Two Plus Two Publishing LLC Two Plus Two Publishing LLC
 

Go Back   Two Plus Two Poker Forums > >

Notices

Poker Theory General poker theory

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 11-11-2013, 03:44 AM   #51
Biffo
adept
 
Biffo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Looking at the mountain
Posts: 845
Re: Pokersnowie question

Would it be a valid concept to suggest that a person who can beat an objective standard i.e a bot better than another player might be a superior player...at a technical level, at least.
Biffo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-11-2013, 04:32 AM   #52
Hazbuk
newbie
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 25
Im surprised nobody has mentioned this point. Since its trying to play GTO it will have a set of algorithms it religiously follows, a human aware of these algorithms would easily beat it, thereby making it pointless in those situations.
Rusty has made some really interesting points. And is right imo, poker is incredibly complex and will likely never have a GTO solution. God help us if it does.
Hazbuk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-11-2013, 07:22 AM   #53
gbtl
grinder
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 543
Re: Pokersnowie question

technically GTO is unexploitable so if snowie was really playing GTO you can't exploit it with knowledge of the algorithms. but obviously snowie isn't GTO
gbtl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-11-2013, 12:36 PM   #54
SchDonk
old hand
 
SchDonk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: metadating
Posts: 1,610
Re: Pokersnowie question

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazbuk View Post
Im surprised nobody has mentioned this point. Since its trying to play GTO it will have a set of algorithms it religiously follows, a human aware of these algorithms would easily beat it, thereby making it pointless in those situations.
Interesting observation. Thank you!
Basically, computers are fanatic maniacs and should be treated as potential terrorists!
SchDonk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-11-2013, 01:23 PM   #55
AshleyC
veteran
 
AshleyC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: London
Posts: 3,249
Re: Pokersnowie question

Snowie was demo'd to me by one of the founders. In one hand example, after Hero opened KQo on the button and was 3 bet by the BB to 9x 100bbs effective the Snowie recommendation was to fold, with 4 betting the next best option followed by calling as worst option.

In today's games I would against all but the biggest nits folding seems to be leaving money on the table. This program does not take into account if the BBC is a 90/90/90 or a 2/2/1 it will recommend the same play. If I 3bet 100% it would not adjust.

The founder mentioned that a lot of Zoom players from Montenegro were using the program with some success up to 500nl.

I'm pretty skeptical and don't think it's good for the games as programs like this put off recreational players and I think there must not take into account post-flop playability but use raw equity instead to determine defending ranges to not be exploitable ie probably recommending to defend with hands like A7o instead of KQo in the above example.

Last edited by AshleyC; 11-11-2013 at 01:27 PM. Reason: Extra
AshleyC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-11-2013, 02:44 PM   #56
SchDonk
old hand
 
SchDonk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: metadating
Posts: 1,610
Re: Pokersnowie question

Quote:
Originally Posted by AshleyC View Post
Snowie was demo'd to me by one of the founders. In one hand example, after Hero opened KQo on the button and was 3 bet by the BB to 9x 100bbs effective the Snowie recommendation was to fold, with 4 betting the next best option followed by calling as worst option.

In today's games I would against all but the biggest nits folding seems to be leaving money on the table. This program does not take into account if the BBC is a 90/90/90 or a 2/2/1 it will recommend the same play. If I 3bet 100% it would not adjust.
Yeah, obv this would be a property of a "GTO" bot.

Quote:
The founder mentioned that a lot of Zoom players from Montenegro were using the program with some success up to 500nl.
Knew it.

Quote:
I'm pretty skeptical and don't think it's good for the games as programs like this put off recreational players and I think there must not take into account post-flop playability but use raw equity instead to determine defending ranges to not be exploitable ie probably recommending to defend with hands like A7o instead of KQo in the above example.
I think the Snowie guys specifically write on their site that Snowie does NOT take any equities into consideration for his decision-making process.
Whether it's good or bad. Meh, are HUDs good or bad? Was PokerStove good or bad? etc.
SchDonk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-11-2013, 04:28 PM   #57
bachfan
adept
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Colorado
Posts: 888
Re: Pokersnowie question

I agree that the pokersnowie marketing is, erm, fanciful at best. I've done a fair bit of AI programming, although my focus has been huhu limit hold'em. Even that game is far from 'solved', despite being the "easiest" real game in many respects. (I suspect the best human player will never again beat the best computer at huhu lhe, but that's another matter).

