Computer beats human experts at poker

[Murray Ruggiero]

Quote from bigmrfrank:

Playing only probable hands leads to long term failure or break even at best. Example:

Game is 5 - 10. Tight player raises to $30 from mid position. I have 6-8. I call knowing he has a large pair, A-K and the like. Flop comes 4-5-7. He leads out with a continuation bet thinking who calls a raise with 6-8. I call. Turn is A. He bets I call. River is K. He goes all in I call and felt him. I win a huge pot. He complains that only a donkey plays 6-8 but I have his chips.

Play the same hand where I call with 6 - 8. Flop comes k - 4- 2. He bets I fold. He wins a small pot.

Fact is big hands win small pots and lose giant ones. Thats an example of an edge in poker. There are many. So the guy waiting for big hands to trap or slow play is at a disadvantage.

This is a good point. Sometimes you want to induce mistakes. You make a small one, calling a raise pre-flop so he can make a large one, calling you on forth street or on the river with a weaker hand. Raising yourself in late position with rags is also good because if you flop 2 pair you will get paid because they will not think you had low cards.

 

[killthesunshine]

'your gonna make me laugh". gonna make me laugh. screw the whole thing up"



DESPITE ALL YOUR 'CLEVER' HUMAN MACHINATIONS AND 'BRILLIANT' POKER ACUMEN THIS computer is still kicking your ASS.

how do you explain this???????????!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[bigmrfrank]

Quote from Murray Ruggiero:

This is a good point. Sometimes you want to induce mistakes. You make a small one, calling a raise pre-flop so he can make a large one, calling you on forth street or on the river with a weaker hand. Raising yourself in late position with rags is also good because if you flop 2 pair you will get paid because they will not think you had low cards.

Exactly. When I used the term mistake I used it in the following context - Assume we knew what our opponents hand was. Any play that would go contrary to what would be correct if we knew exactly what our opponent was holding would be a mistake.

There are many ways of inducing mistakes. Suppose I held the nutz on the river and the action was on me. If I pushed all-in that would allow my opponent to make the correct decision and fold. (I see this all the time.) Instead I should try to figure what he might be holding - 2 pair, trips, lower straight or flush and bet what I think he is likely to call or reraise me with thus inducing a mistake on his part - which would be a play that he would never make if he knew what I was holding.

 

[bigmrfrank]

Quote from ElCubano:

the sheep are in the lower stake tables. I welcome aggressive play those are the people that fund my lifestyle and keep me going back to the track....peace

I find them at all stakes. All you need is one at the table. I played a $25/$50 last week that had one. He ripped through $42,000 in about 3 hours. We all took some. He left and as soon as he was out of sight the table broke.

 

[omegapoint]

Not a poker player just trying to learn.
Do players conspire when a newbie sort sits down and is there some sort of tacit communication relative to the sucker at the table who doesn't know he's the sucker? How is that done?

Quote from bigmrfrank:

I find them at all stakes. All you need is one at the table. I played a $25/$50 last week that had one. He ripped through $42,000 in about 3 hours. We all took some. He left and as soon as he was out of sight the table broke.

 

[fundjunkie]

Quote from omegapoint:

I don't get how they can program the element of psychology into a machine. Bluffing an opponent and reading tells isn't a mathematical discipline. For that matter I don't know how, at the highest levels of player, they can read any tells either since they come to the table like it was halloween.

Heads up play is quite mathematical. I know some online pros and they use betting patterns, board texture and timing tells to determine their best course of action in terms of expectation. So decisions to bluff, call, raise or fold are more quantitative than you think. So given that environment a computer might be able to gain traction.

Also remember than this is limit holdem they're talking about. Limit can is also by it's nature more mathematical. Polaris would get crushed trying to play No Limit. the mathematics of No Limit Holdem are, as far as I know, virtually impossible to quantify because of the additional variables involved.

The days when computers will beat humans in big bet poker are a long way off.


Thx
D

 

[killthesunshine]

Quote from omegapoint:

Not a poker player just trying to learn.
Do players conspire when a newbie sort sits down and is there some sort of tacit communication relative to the sucker at the table who doesn't know he's the sucker? How is that done?

like trading..

you can't learn it in school, and you can't get a late start..

better just forget it

 

[omegapoint]

What are you stalking me Killer? Always with the smart ass remarks, you must lose alot of money to be that pissed about nothing all the time.

 

[fundjunkie]

Quote from killthesunshine:

like trading..

you can't learn it in school, and you can't get a late start..

better just forget it

Nonsense. The tacit communication referred is based on the fact that good players, once they recognize another players as good will tend to avoid big confrontations with that opponent. And where they identify a poor playr they will do the opposite.

The trading vs poker analogies only work up to a point.