The outcome is still determined by the action of other players. The GTO bot, in that case. Note that the bot will have the button every second hand and might fold there, hence making the fold bot win some hands.

Just imagine that you decide to play and check the "fold to any bet" or "check/fold to any bet" box when possible, and always open fold in all the other cases. It is a strategy, since you decide what you'll do in any given situation. Therefore, it might be used to prove hypothetical things (such as: GTO bot will win against at least one strategy, assuming the GTO bot is not the fold bot [quite easy to prove...]).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counterexample

The fold bot COULD NOT be used as an example when you want to discuss mixed strategies, and within that, strategies that are actually mixing their play. But there is a huge difference between "can't be an example" and "makes a bad example to normal situations and normal decision-making".

p.s. I had courses of game theory and logic and did well on both so please, please, trust me on this...

sauce kanu and a few others have agreed, earlier posts

yep, hes making quite a clown out of himself with all these unfinished challenges

yeah you guys are somewhat right, durrr wins most of the time if he trys really hard, but hes going to most likely be lazy and not play hands or decline

Some players prefer to start off with a rack to hang their hat on.

They feel it is good to have an unexploitable strategy they know extremely well which should win or breaks even against their opponents. They can then make exploitive adjustments as they gather information... informational adjustment tables may in some cases be pre-calculated.

Also, a strong GTO strategy is a good fall back if losing focus (perhaps tired) but still wanting to play, feeling too much uncertainty, or out-matched vs some of the players.

Players were playing GTO to varying degrees in the 70's in the games of 5 Card Draw Low Ball and 5 Card Draw High. Some players played complete "player tendency uniformed systems" with additional informational adjustments ready to plug in.

Side Note: While the modern-sounding term "range" was not in vogue back then, the concept was well known by Draw and Low Ball Players and weighed heavily in their thoughts and hand analysis.

Durrrr countering the ridiculous 8 million $ buy-out clause, with no buy-out clause at all and 200K hands lol. Complete financial destruction is a real possibility now. Lets see if this will restore the balance

Ike and Kanu have too much class to say it any more directly but let's be frank, durrrr's slowdown tactics in the jungleman challenge have to be a concern. The obvious solution is to set the parameters of the bet not in terms of hands but time. For example say six months - and then it's up to durrrr to play as many hands as he likes. I suppose in reality a min/max combination of hands and time will be necessary.

It's great that this argument has convinced a bunch of people that poker is a game of skill but the argument itself is completely wrong. It's persistent popularity really tilts me.

The claim that "A game is a game of skill if and only if you can lose on purpose." is wrong in both directions.

Consider roulette with an "autolose"
bet available or lhe with no folding allowed.

i think i know why durrrr is doing this

he has the code of the bot that exploited slumbot the best
OR he will use his delay tactics to get the code of the next release!

either way, this seems like a bet of ego between ike/sauce/durrrr.

So, essentially, roulette with an "autolose" bet available or lhe.

Just wanted to write something like what MilkMan said.

@durrrr / ike:

It's better to first have durrrr play as many hands as he likes within a month or two period, pause the challenge for three months and then resume to play a pre-set number of hands within agreed time frame, possibly at a higher stake.

Something like playing two months of 5-1000 (4-6 tabling durrrr can manage 100K hands if he wants to), three months pause and then at least 15K hands at 2-4K within a month (with a buy-out of, say, 2.5 BB/100 for each side any time).

Why 200k hands? Wouldn't 50k or even 25k be more than enough? Is HULHE really that swingy? If the 200k hand propbet ever somehow gets made, I can only see maybe about 15k hands at best being played and then the other side would just want to buy themselves out of the propbet, because at that mark it should already be clear who has the advantage.

jfc please just stop posting.

6tabling HULHE is not really doable, imo

That's really depends on the bots software and hardware, especially the interface.

Have you ever played HU LHE?
Sure, it depends on the things you mentioned, but playing 6tables of HU LHE at your best is not possible under the best conditions, imo.

how long would it realistically take durrrr to play 200k hands vs this bot? i doubt he will want to 4-6 table it as it would increase the chances he misses opportunities to "exploit" the bot or the more likely he makes a ton of small mistakes which ends in him getting crushed.

so with that said, do people realise how long 200k hands would take over a couple of tables? with no buyout clause this 100% won't get off the ground, why would kanu/ike put themselves in a situation were its even remotely possible that they go broke backing a bot at 2k/4k? over 200k hands it's possible to lose 10mil + which i'm sure neither side want to do.

if this is going to go off without a buyout then they need to play this at lower stakes and make a big side bet, at least that way they can control how much they could lose.

I never played more than one table HU LHE, I'll admit that... I know it is a fast game, I just assumed that durrrr is 15x better than me at multi tabling and would feel more comfortable playing more than one table.

how many tables PA and kagome kagome played on their 2-4K/3-6K battle, do you remember?

What if roulette with an autolose was a p2p zero-sum game (maybe tourney format?) where every known strategy involved some non-zero percentage of autolose. Would it then be considered a skill game? Obviously it's a really easy game, but it seems like it'd still be considered a game of skill.

I'm not following how the game you're describing would work...

the roulette will have both a 0 and a "you won!"?

Each player gets to spin the roulette wheel 100 times. There are 39 options: 1-36, 0, 00, and auto-lose. The numbers all pay x chips per time you guess right. The auto-lose is not on the wheel so picking that option always results in losing. At the end of the 100 spins, the person with the most chips wins 1st, 2nd most chips takes 2nd, etc.

Alternatively you could turn it into a cash game with those same rules but at the end the chips in play are averaged and however many chips above the average you win that many $'s (or multiple of $'s) and however many below you lose that many.

The bottom line is there is a very easy gto to play (just never pick auto-lose), but if we were in an environment where no one played that strategy, would it not then be considered a game of skill? Is that not similar to poker where if a gto strategy were known anyone playing non-gto against a gto opponent would be considered as dumb as people picking auto-lose in roulette (or maybe auto-lose hits 1/1000 times yet pays out the same), but the problem is we don't know gto, so I'm trying to equate that with people in roulette just not realizing that picking auto-lose is a bad idea.

These games would satisfy your criteria for skill games right? If so, what is the difference that makes it a skill game if it's not the ability to lose on purpose? Must one also be able to win for it to be a game of skill? fwiw I'm not entirely agreeing with you that just simple roulette with auto-lose is not a game of skill, but with my slight modifications do we both agree it's a game of skill? Do you consider blackjack (with counting outlawed) a game of skill?

Wow, this thread got out of hand. There is so much nonsense which is posted and goes uncontested... things like "The goal of GTO is to make your opponent indifferent" (wrong), "GTO in poker would win against any other strategy" (probably wrong), "GTO in poker would break even against any other strategy (wrong)... can't go through them all.

Earlier somebody asked about opening sizes in GTO HUNL. I would be very surprised if a solution would use the same raise size for its whole range, and if the sizes didn't depend on stack sizes.

Hoss could prob beat it, I know of a few people that more than likely could not only beat it but could prob crush it because I know they have experience crushing some of the best bots (similar to this one ) over very large samples


Durrr may be able to beat it but it may take time to adjust and the time he spends adjusting may be the diff in winning and losing.

This obv cant be done with more then 1tbling. A computer will not be affected by playing many tables. It will play "the A-game" nontheless.
Durrr on the other hand will play worse deping on number of tables.