand the fuss about this feat. I mean poker is all about probability, right? With uncertainty about bluffing and fraug

I may be ignorant but I still don’t understand the fuss about this feat. I mean poker is all about probability, right? With uncertainty about bluffing and fraught with emotional control problems. So naturally, a machine is best suited for this kind of problem, but not human. The bluffing problem can also be solved with heuristic optimization techniques like GA. Thus, is it not obvious that machines/algorithms will beat humans in the long run?

mym1990 5y ago
The distinction is that the number of branches that manifest in games of incomplete information can become utterly massive, and then you add in 6-10 players at once, all playing at world class levels, and you have a real computation problem. I mean maybe this is a trivial thing to solve for you, in which case kudos, but its pretty neat for a lot of onlookers(and participants).