4 ms·

Because there are (especially in No Limit) many places human intuition destroys the bots. On top of this, the aids allow them to have some of the advantages of

by Dn_Ab 14y ago

Because there are (especially in No Limit) many places human intuition destroys the bots. On top of this, the aids allow them to have some of the advantages of bots including, summary statistics of hands, betting patterns and styles for every player met, post play review tool for learning to plug leaks and weak spots and a bunch of other stuff. The combination of stats, practice and experience is better than a bot or pure human. I know this because I have a close friend that does this stuff and makes close to a 100K a year and botting might have once been a hobby of mine. There is no infinite computation, so brute force play is not possible - even in chess (PSPACE). The problem with bots is that they tend to have blindspots they are blind to since they can't very well model their understanding. Human Computer Combinations still win and will probably continue to do so until the day something comes alone that can beat us at the kind of higher order pattern recognition we are so good at. http://www.palantir.com/2010/03/friction-in-human-computer-symbiosis-kasparov-on-chess/ http://www.palantir.com/2010/03/friction-in-human-computer-s... For poker, only the very small and IMO uninteresting subset of 2 player limit is effectively solved. The combination of human minds + machine computation will be the top intelligences for the foreseeable future.

andyakb 14y ago
Im sorry, but the best computer programs available will beat the best chess player in the world 90% of the time[1]. Also, while I dont doubt your friend is good at poker, that does not mean he has an understanding of the algorithmic advances in game theory as they apply to stochastic games. Further, simply knowing him does not make you an expert, even if you had a background in poker botting. How do we know that a game needs to be perfectly solved in order for it to beat the best players? Would the best nlhe hu player in the world beat the best bot at 100bb stacks? Yes. Will this be the case for the foreseeable future? Probably not. My point is that you cannot speak conclusively about a field like this with so little knowledge of what is going on academically to advance it. 1: http://blog.chess.com/Clavius/most-impressive-computer-game-ever http://blog.chess.com/Clavius/most-impressive-computer-game-...
- Dn_Ab 14y ago
  There is certainly no argument against the fact that humans are no longer in the same league as chess bots but what is also true is that the combination of bots and humans can beat top specialist chess computers. Bots + Humans > Bots > Human for these games. See what Kasparov has to say about it here: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2010/feb/11/the-chess-master-and-the-computer/ http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2010/feb/11/the-che... My friend? No he does not know about stochastic game trees or regret minimization or any of that fancy stuff. But that knowledge is not needed for top poker play any more than a Basketball player needs to know about differential equations to put a ball in the net. And perfect play? I do not believe that perfect play is required to beat the best players, that is not even computationally tractable. Now, while it is true that computers may some day beat top players (in n-player NL), it is also true that we are very far away from that. I am confident that we will reach that point but it is hard to say when. Probably after Go. But already the top players, using computational aides, are not fully human. With those kind of tools they are able to regularly play the game at a level that is far higher than the old unaided standards, raising the stakes even higher for bots. Little idea? I keep apace with current machine learning though not fully up to speed on poker specific stuff. Would need to spend a month or so to catch up. Anyways to wrap this up, what I am saying is Human + Bots > Bots and I'm predicting right now that when Poker Bots surpass humans, they still will not be able to beat that combination.

by Dn_Ab 14y ago

andyakb 14y ago

Im sorry, but the best computer programs available will beat the best chess player in the world 90% of the time[1]. Also, while I dont doubt your friend is good at poker, that does not mean he has an understanding of the algorithmic advances in game theory as they apply to stochastic games. Further, simply knowing him does not make you an expert, even if you had a background in poker botting. How do we know that a game needs to be perfectly solved in order for it to beat the best players? Would the best nlhe hu player in the world beat the best bot at 100bb stacks? Yes. Will this be the case for the foreseeable future? Probably not. My point is that you cannot speak conclusively about a field like this with so little knowledge of what is going on academically to advance it. 1: http://blog.chess.com/Clavius/most-impressive-computer-game-ever http://blog.chess.com/Clavius/most-impressive-computer-game-...

Dn_Ab 14y ago
There is certainly no argument against the fact that humans are no longer in the same league as chess bots but what is also true is that the combination of bots and humans can beat top specialist chess computers. Bots + Humans > Bots > Human for these games. See what Kasparov has to say about it here: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2010/feb/11/the-chess-master-and-the-computer/ http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2010/feb/11/the-che... My friend? No he does not know about stochastic game trees or regret minimization or any of that fancy stuff. But that knowledge is not needed for top poker play any more than a Basketball player needs to know about differential equations to put a ball in the net. And perfect play? I do not believe that perfect play is required to beat the best players, that is not even computationally tractable. Now, while it is true that computers may some day beat top players (in n-player NL), it is also true that we are very far away from that. I am confident that we will reach that point but it is hard to say when. Probably after Go. But already the top players, using computational aides, are not fully human. With those kind of tools they are able to regularly play the game at a level that is far higher than the old unaided standards, raising the stakes even higher for bots. Little idea? I keep apace with current machine learning though not fully up to speed on poker specific stuff. Would need to spend a month or so to catch up. Anyways to wrap this up, what I am saying is Human + Bots > Bots and I'm predicting right now that when Poker Bots surpass humans, they still will not be able to beat that combination.