Quote:
Originally Posted by David Sklansky
Although I agree with most of this I again claim three things: (Although only number 1 really matters.)
1. There are poker games that are more fun, allow looser play and more multi way pots and enough volatility such that even "perfect" players or bots won't really ruin the game or intimidate the recreational player.
2. Bots will never be programmed to take full advantage of bad players because it is a needless risk given they are certain to have an edge without doing this. Thus great players will outperform them in situations where there are bad players in the mix.
3. Bots that adjust away from GTO based on how players play will probably increase their winnings UNLESS the opponent is an expert who KNOWS that this is what he is up against (while the computer doesn't know he knows). Do you see why?
I think any on-line poker game that has enough money and traffic involved to represent a profit opportunity for bots will be attacked by them. The more complex and multi-way, the bigger advantage a well-constructed bot will have over a human. The games won't be ruined if there are enough players - especially bad ones - alongside the bots. I don't agree that great players will outperform bots in the long run, even when there are bad players involved. At one point I thought that humans would keep ahead of computers in chess for similar reasons, but the increasing power of computers, especially when combined with genetic algorithms, just gets there in the long run. In a few hours, I can test a computer program against more poker hands than on on-line multi-tabler could play in a lifetime.
The software will not care what their opponent knows or doesn't know - they will base their adjustment only on observed plays. Expert human players are very good at balancing their play, but even the best are not perfect. A good software algorithm can weigh the expected advantage of deviating from GTO to exploit some players, against the expected cost of such deviation due to exploitation from others who observe its non-optimal strategy. These are examples of things that are fairly easy in software and too difficult for a human player to calculate on the fly. The best players have great "feel" for such things, and will come close - I expect bots to make most of their money from lower tiers of players.
My big concern is whether live play will end up being destroyed in a similar way, by cheats who use concealed technology to assist their play. We had blackjack computers in shoes years ago. At the moment Google Glass is easy to spot, but the next generations of such technologies may be very hard to keep out of the game.