To be fair, Discipline has frequently put forward ... unpopular views about chess. He also has some weird issue with computers being good at games, so I would guess this particular view is highly predicated on computers beating humans at chess but not poker. I don't see why that necessarily means poker is more complex than chess, but there ya go.

I disagree. You underestimate the power of the market. There is a huge demand for competent NLHE bots even if such demand is not publicized, because such bots would be incredibly profitable.

Well, in a given 6max NLHE hand the following variables are all important:

- The cards that each player is dealt
- The stack sizes
- The flop
- The turn
- The river
- Any history between any two players or any three players
- How tight or loose each player is preflop
- How willing each player is to commit with an overpair on a junk flop
- How willing each player is to chase a gutshot with deep stacks
- How willing each player is...ad infinitum

It's ludicrous to suggest that chess is more complex than NLHE.

swindoc,

NLHE isn't more complex than chess because computers are worse at it; computers are worse at it because it's more complex than chess. Also, games interest me, and programming interests me, so I think a lot about humans vs computers in various games. I don't hae some "weird issue" with it.

uh you realise reads on the other guy and history are irrelevant to solving the game right? you clearly dont understand what it means to solve poker.

What on earth are you talking about? If an entity doesn't play perfectly then it hasn't solved the game. If you don't take into account all of those variables, you can't possibly play perfectly.

solving the game means playing unexploitably. taking those things into account means playing exploitatively (and so also exploitabley).

No, solving the game means playing optimally.

If by "playing perfectly" you mean it will do as well as possible against any counter-strategy, then you have to consider all the same variables in chess as well. For example if it turns out Black is lost with best play, your program still has to win with Black against certain weaker opponents/strategies, and has to take advantage of their weaknesses.

But it's more normal to say the game is "solved" when you have an unbeatable, undominatable strategy. This would be independent of any reads on your opponent. This is the sense in which checkers, rock paper scissors, and tic-tac-toe are "solved".

Wait a minute. Rock-paper-scissors is solved??

And I don't think you would agree that RPS is a more complex game than chess. Even though there are so many factors to take into account:

- the match situation
- the stakes
- the guy's propensity to play rock
- the guy's propensity to switch to scissors after a run of 2+ papers, versus his propensity to switch to rock
- and so on ad infinitum

It's ludicrous to suggest that chess is more complex than RPS

That's not nearly as important in chess as it is in NLHE and you know it. Besides, a program that had solved chess and always played the optimal move would never be in a lost position.

SAME WITH POKER GOD DAMN IT CAN YOU NOT SEE THAT AND NEVER BEING IN A LOST POSITION MEANS PLAYING UNEXPLOITABLEY WHICH ALSO MEANS PLAYING UNEXPLOITATIVELY WHICH MEANS IGNORING READS WHY ARE YOU EVEN HAVING THIS DEBATE THE DEFINTION OF A SOLVED GAME IS NOT EVEN UP FOR DEBATE

Relax.

as someone who has played 20,000+ chess games and 1,000,000+ poker hands, i find chess way more complex.

How odd, Chesskid.

Okay, question: why are there no unexploitable NLHE bots?

Black might be lost in the initial position. And even if he is drawing, you still need a strategy to win drawn positions.

im tilting my nuts off at the moment but my post was 100% valid

because poker isnt solved!

Tilting figuratively, or literally? Because if you're literally tilting you should quit posting in this thread and concentrate on playing.

there are

no i lost my games now.

Okay, so what makes you think that it's closer to being solved than chess is, when there are chess engines that are virtually unbeatable but there aren't even any decent NLHE bots?

i never said it was closer to being solved than chess. no one did. we said it is a less complex game. there probably some trivially simple games out there that no one has solved.

It's amazing how the more someone reads your posts, the more tilted they tend to get. Unexploitable imo.

That's funny since you continue to use the fact that chess is more "solved" to try to support your argument that chess is less complex. For some reason I get the impression you're talking in circles now. Have you even given a reason that you believe poker to be more complex than chess?