3 ms·

I am not the parent, but: 1. Subjective, with a nice insult thrown in there. 2. Do you really think the simplest form of poker for a bot would be a No Limit g

I am not the parent, but: 1. Subjective, with a nice insult thrown in there. 2. Do you really think the simplest form of poker for a bot would be a No Limit game? 3. Are you implying poker bots don't take opponents possible hands into account? wrong 5. No reason to cast doubt, chess has had much more effort put into it. Polaris has been in the works for 17 years, not 26. Compared to over 50 years for chess engines. 6. I don't think writing any chess engine is easy, but your main point, yes chess is a finite game. A computer isn't expected to win every time at rock, paper, scissors, so why poker? Like blackjack, there is a certain amount of available information, and poker bots can make the best play off that. 7. Amateurs with 1 year of poker under their belt win a WSOP bracelet.

mattmaroon 19y ago
2. Heads up no limit, yes. A player who simply pushed all-in every hand would only lose something like 45% against another player using optimal strategy, and would actually be a long term winner against more players than you'd think. I could write that bot. 3. They may, but they do a very poor job of it. 6. A computer can easily tie at roshambo, and the roshambot beats most humans in the long run. And poker is much different and far more complex than blackjack. The two arent comparable at all. 7. Irrelevant. I never contended that a bot couldn't win a tournament. They probably have. That's not really a good measure of ability.