$100,000 Poker Bot Tournament 356
Costa Galanis writes "The LA Times is reporting that a poker tournament will be held where engineers will be able to pit their automatic poker-playing programs against each other in a tournament similar to the upcoming World Series of Poker main event, with a 100,000 dollar cash prize for the winning program. The article mentions how the recent rise in popularity of poker has encouraged many to try and create the poker equivalent of chess' Big Blue, the chess playing computer program that defeated the world's top chess player in a widely publicized event, and also talks about how many engineers also are trying to make bots that are good enough to play and beat human players for money in online casinos."
Bluffing. (Score:4, Insightful)
Could this have been predicted? (Score:4, Insightful)
Perhaps the winning program could be reconfigured to create business plans?
Re:Are we to assume... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:erm.. WTF (Score:3, Insightful)
The challenge in poker is learning how your opponent plays and knowing when they're bluffing, along with not giving away too much yourself, and being able to bluff well. Chess might take more mathmatical and/or logic skills, but Poker takes a lot more skill when it comes to intangibles and the subtle differences in your opponents' skills. This makes for a much much tougher programming challenge.
If bot A simply bets what it should based on the chance of the cards it is holding, another smarter bot (bot B) will do the same thing [b]and[/b] figure out what bot Ais doing, which will give bot B a big advantage, and over time, a win.
Re:Um... pokerbot will always win (Score:5, Insightful)
Since decks are made out of 52 cards, and you get two of them, it gets very easily to calculate probabilities for a human (mostly involves multiplying by 2).
Finally, making the probabalistic move every time will not do as well, because if you do that you would absolutely never bluff. A bot to be good in the long run must bluff, otherwise it is far too predictable and you can gain too much information from its bets and raises.
To give a quick example: If there's 100$ in the pot, and the bot bets 10$, I need to believe I'll win 1/11 times in order to justify my call. If I know that the bot never bluffs and only bets there when he's best, I can fold every time and save 10$. If the bot bluffs 1/11 times though, I suddenly have an actually complicated decision. And note if I fold those complicated decisions every time I lose more money, because he is betting more hands and I am folding each time he bets.
So no, straight up probabilities simply won't cut it.
(For more information, see Sklansky's Theory of Poker.)
This is incredibly difficult (Score:5, Insightful)
The hardest part of playing poker is "reading" your opponents' hands -- learning how they tend to play, and inferring what cards they are likely to hold, whether they are bluffing or slow-playing, etc.
It may be easy to read a poker bot's style of play, but reading good human players is extremely difficult. So even if a certain bot crushes the competition in this tournament, it may not do so well against humans.
The keys are the algorithms... (Score:5, Insightful)
The key, clearly, is the way your program "behaves" in response to opponent betting. You could code a program that only plays based on the probability of achieving a winning hand in a statistical sense. (IE, if my pocket has a 75% chance of becoming a hand that will beat 65% of all possible hands, then play it regardless) That wouldn't obviously play that well, since the bot won't consider opponent betting. However, if your bot regards opponent betting, it will easily become susceptible to power bluffing if the algorithm doesn't guard against it. (Hence, you have routines like poorly written cell phone games where you just have to come out of the blocks betting like mad and you'll 90% of the time bluff the bot out of the hand)
I wouldn't be surprised if some of the more ingenious bots would be a medley of pure probability, observed opponent behavior (for trend matching with a fixed opponent), and a database of "real life" situations. If I were to design a bot for poker, and had the resources, I'd be sorely tempted to first host an online poker website and take a ton of samples from actual, online play. You have the advantage (right now, at least) of being able to record everyone's exact hands (at every stage of the hand) as well as everyone's betting. You could distill that into a form of database where you could try and match a bot's hand to a pre-existing condition case, and determine, along with your other ranking criteria, what a human player once did with that same hand, and whether that player won or not.
Londovir I could see bots taking over after awhile, but it's going to take some time...and even then, it should be entertaining to watch programmers trying to tweak their bot to beat another bot, sometimes without even knowing they are going up against another bot.