NLHE is at least an order of magnitude more difficult than lhe due to the variations in bet sizes and effective stack sizes. There are major research questions that remain to be addressed. That's before we even talk about multi-way play which is astronomically more difficult as has already been stated.

As far as their marketing goes, they can put up or shut up; there is a yearly computer poker competition for this.

Can I believe they have a strong hu nlhe agent? Yes. Is it better than most tough hu players? Possibly. Is their multi-player agent world-class? I highly doubt it. Can we learn from such strong AIs? I think so, but this is a hard question right now. My gut tells me that the people who would benefit the most are absolute beginners and very advanced players. The problem is a human being may not be able to imitate the way a computer approximates GTO play. For an absolute beginner this probably doesn't matter much, as there are so many huge leaks to plug. Then again, they would probably benefit just as much from playing micro stakes with a $10 'roll. An advanced player is going to be smart about making conclusions from how the ranges work and know which "mistakes" according to the AI are true mistakes and which ones are simply an artifact of how the program works. But it remains to be seen how useful it is for the average players out there.
bachfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-11-2013, 07:33 PM   #58
CarliC
journeyman
 
CarliC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Mexico
Posts: 266
Re: Pokersnowie question

Quote:
Originally Posted by Next Level View Post
Hey, near GTO or not, if it can beat top pros....BOSS

I was skeptical, still am, but if it can beat some1 like Jungle HU over a large sample, the damn thing is a boss in my book.
Yeah, and that doesnt mean its not a scam when they say it is GTO
CarliC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-12-2013, 03:21 AM   #59
pif
centurion
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: israel
Posts: 171
Re: Pokersnowie question

1) A stripped NLHE GTO poker bot will have at least 1TB (=1000GB) in disk space of different rules applicable to different situation.
2) Good poker players are measured by their ability to exploit the oponent in many different human ways (reads, tells, etc...). And absolutely not by how much their games is GTO approximation.
3) Anyway to beat most of non-expert players today you don't need more than 10 numbers(VPIP, PFR etc...)
pif is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-12-2013, 04:09 AM   #60
Ez MonEz
journeyman
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 254
Re: Pokersnowie question

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazbuk View Post
Im surprised nobody has mentioned this point. Since its trying to play GTO it will have a set of algorithms it religiously follows, a human aware of these algorithms would easily beat it, thereby making it pointless in those situations.
Rusty has made some really interesting points. And is right imo, poker is incredibly complex and will likely never have a GTO solution. God help us if it does.
It's not really that simple. For one thing, the algorithm only determines the process the model uses to create the optimal formula, and the exact formula would be impossible to reverse engineer unless you had the same model and data set. More importantly though, a truly game theory optimal strategy is not exploitable so the best you could do would be to break even.


I don't know much about game theory beyond the basics, but wouldn't a truly optimal strategy have to be solved by pure math, not using machine learning/simulation? With machine learning or simulations you can only converge to an optimal strategy, you can't actually reach it. Also, current machine learning is really poorly equipped to handle some of the problems that solving the game of poker poses, so I really don't see much progress being made using machine learning without the invention of dramatically different techniques.


As someone who recently got back into poker, I have to say that the recent obsession by poker players with GTO is a bit amusing. As a rule, exploiting the other player's strategy is always going to be more profitable assuming there's a large enough skill difference that it can be done. I'm not saying there's not a place for GTO-style thinking and play in a poker player's arsenal, but its usefulness seems to be overestimated by a lot of players. I find the math/AI part of it an interesting intellectual exercise, but most players would probably be better off, for instance, using empirical evidence from their database to design strategies to exploit other players.

