4 ms·

It would be nice to have more details on that CFR+ approach. If you just do what the article claims (substitute averages with regret from recent iteration) you

It would be nice to have more details on that CFR+ approach. If you just do what the article claims (substitute averages with regret from recent iteration) you will end up with oscillating solutions which never reach the equilibrium (I just tried it with naive CFR implementation). There is surely more to that and it would be nice to see what. As to the claim of "conquering". While there is no reason to not believe them let's see how they fare vs other near optimal AIs. There is a lot of scope for numerical mistakes when you are dealing with solutions that big and it may well be that they missed something along the way. Some other teams claimed they solved HU holdem some time ago (and without supercomputers). They compete in Alberta yearly championship every year so it will be easy to see how it goes for Cepheus.

curun1r 12y ago
> While there is no reason to not believe them let's see how they fare vs other near optimal AIs They mentioned that: Burch warned that human poker players should take the Cepheus strategy with a grain of salt. After all, Cepheus honed its strategy by playing the equivalent of a near-perfect opponent that made practically no mistakes. Certain strategies that wouldn’t work against such a powerful opponent could still prove very profitable for human poker players when exploiting the mistakes of other human players.
jcr 12y ago
There are more details on CFR+ in the Science Magazine article [1] and the in paper [2]. These were posted by hn user 'benktbyte' in another story. [1] http://www.sciencemag.org/content/347/6218/145 http://www.sciencemag.org/content/347/6218/145 [2] https://pdf.yt/d/qv-O9AwQuV1Kjb04 https://pdf.yt/d/qv-O9AwQuV1Kjb04
- bluecalm 12y ago
  Thank you very much. I see that they've changed how regret matching works and it that context it makes to only remember values from last iteration (or average from n last iterations). Very interesting idea. I am still unable to make it work faster than naive CFR but I am probably missing some details.

curun1r 12y ago

> While there is no reason to not believe them let's see how they fare vs other near optimal AIs They mentioned that: Burch warned that human poker players should take the Cepheus strategy with a grain of salt. After all, Cepheus honed its strategy by playing the equivalent of a near-perfect opponent that made practically no mistakes. Certain strategies that wouldn’t work against such a powerful opponent could still prove very profitable for human poker players when exploiting the mistakes of other human players.

jcr 12y ago

There are more details on CFR+ in the Science Magazine article [1] and the in paper [2]. These were posted by hn user 'benktbyte' in another story. [1] http://www.sciencemag.org/content/347/6218/145 http://www.sciencemag.org/content/347/6218/145 [2] https://pdf.yt/d/qv-O9AwQuV1Kjb04 https://pdf.yt/d/qv-O9AwQuV1Kjb04

bluecalm 12y ago
Thank you very much. I see that they've changed how regret matching works and it that context it makes to only remember values from last iteration (or average from n last iterations). Very interesting idea. I am still unable to make it work faster than naive CFR but I am probably missing some details.