Re:Bluffing. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Um... pokerbot will always win (Score:2, Insightful)
Out of your list, the only true advantage a bot would have over a pro is the ability to play at the same level for an infinite amount of time. Humans become tired or can go on "tilt" after a streak of unlucky cards and begin to play badly.
Intentional obfuscation... (Score:3, Insightful)
Case in point, one thing that some people think is worth doing in the first few rounds of poker is to intentionally lose or call as many hands as you can, just to determine your opponents' betting methods and/or tells. Could something similar be done with programs? For instance, measuring the number of clock ticks that an opponent takes to analyze a given hand. If identical flops show up in subsequent rounds, and identical intervals lead to identical bets, is it possible that you've figured out how your opponent likes to bet? Furthermore, would it be worthwhile to throw in an empty do() while loop of random length in order to throw off such attempts? But how about betting patterns themselves?
This is one thing I've always thought was missing in creating AI. It's not so much about coming up with "perfect" AI because so long as it follows a set pattern, it'll never be perfect. If it's consistent, either you'll figure out how to beat it, or you'll give up in frustration because you know you can never beat it. But create multiple different AIs that follow basic tactics, and then mix them up, there's the challenge.
Re:erm.. WTF (Score:3, Insightful)
>>The game of Poker will never be open to all audiences. It is a game aimed at RICH adults, limiting the potential audience. I am not saying you and your college buddies can't get together and play free poker. But schools would never encourage the game like Chess. There is a real scientific aspect to Chess that Poker does not have.
Yeah, that explains why there are SO many chess tournaments held as fund raisers for churches, non-profits and school activities compared to poker tournaments (rolls eyes). Chess is aimed at the richest of the rich -- the people who can afford the tutors to make it to an elite level. I can go buy Super System vols 1 and 2 for $60 and be ahead of the game in poker.
Let me rephrase this -- i'm a good poker player and an average chess player -- I don't study chess at all but I know the strategy enough to beat the tar out of someone who doesn't really play. If you sat me down heads up against, lets say Chris Ferguson, in 100 matches of texas hold 'em, I win 20. Even though he's one of the top players in the world. I sit down across from Kasparov + co. in 100 chess matches I don't have a prayer of even drawing one game.
So which game do you think is more likely to draw an audience? Sorry, I'd write more but I can't wait to catch ESPN's presentation of the world series of chess.....
Re:erm.. WTF (Score:3, Insightful)
Huh? It's not like the only games have $10,000 buyins.
There is a real scientific aspect to Chess that Poker does not have.
Absolutely wrong. Poker is a textbook example of game theory, and because of imperfect information, it's arguably more strategically complex than chess. In chess, "all" you have to do is look ahead N moves and pick the best one. Sure, it gets complicated because you need to have a good way of evaluating positions and pruning moves that you know are bad, but at the core it's just a static decision tree. In poker you have to consider what your opponent has, what he thinks you have, what he thinks you think he has, etc, etc.
Poker is strictly about winning money.
Poker is about winning chips. Those chips are often converted to money, but don't have to be.
Re:erm.. WTF (Score:2, Insightful)
No, poker is mostly about figuring out what your opponent is thinking, without letting him know what you're thinking, while he's busy trying to figure out what you're thinking, without showing you what he's thinking. The cards are just the medium, the subject you're both thinking various things about.
Now, poker could *devolve* into what you describe if all (or all but one) of the players were bots. But as played between humans, it's not like that at all. Why do you think a lot of quite heavy-duty math geeks suck at it?
Re:Um... pokerbot will always win (Score:2, Insightful)
Not quite (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: Bluffing. (Score:2, Insightful)
As all games, poker requires skill, experience and of course some luck at times.
But mostly poker (live especially) is about playing your opponent. What you think his hand is, what he thinks your hand is, what you think he thinks your hand is etc.
Re:Heres hoping this doesnt ruin online poker (Score:3, Insightful)
They could spider the blog spam and block any affiliate links they find. It wouldn't be very difficult to do this.