Last edited by Ez MonEz; 11-12-2013 at 04:20 AM.
Ez MonEz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-12-2013, 05:16 AM   #61
Hazbuk
newbie
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 25
Re: Pokersnowie question

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ez MonEz View Post
It's not really that simple. For one thing, the algorithm only determines the process the model uses to create the optimal formula, and the exact formula would be impossible to reverse engineer unless you had the same model and data set. More importantly though, a truly game theory optimal strategy is not exploitable so the best you could do would be to break even.


I don't know much about game theory beyond the basics, but wouldn't a truly optimal strategy have to be solved by pure math, not using machine learning/simulation? With machine learning or simulations you can only converge to an optimal strategy, you can't actually reach it. Also, current machine learning is really poorly equipped to handle some of the problems that solving the game of poker poses, so I really don't see much progress being made using machine learning without the invention of dramatically different techniques.


As someone who recently got back into poker, I have to say that the recent obsession by poker players with GTO is a bit amusing. As a rule, exploiting the other player's strategy is always going to be more profitable assuming there's a large enough skill difference that it can be done. I'm not saying there's not a place for GTO-style thinking and play in a poker player's arsenal, but its usefulness seems to be overestimated by a lot of players. I find the math/AI part of it an interesting intellectual exercise, but most players would probably be better off, for instance, using empirical evidence from their database to design strategies to exploit other players.
From what I understand about GT yes it has to be purely mathematical (at least that was the case when I studied it at University for a short while). I didn't realise GTO was intended to be "unexploitable", if that's the case then surely it can never be achieved in poker? Most situations are exploitable in poker if you can make a good enough read.

Totally agree with your last point also.
Hazbuk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-12-2013, 06:49 AM   #62
marva
banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 41
Re: Pokersnowie question

Quote:
Originally Posted by pif View Post
1) A stripped NLHE GTO poker bot will have at least 1TB (=1000GB) in disk space of different rules applicable to different situation.
2) Good poker players are measured by their ability to exploit the oponent in many different human ways (reads, tells, etc...). And absolutely not by how much their games is GTO approximation.
3) Anyway to beat most of non-expert players today you don't need more than 10 numbers(VPIP, PFR etc...)
Re 1, good bots don't need to be big.

The bot which has won the Heads-up Limit bankroll event of the Annual Computer Poker Competition many times (a neural net trained to play like the previous year's strongest entrant) is only about 5MB, even though the bots it tries to imitate are usually hundreds of GB in size.
marva is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-12-2013, 09:34 AM   #63
erdnase17
adept
 
erdnase17's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 758
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChicagoRy View Post
RustyBrooks echoes some thoughts I've heard from very smart people about this.

On the other side, I see a lot of paranoid guys thinking this software will kill the games.

My only thoughts are that whoever markets it has done a hell of a good job with it. It's obviously not some random play bot, but it probably could be and still be selling well given how the marketing has been. Between the perfect play lines and the backgammon angle, it really seems to strike a chord with so many users.

I'd like to see it trialed against other bots in public competitions, rather than simply playing players on their own closed circuit system. But I don't know why they would do that unless they were 95% sure it would win, otherwise there's no upside to it given the public reaction to this software (combination of omg awesome and fear driven "don't talk about it" hype that just makes it more talked about).
+1. I'd like to see it pitted against (in order) hyperborean, slumbot and tartanian5. We know these bots are attempting to play gto in try their abstractions.

Sent from my GT-I9100 using 2+2 Forums
erdnase17 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-12-2013, 10:50 AM   #64
ZenFish
journeyman
 
ZenFish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: GTOpia
Posts: 300
Re: Pokersnowie question

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChicagoRy View Post

My only thoughts are that whoever markets it has done a hell of a good job with it. It's obviously not some random play bot, but it probably could be and still be selling well given how the marketing has been. Between the perfect play lines and the backgammon angle, it really seems to strike a chord with so many users.

