I read this about how bots will rise and surpass humans as poker players. Computers can brute force - work out every possible move in - a chess / checkers game from start to finish. But is that surprising? The rules are strict, next-moves are limited and the pieces are visible.

When all the information's out on the table like that, clearly computers own humans at processing it. But poker isn't like that. The uncertainty in poker is nothing like the uncertainty in chess.

I disagree with some of what this dude says and I'll go through what and why that is now..

Chess starts massively open - there's got to be zillions of ways the game can play out - and it gets progressively narrower, with less possible routes, as it goes on.

That narrowing is why brute forcing works. After any move the human player makes, the computer can 'see' every path that leads to victory. All it has to do is walk the path which the human points it down and it'll win every time.

You could say that tournament poker is 'similar' because the blinds go up and choices become more limited. But the most important chess pieces - opponents' cards - still aren't visible and the bot's options are limited just as much as a person's.

Then there's cash poker which isn't even remotely similar to chess and is a mathematical / computational nightmare. I'll get to why I think that in a minute.

I think bots can, at best, be equal to humans at the tables. But they won't surpass us without an understanding of psychology and people as well as the game itself and all the maths etc. - Unlike in chess where that understanding is irrelevant.

That's a bit misleading. The competition was basically designed for the computer. Here's the official site. Heads up limit hold 'em? Why not challenge Tiger Woods to some minigolf while you're at it? That'll be conclusive..

Poker doesn't get more scientific than that and the computer still lost? - Isn't that a bit er, pathetic? Rejoice people, I think we're safe..

C'mon Mr. scientist, try programming that way for a multi-handed no limit cash table with players like Sam Farha, Patrik Antonius and Phil Ivey and your computer will explode.

No limit cash games start and end infinitely open and anything can happen in the middle. It doesn't get narrower and there's no definitive end point or "victory" which means making precise logical sense of it is impossible - computers can't fit infinity in them.

Trying to brute force infinity is pretty dumb
but we're free to try if we want to.

Just start at 1 and get counting. I've tried and it takes a really long time to get nowhere.. An advantage computers have is that they can start at 1 million and count in millions which means they get nowhere much faster than you or I do.

At the tables, this means computers can guess that they're a 77.694621% favourite while we have to ignore that super-important 2.5% of the estimation and call it 80. Then what..? Oh yeah that's right, we both call.

Hmmm, sort of. Predicting whether other players are bluffing is half the key to poker. The other half is convincing those players that you are bluffing when you aren't and vice versa. Poker's proactive too, not just reactive.

A purely mathematical (reactive) player is easy to read and to bluff..

He suggests that being random is the solution:

But computers are much better at confounding the expectations of their human opponents. Computers can play randomized strategies much better than we can.

Random strategies are just as likely to get the bot in trouble as they are an opponent. Strategies shouldn't be random, they should appear predictable / readable so players can read them incorrectly. The only time truly random action ever makes sense is pre-flop.

But do you really need a fancy high-tech algorithm to occasionally raise with ?

Setting a strategy for a hand before the flop, turn and river has to be the most common mistake around. Who hasn't bet every street with after missing completely?

The basis for the entire argument is that bots are better at generating random behaviour than we are. "We're hard-wired" - in his opinion - to behave predictably. But if randomness isn't the key, then that's a pretty useless argument anyway..

I agree that a bot could create a unique profile for each player based
on a vast understanding of the game that's beyond any human's.

But its actions will always be directed and limited by that profile: Directed by the human's ability / understanding - exactly like the chess game - except in poker, it's pointed towards inexact paths without ends which might not even be real in the first place.. - i.e. a bluff

That wouldn't be a problem if humans were just another monkey, but we're self-aware monkeys and we know - or can learn - how to act in ways which either exaggerate or hide our knowledge.

Look, look! I'm just a monkey. Now I'm an angry monkey! Ha! - I had kings. Loser.

That behaviour isn't random. But the bot can't predict it because it can't see the things which determine it. The bot can't see the cards and doesn't understand human emotion. Therefore, seeing through that behaviour, back to the cards, is impossible.

Playing real poker? Not quite the same thing in my opinion. And as for hybrid poker stat-bots with humans behind them, I can't wait - please come to my table and try to smack me around with your abacus - it makes it much easier.

There's a million things to say on this subject and I don't think it's a winnable argument either way. I maintain that until bots can 'understand' human psychology and engage in it, they have no advantage over us other than speed and an inability to tilt - which he mentions. But the game of poker itself is so simple.. How does speed help?

It could play a million tables at once but that's not the point..

Against a bot, I wouldn't bet on myself but I wouldn't bet against myself either - I don't play blackjack. Its strength is its weakness, and my weakness is my strength - I know how to act dumb and tilty.

Oh yeah and I completely forgot to talk about the PKR bit (). One thing he said was:

On the Internet (without the possibility of visual cues), computers are probably better at predicting a rival's hand from his or her past play.

Well PKR has visual cues. Lots of them. So basically my point was that if you're worried about the bots, the best place to be safe and make sure you're up against humans is PKR.

Like I said, there's way too much to say about this and I'm sure many people disagree and have their own thoughts. The best place to disagree with me is on the PKRfriends board.

No.1 » mookid - Fri 7th December 2007 @ 3:48 pm

Great article - yet more reasons to play at PKR..!

No.2 » PlateFish - Tue 20th May 2008 @ 5:23 pm

Hi,

I run a website over at http://www.pokerisrigged.com. I am messaging here to see if you are selling links or will be interested in doing a link exchange. + I love PKR.

Look forward to hearing from you,
Nick.

No.3 » PlateFish - Wed 21st May 2008 @ 3:16 pm

<a href="http://www.pokerisrigged.com>Poker Forums</a>

That's my website if you want to check it out.

No.4 » lynx123123 - Fri 23rd May 2008 @ 9:48 pm

hello there, ive been practicing poker and online poker since last week and i am still unfamiliar to some poker terms, can you help me please? By the way, what do you mean by rake back? THanks!

____________________
Marvin

Poker room reviews and poker room ratings and bonuses. <a href="http://www.pokerhq.com">http://www.pokerhq.com</a>

No.5 » PlateFish - Tue 27th May 2008 @ 2:18 pm

I love pkr! Just won $855 from playing the HU phases. Absolute domination, although the last few days have been a nightmare for losing money outdraw after outdraw after outdraw

[url]http://www.pokerisrigged.com[/url]

Please register/login to comment.