Of course, all this effort would accomplish is to reduce the number of links to their web site, thus making it fall in ranks in the search engines. Somehow, I don't see these sites as ethical businesses who would voluntarily lower their Google rank because their conscience demanded it.
By the way, if this is so impossible, why is nobody spamming Amazon.com affiliate links? (Note: I said "spamming," not "linking in legitimate comments.")
Re:Poker bots ARE a real science (Score:3, Insightful)
"EVERTHING about poker can be analysed mathematically" again, but with paragraph breaks.
Sorry. It was my first post.
That's right.
Most people think that bluffing, slow playing etc. are beyond mathematics, but actually they're part of the strategy of games of incomplete information.
In order to play any game where you can profit by your opponent's misreading of your hand, you have to bluff and slow-play (act as if your hand is worse than it is) some percentage of the time otherwise your actions give away too much information.
Any good strategy for Poker doesn't specify that you should have a given action in a given situation, but rather specifies that in a given situation you should have a given probability distribution of actions so as to maximize the trade off between taking advantage of probabilities and the advantage of not being readable.
Beyond this there are two kinds of strategies:
1. Strategies that involve trying to figure out your opponent's method of play (ie. guess the algorithm) and take advantage of it's weaknesses.
This is called a maximal strategy. Obvious finding a maximal strategy is a very very hard problem.
2. Finding best strategy that doesn't depend on your opponent's strategy. This is called an "optimal" strategy. It has the following properties:
a) It's an equilibrium in that there is no strategy that beats it on average.
b) It's the best strategy that you can use while still telling your opponent exactly what your own strategy is.
c) As I said in the intro it's the best strategy that doesn't take the opponent's strategy into account.
Note that Chess programs and the like try to find optimal strategies not maximal strategies - which I think makes them a bit boring. A good chess player can take advantage of my weaknesses as a chess player and humiliate me much faster and more completely than a chess program that assumes that I may make a brilliant move at any second, despite all past experience!
Anyway there are programs out there that find optimal strategies for games like poker. Texas hold um is a bit large a game to analyze that way but no doubt there will be programs that find optimal strategies for hold em or at least almost optimal ones.
But opponent modeling and maximal strategies are more interesting...
Beyond that there's a whole level to table stakes poker (is that what it's called?) that makes it hard to analyze. The fact that the range of bets you can make is so large is hard to analyze...
Also I think the math that's been used breaks down for more than two players at a table.
Beyond that there's analysis of the flow of money around the table over multiple hands. For instance it's better to lose to a loose player than to a tight player because you're more likely to get your money back from a loose player (this may not matter for tournament rules where you play till only one contestant is left).
Good Bots or Many Bots (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What's The Catch...? (Score:3, Insightful)
This is why I'd never play in an online tourney. That and I suck at cards.
Re:here's a list of the things... (Score:3, Insightful)
Though #5 should be "Never count your money when you're sitting at the table, because there will be time enough for counting when the dealing's done."
Re:What's The Catch...? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Bluffing. (Score:2, Insightful)
The other thing is that most of the time this happens because the "experts" are allowing him to limp to the river by either checking or making pathetic 1xBB raises. Well no shit he called to the river! I would too if I had a pair and it was going to cost me almost nothing to call and could potentially give me a huge win if I hit. If you've got such a great hand after the turn, then raise enough to force this guy to fold. If he folds, you win without risking him hitting his draw. If he calls, you've just multiplied your long-term winnings against this bad player.
The real issue is that these "experts" aren't really that good at all. They're guys who've read a lot of books, know the odds of every draw, religiously watch all the big tournaments on TV, etc., but they completely forget the most fundamental rule of poker: KNOW YOUR OPPONENTS. If you're playing at a $1/$2 table, don't be shocked when you see a lot of loose players. It shouldn't surprise you that your opponents aren't making the same moves you would or that your favorite pro would. You have to understand that most players at this level are far too inexperienced/stupid to pay attention to hand history or to try to read you. If you play every game as if you're at the final table of a million dollar tournament, you're making things far too complicated and probably missing the obvious tells that can help you beat inexperienced players.
Re:The keys are the algorithms... (Score:3, Insightful)