I'd like to see it trialed against other bots in public competitions, rather than simply playing players on their own closed circuit system. But I don't know why they would do that unless they were 95% sure it would win, otherwise there's no upside to it given the public reaction to this software (combination of omg awesome and fear driven "don't talk about it" hype that just makes it more talked about).
I very much agree with this. And the method/algorithms behind it would need to be made public (if they are, I haven't seen them referenced anywhere). The University of Alberta poker research group does it right (the academic peer review way), whereas PokerSnowie could very well be snake oil for all I know. For starters, it would be interesting to measure how far from the equilibrium strategy PokerSnowie is. An algorithm for measuring that is discussed here (don't know how it would perform for NLHE, but the point is, it can be measured):

https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...5&postcount=62

So they need to give us the method, or all the hype in the world won't make me trust or pay for the software. Scientific claims need to be falsifiable, that's Science 101.

Last edited by ZenFish; 11-12-2013 at 11:08 AM.
ZenFish is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-12-2013, 11:10 AM   #65
mme
old hand
 
mme's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: true anti-CFR-HUDs
Posts: 1,668
Re: Pokersnowie question

Quote:
Originally Posted by ZenFish View Post
So they need to give us the method, or all the hype in the world won't make me trust or pay for the software. Scientific claims need to be falsifiable, that's Science 101.
you guys seem to forget that it is a commercial program, not a scientific exercise. off cause it is not a bad thing to needle them on this, but my bet is that we won't get any info until some open source project follows in their footsteps. any takers?
mme is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-12-2013, 11:19 AM   #66
ZenFish
journeyman
 
ZenFish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: GTOpia
Posts: 300
Re: Pokersnowie question

Quote:
Originally Posted by mme View Post
you guys seem to forget that it is a commercial program, not a scientific exercise. off cause it is not a bad thing to needle them on this, but my bet is that we won't get any info until some open source project follows in their footsteps. any takers?
Their website uses the phrases "perfect gameplay" and "GTO" a lot. These are phrases with very specific (and scientific) meanings. They say these things to make us pay for a piece of software that may or may not do what it claims. They should prove it to us, or use different words.
ZenFish is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-12-2013, 11:30 AM   #67
mme
old hand
 
mme's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: true anti-CFR-HUDs
Posts: 1,668
Re: Pokersnowie question

Quote:
Originally Posted by ZenFish View Post
Their website uses the phrases "perfect gameplay" and "GTO" a lot. These are phrases with very specific (and scientific) meanings. They say these things to make us pay for a piece of software that may or may not do what it claims. They should prove it to us, or use different words.
ssst ..they may get the idea from this to add one or the other (c) or (r) tag to their claims, complicating matters even more.
mme is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-12-2013, 02:15 PM   #68
knircky
veteran
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 2,097
Re: Pokersnowie question

Quote:
Originally Posted by ZenFish View Post
I very much agree with this. And the method/algorithms behind it would need to be made public (if they are, I haven't seen them referenced anywhere). The University of Alberta poker research group does it right (the academic peer review way), whereas PokerSnowie could very well be snake oil for all I know. For starters, it would be interesting to measure how far from the equilibrium strategy PokerSnowie is. An algorithm for measuring that is discussed here (don't know how it would perform for NLHE, but the point is, it can be measured):

https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...5&postcount=62

So they need to give us the method, or all the hype in the world won't make me trust or pay for the software. Scientific claims need to be falsifiable, that's Science 101.
The entire strategy is public and can be looked into. You can test snowies move in any situation.

Feel free to prove that it is not GTO. Given the limitation they provided.

There are a bunch of folks here talking about GTO that don't even understand what it is.
knircky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-12-2013, 02:16 PM   #69
knircky
veteran
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 2,097
Re: Pokersnowie question

Quote:
Originally Posted by mme View Post
you guys seem to forget that it is a commercial program, not a scientific exercise. off cause it is not a bad thing to needle them on this, but my bet is that we won't get any info until some open source project follows in their footsteps. any takers?
again its all out there.
knircky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-12-2013, 02:19 PM   #70
knircky
veteran
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 2,097
Re: Pokersnowie question

Quote:
Originally Posted by marva View Post
Re 1, good bots don't need to be big.

