4 ms·

I'd be interested to see the results of two bots playing against humans. Bot One just plays the odds. Bot Two just plays the odd, but has a small chance of bl

by DanBC2 14y ago

I'd be interested to see the results of two bots playing against humans. Bot One just plays the odds. Bot Two just plays the odd, but has a small chance of bluffing - it has a poor hand but plays as if it has a great hand. I'd be interested to see the results after several thousand hands. And if people could tell the bots apart from people. This is, obviously, nothing like AI. But sometimes trivial tricks are powerful. Look at the early discussions about ELIZA for an example. I don't play poker, but my friend tells me that it's fun to play in tournaments because it's not just odds. You get people who have terrible poker faces, who are easy to read. That same friend also plays (and makes a little bit of money) from online poker. I have no idea how the psychology works there.

sejje 14y ago
With no disrespect, it's clear that you don't play before you mention it. For instance, "playing the odds" dictates that you bluff. Often. And since this discussion is about HU play, you can change "often" to "constantly."
heyitsnick 14y ago
So here is poker theory in a very, very brief nutshell. One way to play is to (attempt to) play game theoretically, or more commonly (and less rigerously defined) "balanced". Your entire actions are defined in such that your opponent, even if they knew your strategy, could not exploit your decisions. Bets have the "perfect mix" (defined by pot size, but also other factors) of value hands to bluffs, so that your opponent is indifferent to calling down/rebluffing. This is what you called "not playing the odds" but, contrary to popular belief, involves bluffing (lots of it!), lots of aggression, and in general may look kinda crazy. The second way is exploitative poker. This is the more common "not playing the odds" type poker, where you play in a way that maximally extracts value, because you think your opponent is not bluffing enough/betting too big with his range, folding too much, etc. The "too much" is basically "deviating from the correct GTO play". However, to exploit this, you yourself now need to deviate from optimal play, thus opening yourself to exploitation. There is still a debate between which is "better." Obviously exploitive will, at least in theory, lead to higher winrates, but runs the risk of yourself being exploited. If your "read" is wrong, you could be losing. By playing GTO, you assure you never lose (except your share of the rake), and money naturally flows to you through opponents just basically exploiting themselves.

by DanBC2 14y ago

sejje 14y ago

With no disrespect, it's clear that you don't play before you mention it. For instance, "playing the odds" dictates that you bluff. Often. And since this discussion is about HU play, you can change "often" to "constantly."

heyitsnick 14y ago

So here is poker theory in a very, very brief nutshell. One way to play is to (attempt to) play game theoretically, or more commonly (and less rigerously defined) "balanced". Your entire actions are defined in such that your opponent, even if they knew your strategy, could not exploit your decisions. Bets have the "perfect mix" (defined by pot size, but also other factors) of value hands to bluffs, so that your opponent is indifferent to calling down/rebluffing. This is what you called "not playing the odds" but, contrary to popular belief, involves bluffing (lots of it!), lots of aggression, and in general may look kinda crazy. The second way is exploitative poker. This is the more common "not playing the odds" type poker, where you play in a way that maximally extracts value, because you think your opponent is not bluffing enough/betting too big with his range, folding too much, etc. The "too much" is basically "deviating from the correct GTO play". However, to exploit this, you yourself now need to deviate from optimal play, thus opening yourself to exploitation. There is still a debate between which is "better." Obviously exploitive will, at least in theory, lead to higher winrates, but runs the risk of yourself being exploited. If your "read" is wrong, you could be losing. By playing GTO, you assure you never lose (except your share of the rake), and money naturally flows to you through opponents just basically exploiting themselves.