certain subjective games computers are just not good at. there's no such thing as a bot that can play Go beyond an intermediate level. the bot will have to subjectively carve out its human opponents range, and since its not explicit, it wont be able to do it better than the best humans.

It will probably take a while to achieve, but eventually yes - I do believe that, theoretically, Allen Iverson could become a better poker player than all others.

I for one welcome our new robotic overlords

that's ******ed.

I think that`s not true, if they make it public, they prolly will earn even more money, because big companys like microsoft and intel want to know more about the bot.
Also they will get honored, which is for most of them >money.

edit:

I think most of the good programmers, don`t really care about the game "poker", they are just interested in the AI. Same in chess, they don`t really care about chess they just want to prove something.

The incentive for the creator of a poker AI that could beat the best players would be to keep it a secret, not to make it public. Who would agree to play against it? What site would allow it? Poker is a money game. Not a chest-thumping victory dance.

So it would probably just be associated with one or more real winning online poker players. To avoid detection, it would run on its own computer, and the player would do the button clicking on the client, and some occasional chat.

In effect, it would be an adviser.

whats your reasoning that private teams are more motivated???

do you think scientists were given projects by... god? or something? as if someone was like 'hey, make a poker bot' against their will? they are as motivated as anyone.

Imagination...creativity.
Computers kinda lacking there I believe.

Computer will always be bound by some rules governing it.

Also is it a net bot, or a live one that can detect heart rate and such?

GGK


Edit for the Iverson crew...he is gonna play in China.

seriously...
has to be a level.

I voted no by mistake, but I suppose it is pretty clear that if there is no time limit and smart people keep caring enough to keep trying to program it then eventually there would probably be enough advances in computing power to allow a computer to have enough brute force to iterate all the possibilities and thus take over at poker.

Well yea it is either possible or impossible overall as is everything, though we may not always know the answer.

However, it of course could be impossible right now, but be possible in the future due to technological advances: but that then that would mean that it is possible .... just that it can't be done right now.

I'm surprised no one considers the form of poker. Some games are simply way more complex then others. If we compare the complexity of Omaha vs Holdem, Deep games vs 100bb or cap games etc... As we reduce the variables, the computer gains a solid advantage in being able to "solve" the game.

Even if poker isn't solved per say (chess isn't solved), it may come a point where in certain forms of poker, a Human becomes inferior to a computer (There's a difference between AI and a Program). Referencing back to the complexity, I guess we could compare the game of Chess to the game of Go. While they are both complete information games, Go poses a higher level of complexity for a computer to analyze.

Quotes from wiki
"The game emphasizes the importance of balance on multiple levels and has internal tensions."
"...the best Go programs only manage to reach an intermediate amateur level."
"It was not until August 2008 that a computer was able to win a game against a professional level player at this handicap. (computer had an advantage of 9 stones)"

"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go_(game)"

Poker is about +EV or -EV decisions. People talking about creativity don't understand the game.

And? You are bound by rules too; only you don't see them as clearly as a programming code.

Chess is solved.

Let me first start by saying I write software for a living so this idea intrigues me. In fact, I think it would be a very cool comp sci grad. program to write. Okay, so anyways...

Think Chess and Deep Blue... it will happen just like it happened in Chess. IMHO, if you play an AI bot of the future, heads up say for 100k hands he will win more playing mathematically perfect than a human who can make big mistakes. He will be programmed to make mathematically perfect play, which I think will be a huge advantage. I think you can program an AI to play just as many random hands as live players to throw them off. I think you could even give the AI the ability to change up its play through out a session. (You know laggy for a while then maybe nitty for a while based on certain conditions, etc.)

I think the difference between chess and poker is that there are so many MORE variables in poker and there is more chance that it will be a more complicated AI to write. I think it can be done. Can the AI possible have a "red flag" warning that a player MIGHT be on tilt so as to raise the range of hands the tilting player might play? Why not? AI could determine, the very hand before the player to my right got sucked out on and lost a big hand.

I think the only real way to always beat these AIs would be to play very unpredictably as to throw off and tracking that the AI does (such as figure your range as 20% or that you tend to more often than not bet the river for value or xyz other contrived ideas). But even in these situations the AI could still possibly pick up on a better pattern or time it took to bet or SOMETHING to give it an edge... I think it can be done and may be done by some brilliant mind at MIT or something in the future.

It's happening already, look on the win holdem forums. I was reading on there yesterday that they have bots that use PT data and adjust to your play.

"Mathematically perfect play"...
Isn't a play's "perfection" entirely dependent on your opponents strategy at a given time? If villain folds in a given spot 34% of the time implementing a certain strategy, yet folds 8% of the time in that same spot using a different strategy (etc. etc.), how can a "perfect play" exist that is optimal against ALL of his possible strategies in every possible spot?

Example: Harry could play extremely tight/passive (so the bot makes mathematically 'perfect' plays against a tight/passive player), and then Harry simply changes gears to tight/aggro to instantly exploit it. The standards of "perfection" constantly change, at an extremely rapid pace, don't they?

The bot would adjust to play against a player who constantly swings his game to polar styles.

Bots in the future will be able to detect changes in game play and respond to them with a counter strategy. It won't be all that much different than playing a great human, except the bot will have the ability to data crunch 1000000x better than any human, which will give it a much bigger edge than a human opponent would have, especially the more hands it plays against someone.

What if a player is playing switching gears from hand to hand and not necessarily sticking to a defined strategy for any more than one hand at a time?

it folds to you...
you raise with 74 on the button, then fold A7 in cutoff , then raise 64, etc. etc... just completely and totally randomize play.

Why does folding A7 in the CO confuse a computer?

If you randomise your play, it's highly unlikely you will be doing it mathmatically balanced and optimally, so you will be exploited and lose.

The computer would realize it and adjust accordingly. I mean, if you were playing Phil Ivey, is that the approach you would take? And if so, would you just expect him to be so completely overwhelmed by your randomness that he just wouldn't know what to do, and you'd be able to dominate him?

If it wouldn't work against Phil Ivey, it won't work against a future poker bot. Plain and simple.

I VOTED AND NOW IT'S 227-227.

Definitely deserved capitals.

For the longest time people thought chess was some beautifully complex human game until computers pwned them.


AI > players

Again are we talking about net bots or live bots? Is this heads up only or 6max,even FR?

+1

There's a reason most of these guys are poker players as opposed to, say, physics professors or computer scientists. Lots of irrational, magical thinking on display here, which is exactly why bots will crush humans in all forms of poker before too long. Humans just aren't wired for probabilistic thinking by nature -- we're prone to tilt, "getting personal", being fooled by randomness, etc., all of which are easily exploitable by a well programmed bot.