
Game Theorists Crack Poker - jonbaer
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/game-theorists-crack-poker/
======
dang
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8858280](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8858280)

~~~
logicallee
(no relation to submission.)

I prefer this title (Game Theorists Crack Poker), article (sciam), and our
thread here, and wouldn't have clicked the other one if I had seen it. (and
didn't read it now that I did open it:). the ieee one is one block of text
without subsection titles, and starts with the 'All your poker chips may soon
belong to the computers' which made me want to close it.)

------
minaguib
I'm missing something:

    
    
        "But Bowling and his colleagues have demonstrated that their algorithm always wins in the long run."
    

So how does it fare when its opponent is the same algorithm ?

~~~
stephentmcm
Yet another article[1] stated that if playing it's self the bot with the
better hands/chance 'won' in the long run.

[1] [http://motherboard.vice.com/en_au/read/this-robot-is-the-
bes...](http://motherboard.vice.com/en_au/read/this-robot-is-the-best-limit-
texas-holdem-player-in-the-world)

------
ogig
\- We are talking about HULHE only. If the game were no limit and 9 players
the numbers presented in the article regarding possible states grow, by a lot.
AFAIK there is no bot that could break even against a table of decent players
playing NL. "Crack Poker" seems an overstatement to me.

\- The articles states the bot always wins in the long run but most correctly
this bot can break even at worst scenario. I mean, if you face it against
itself they can't both win in the long run.

~~~
jonahx
> AFAIK there is no bot that could break even against a table of decent
> players playing NL.

While it's true that NL ring is far from being solved in the same mathematical
sense the HULHE has been, there exist very good bots that can certainly beat a
table of decent players, and perhaps even world-class players. There were a
number of scandals with ring NL bots on UltimateBet and other online sites,
with huge samples showing solid win rates at midstakes.

There is also pokersnowie:

[http://www.pokersnowie.com/](http://www.pokersnowie.com/)

and here is a huge thread about it from when it first arrived on the scene:
[http://www.deucescracked.com/forums/131-Poker-
Theory/topics/...](http://www.deucescracked.com/forums/131-Poker-
Theory/topics/602161-Time-to-learn-PLO-low-
con?page=9&per_page=15#post_5292271)

------
gamegod
This is Oskari Tammelin of Buzz tracker fame (audio software):
[http://www.jeskola.net](http://www.jeskola.net)

Links to some counterfactual regret minimization code is on his site here:
[http://www.jeskola.net/cfr/](http://www.jeskola.net/cfr/)

------
adanto6840
I'm disappointed, was hoping for more -- this is "cracked" for heads up limit
only, and even then I have my doubts. But would like to know more or play
against it or see some code or something...

~~~
mod
You shouldn't have your doubts. The pros stopped playing even inferior bots a
long time ago in HULHE. We're talking 5 years ago.

I have very little doubt that this bot cannot be beat.

------
monochromatic
Sounds like they've developed a very good bot, but I don't believe it's
possible to ever completely "solve" an imperfect information game.

~~~
zone411
It is proven that for heads-up poker there is a Nash equilibrium, so it is
indeed possible.

~~~
elwell
Do you have a good resource I can read about that?

------
mathrawka
HULHE has been known to have very strong bots[1] for many years, mainly thanks
to the University of Albert and the research they have done.

There is the Computer Poker Competition that is held every year too[2].

Everyone I know has been staying away from HULHE for awhile, preferring either
HUPLO or HUNLHE instead.

1:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polaris_(poker_bot)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polaris_\(poker_bot\))
2: www.computerpokercompetition.org

~~~
Fuzzwah
HULHE SNG's especially.

Short stack NLHE too.

------
jonbaer
[http://poker.srv.ualberta.ca/](http://poker.srv.ualberta.ca/)

------
vishvananda
I'm very curious to read the paper if anyone can find it posted online.

~~~
frinxor
[https://pdf.yt/d/qv-O9AwQuV1Kjb04](https://pdf.yt/d/qv-O9AwQuV1Kjb04)

------
vorg
The article mentions randomness, incomplete information, and how often to
bluff, but I don't see anything about tells. Unlike humans, computers are
excellent at hiding their bluffs and their excitement at holding a royal
strait. Hiding tells doesn't matter in checkers or chess, but it's essential
in poker.

~~~
ogig
Tells, in the sense of ticks and such, are mainly ignored by good poker
players. The board situation is where the info is at. A good player won't go
thinking "its sweety! he could bluff", but instead "his range based on
previous hands on this position is X so I estimate a chance Y for him to
bluff".

Computers do have a great advantage by ignoring the whole psycho layer and
focus on data only.

~~~
ktran03
That's not true. I played and studied poker for a many years, and I will say
for certain that physical cues is a huge part of live games, and definitely
not ignored by good players.

~~~
mod
It's not ignored, but it's not a 'huge part' of the game.

It's one of thousands of factors that weigh in, and in my mind, one of the
least important factors.

I've played several million hands of poker fwiw.