The bot which has won the Heads-up Limit bankroll event of the Annual Computer Poker Competition many times (a neural net trained to play like the previous year's strongest entrant) is only about 5MB, even though the bots it tries to imitate are usually hundreds of GB in size.
snowie is not a bot and not trying to be good. They have built a way to find the GTO solution of poker via a neuronal network with certain limitations.

the business model is to provide this as a training tool for players at a cost of course.
knircky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-12-2013, 02:32 PM   #71
laugh
newbie
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 25
The bet size is not optimized. So it can only be claimed as GTO approximate.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using 2+2 Forums
laugh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-12-2013, 02:59 PM   #72
RustyBrooks
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
RustyBrooks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 23,201
Re: Pokersnowie question

Quote:
Originally Posted by knircky View Post
The entire strategy is public and can be looked into. You can test snowies move in any situation.
Links to the public strategy? If you say "you can enter in hands and see what it recommends" then imo you fail.

Quote:
Feel free to prove that it is not GTO. Given the limitation they provided.
Yeah this is totally how validating claims works. Anyone who wants to says what ever they want and if you don't agree you have to prove it. This is why scientists are working around the clock to disprove cold fusion, lizard people, chemtrails, time travel, alien visitations and perpetual motion machines.

Quote:
There are a bunch of folks here talking about GTO that don't even understand what it is.
Obviously.
RustyBrooks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-12-2013, 03:35 PM   #73
mme
old hand
 
mme's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: true anti-CFR-HUDs
Posts: 1,668
Re: Pokersnowie question

have fun scraping strategy from its synaptic mind. this may take a while though. i'd rather send them a mail and ask for a brain dump ;-)

i wonder if the following two points find agreement here. i don't mind it being around if:

1 - it is made sure that it can not be used in-game (not some semi working solution, but something that is bullet prove)
2 - it can be used to rank players by some (provably) objective skill measure so we can in the end detect it (or it's mindset) and ban it from tables we don't want to see it at
mme is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-12-2013, 05:01 PM   #74
ZenFish
journeyman
 
ZenFish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: GTOpia
Posts: 300
Re: Pokersnowie question

Quote:
Originally Posted by knircky View Post
The entire strategy is public and can be looked into. You can test snowies move in any situation.
Do you have a link?

Quote:
Feel free to prove that it is not GTO. Given the limitation they provided.
That's not how the scientific approach works, it's the other way around. They label their strategy "GTO" without any (afaik) hard evidence that it's even close (given limitations, which lead to a simplified game, which has some GTO strategy that they are trying to approach). Since there are algorithms for measuring that (see link in my previous post), they have a bit of work to do before they can market the program so boldly, imo.

Quote:
There are a bunch of folks here talking about GTO that don't even understand what it is.
This is true. For starters, GTO isn't even well defined for multiway pots (I have limited understanding of this, but it has to do with alliances that can be formed between players, right?), so it's a little dubious to claim "perfect GTO play" in marketing for that reason alone.

Last edited by ZenFish; 11-12-2013 at 05:12 PM.
ZenFish is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-12-2013, 07:34 PM   #75
mme
old hand
 
mme's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: true anti-CFR-HUDs
Posts: 1,668
Re: Pokersnowie question

Quote:
Originally Posted by ZenFish View Post
This is true. For starters, GTO isn't even well defined for multiway pots (I have limited understanding of this, but it has to do with alliances that can be formed between players, right?), so it's a little dubious to claim "perfect GTO play" in marketing for that reason alone.
collusion is ruled out.

i am too lazy to dig it out, but this was the gist of the reply to some weakish prove attempt on why GTO can not exist in multi player situations and thus sno**e could always be beat in theory (discussed in this subforum not long ago)
mme is offline   Reply With Quote

Reply
      

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:31 PM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2008-2017, Two Plus Two Interactive
 
 
Poker Players - Streaming Live Online