Comments on: Checkers bot can't lose… Ever

By: Poker maniac

Poker maniac — Thu, 03 Jun 2010 00:04:10 +0000

Thanks for very informative post. I play poker a lot and have a lot of fun

By: Salvia Divinorum

Salvia Divinorum — Fri, 21 May 2010 23:09:45 +0000

Poker was already solved by a mathematician a long time ago. What casinos did to solve this was just to add one or more mazes to the existing mix and that made the trick.

By: Poker Fella

Poker Fella — Sun, 07 Feb 2010 22:06:50 +0000

Poker is a closed game. Unlike chess or checkers, or even go, poker is played while only knowing incomplete information – it’s as much a psychological game as it is a game of correct strategy. Having said that, there is by definition always a right or wrong decision to make at any point during a hand or game, even if the correct decision loses money (i.e. call to a draw with good odds but miss) and so in theory, if a computer was able to take ALL information into consideration (including profiling opponents) and could adapt and play deceptively, there is no reason that a bot couldn’t be developed which could play an optimal game IMO.

By: Orient-Poker

Orient-Poker — Tue, 19 May 2009 13:42:37 +0000

In my humble opinion, poker cannot be solved “by definition”. First comparing it to backgammon is not possible. Each game of backgammon involves making many decisions (dozens), before reaching a conclusion. Hence the signal/noise ratio is relatively small and true outperformers emerge rather rapidly.
On the other hand, one hand (game )of poker is only a few decisions each time (say in no-limit holdem, 4 streets, but the space of decisions is very small as most actions are “obviously” wrong). So that the signal to noise ratio is small (tiny).
Plus, and this is a big plus, an optimal strategy is contingent on the strategy of the opponent. There is NO unique strategy (unless it is adaptive) that beats all players. But then if you play against a bot with adaptive strategy, you can adapt to him too, there is some feedback loop.
Plus, and this an even bigger plus, it is not going to be possible to “prove” that we have solved poker, because you would need to have a strategy that beats all (adaptive) strategy; yes but you need to run that for millions of hands, don’t you; because at some point one dominated strategy may improve ans starts dominating…

By: Judy Online

Judy Online — Wed, 09 Jul 2008 19:16:00 +0000

Please, nobody tell my granddaughter about this … she already runs rings around me when we play checkers. No computer is needed.

By: Jim poker guy

Jim poker guy — Wed, 09 Jul 2008 16:17:27 +0000

I can see the point being made by Trevor – the variability of the incomplete data set coupled with human finagling could leave a poker bot dangling, ( oh it rhymes )… however, I think what is being said above does not necessarily apply to one poker hand.

In other words, poker calculations give odds over a number of poker hands and the more hands involved is the statistically closer that the “perfect bot” would be able to come to achieving near perfect play with an incomplete data set.

I suspect that this may be what Andrew is saying above, which doesn’t totally invalidate what Trevor might be postulating, but it does put it more squarely into the context of statistical probability when a larger number of hands are being reviewed.

By: Online Poker Tournament Enthusiast

Online Poker Tournament Enthusiast — Fri, 30 May 2008 20:30:36 +0000

The problem with poker robots or poker computers they would need to be able to switch their betting patters and profiles how to adapt and “bluff” like changing their loose-tight and aggressive level. The component of human betting psychology is something that I assume is something that will be never matched by a computer.

We will see, but I highly doubt it!

By: Trevor da Poker idiot

Trevor da Poker idiot — Tue, 27 May 2008 01:22:47 +0000

Andrew, I would have agreed with you 110% before I started to play poker and even up until the time that I thought i knew the game.

But now, after having played perhaps a 20,000 games and after having seen all kinds of things happen where people say NO way No way… 3 of us with full hands on a table betting all-in with 3 months worth of saved poker points… ha ha…

This game is a game of balls. Even when you calculate that the pot odds compared to your odds of getting the nuts is favorable, that is still only one part of the calculation.

I like what Mohammed said above about simultaneous equations happening.

I am sitting at a table with 9 people who don’t like to fold ( loose as it gets ), I have calculated my pot odds vs my card odds and am Oh so sure of my self. I have had to chase out 5 of the 9 people by indiscrinate raising ( because 9 other people holds no surety even for pocket aces.

So, now i did something that no poker robot would be able to do successfully, which is to drive out the other players based on nothing but fear ( or they think i am stupid, ha ha ).

I am now sitting at the flop, and having done the pot odds to card calc and about to make the best computer sanctioned play, when suddenly I remember that one of my two opponents is simply going to call anything that I do, in other words I can’t drive him/her out, but i can certainly raise the pot.

So, i say something kewl in chat, to rattle this player, something like the truth, “Guys stop betting now, i have pocket aces …”

He or she suspects that I have king/queen combo and really doubts i have pocket aces. Even a poker robot would calculate low odds that I have pocket aces, especially if there was an ace on the flop and my opponent already has an ace.

Andrew, the computer simply isn’t going to win this particular round, and if it is forced to drop out or go all-in against a human opponent who went all in with 2 pocket aces and an ace on the flop, the SUPERCOMPUTER LOSES.

No, if ands or butts, it simply loses. Andrew.

Someone smarter than I would say, but perfect poker play entails making the best choice from an incomplete set of data, but the fact is that if you are forced to go all-in and the odds say that you should have won, yet you lose, you’re out of there buddy.

Perhaps a computer would have a better chance on a limit table.

Just my two cents worth…

By: Andrew Morris

Andrew Morris — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 22:04:52 +0000

I agree that poker may never be solved. But if the history of chess teaches us anything, it is that a sophisticated program running on a supercomputer will be able to defeat a leading poker player soon, at least in head-to-head competition. Tournament play may be another matter …

By: David Pennock

David Pennock — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 03:15:36 +0000

It sounds like you are arguing against online poker in general, not just poker bots