Quote:
Originally Posted by tombos21
Poker is too complex.
This seems overly pessimistic, it's not even that complex compared to actual daily challenges humans face, like building a bridge. You know what the rules are, the decisions are limited and spoonfed to Hero. I'm not saying we should perfectly solve the game, just analyze it with this slight improvement in the mathematical model.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tombos21
The methods for solving poker with continuous bet sizing already exist. There are several academic papers about it. In fact, it's more straightforward than the algorithms we use today (it basically involves solving a gigantic payoff matrix). However, it's far too computationally intensive. Even very simple versions of poker quickly become intractable.
I'd be interesting on reading those papers, if you have any specific details on the source, or if you vaguely remember where you read them, let me know.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tombos21
The problem is that you can't solve one action in a vacuum. The decision to call a flop bet is tied to the gamespace of all the possible turns and rivers. You can't solve range vs range either. Because of blocker effects, each hand is effectively up against a different opposing range. This further explodes the gamespace.
Of course, this is another common approach to solving a hand, which I am not challenging. Other than increasing the complexity of the solve, I do not see how it is relevant to the topic at hand.
Additionally, my argument is that making the bet sizings continuous would reduce the complexity of solves as well, since instead of needing to consider 3 or more different bet sizes, it would need to consider one distribution with a single mean. Of course it could become bimodal after a street, but it would create a tree with 2 branches each, rather than 3+.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dude45
Quantum computing will be mainstream by 2030. Wonder how close we'll be able to get to truly solving poker then.
I don't think more computing would make a difference without reframing the approach, what would the impact of x10 or x100 strength in computing power really be? Consider that this can be accomplished by letting computers run 10 or 100 times longer, or just buying 10 times the equipment.
Another factor to consider is that Poker is far from the most pressing dilemma faced by man, the state of the art computing tech is first used in other domains. Poker is several generations behind, we haven't really caught up to GPU computing, there's almost no Machine Learning approaches that I know of, or they have a super low investment.
Consider for example Shattered, when Google broke SHA1, or AlphaZero where they dominated chess. They applied millions of servers in computing power to the challenge costing in excess of millions of dollars. No one will do that for poker.
When quantum computing is released, maybe Poker will already be adopting GPUs for calculations instead of CPUs