Humans Can Still Out-Bluff Machines 279
Pcol writes "The New York Times reports that in a poker game this week between man and machine, a program called Polaris fought a close match, but lost to two well-known professional poker players. Designing a poker playing algorithm is a different and more difficult challenge for software designers than chess and checkers because of uncertainties introduced by the hidden cards held by each player and difficult-to-quantify risk-taking behaviors such as bluffing. The game-tree approach doesn't work in poker because in many situations there is no one best move and a top-notch player adapts his play over time, exploiting his opponent's behavior. Polaris build a series of "bots" that have differing personalities or styles of play, ranging from aggressive to passive. Researchers monitored the performance of three bots and then moved them in and out of the lineup like football players."
Not harder than chess (Score:2, Informative)
Hang on a Minute... (Score:5, Informative)
Is that really true?! It seems very counterintuitive.
Certainly there's nothing special in general about games involving bluff. One of Von Neumann's first game theory case studies involved a simplified version of poker precisely to demonstrate how to automate bluffing.
RTFA (Score:5, Informative)
RTFA. (Score:4, Informative)
Chance elements make this hard to judge (Score:2, Informative)
You can flip a coin 5 times and all 5 might be heads... doesn't mean that heads will always win. That's chance. That's poker, even if the pros and the weekend wannabes try to argue otherwise.
Re:Not harder than chess (Score:5, Informative)
The other situation to try it in is a squeeze play- if you have a raise and a call behind you, you have a very tight table image, and you think they don't have good hands. A raise, especially an all in raise, is signaling an extremely good hand. From a tight player, this must be respected. You can get both players to fold here if they don't have premium hands (AK, QQ-AA). This is a high risk move though, and you must have been playing extremely tight, versus people capable of laying down a good hand, to try it.
Limit Holdem (Score:5, Informative)
Re:RTFA. (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Hang on a Minute... (Score:5, Informative)
poker jargon pedantry (Score:2, Informative)
well, no. not if the guy was dealt a "suited pair" from a single deck.
There's no such thing as a "suited pair" in a single deck.
You have four distinct suits, and thirteen distinct ranks. There is one card of each of the thirteen ranks in each suit, and likewise there is exactly one card of each suit at a given rank.
A "pair" is two cards of the same rank. "Suited" means two cards of the same suit. So to have a "suited pair", one must have two cards of the same rank and the same suit.
Therefore, by definition, if you have a "suited pair" and you're playing a single-deck game, the game cannot possibly be honest.
Re:Not harder than chess (Score:3, Informative)
Second day was not a fair competition (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.cs.ualberta.ca/~games/poker/man-machin
The U of A team gave the humans the logs of the first two games!
Perhaps after the entire match they could have reviewed the game logs, however this give the humans an unfair advantage during the second day. I can't believe that this isn't getting more attention -- they bascially gave the human team a huge insight into the inner workings, strategy, and tendencies of their opponent. Something that Polaris definitely did not have.
In my opinion this sours the competition and completely invalidates the final two matches. The human likely found a weakness (or two or three) and exploited it, and we can't know for sure that they would have found the weakness without those logs.
That was a huge mistake by the U of A team, and they have apparently got away with it without anyone noticing.
Re:Not harder than chess (Score:4, Informative)
You'd be wrong. I made my living for two years playing PLO almost exclusively, at a high level (fuck you UIGEA and everyone who voted for you). The general consensus among students of the game is that PLO is one of the least psychological games played. The lack of bluffing being the major reason. Bluffing occurs, but the very same reason you cite as making it more psychological is why you're wrong the number of hands played. Playing such a large number of hand (50% is insane, and I challenge you to show me some poker tracker stats of someone who wins playing 50% of their hands long term). In fact, if a computer were to win consistently, I think PLO is a game that it would play.
"I don't think there's a difference between statistical knowledge and psychology."
Then let me learn you up. Let's use PLO. I have A-A-10-J double suited. I raise pot preflop. A VERY tight player reraises, and I call. Flop come K-K-K. Against an aggro player, I can reasonably infer that my 2nd nuts is good. Against Mr. Tighty, who I have seen reraise only with large suited pairs (KKJQ, QQJ10) or rundown hands (9-10-J-Q, 10-J-Q-K) I know within a certain range what he's holding, with some certainty. I am first to act, I check, he bets, I raise, and Mr. Tighty RERAISES. Based on my assessment of his likely behavior (psychology) I can reasonably infer that he has the K. Statistically, you NEVER lay down K's full of A's, but when your read (psychology) is good and the opponent is uncreative and direct (psychology) you lay it down.
Statistically the correct play is to put it all in if you can, but by understanding the other players decision making process (psychology) you can find a fold.
You're wrong again
Re:Not harder than chess (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Not harder than chess (Score:3, Informative)
Douglas Adams invented a word for this:
ABOYNE (vb.) [langmaker.com] To beat an expert at a game of skill by playing so appallingly that none of his clever tactics or strategies are of any use to him.
Re:Not harder than chess (Score:4, Informative)
In limit games against unskilled opponents, you're right. In other games, the psychology is much more important. And in fact, if you want to do the probabilities right, you need the psychology. There's almost no hand of interest you can analyze properly without an estimate of some quantity like "the probability this bozo would make that raise in this situation." Is it statistical analysis or psychology? Is it the sugar or the stirring?
Re:Not harder than chess (Score:1, Informative)
Re:No-one MAKES a living gambling. (Score:3, Informative)
so its a a form of entertainment they pay for. Professional poker
players are no more a leach on society than opera singers.