Like what?

did I miss something about the streams today?

Definition of 'beat' here is almost certainly sitting out against decent regs and waiting for recreational players to sit them. That bar is not very high.

If msoft offered $1 million in prizemoney for the poker competition, we'd see pretty close to equilibrium play in HUNL.

Pre challenge, I thought you guys were at the forefront of poker AI. After the start of the competition when the bot was doing some clearly bad things, I assumed it was because Claudico was mainly focussed on techniques that were transferable across other domains and less focussed on winning the challenge. Now, I'm not sure.

day off today

Well, I am not sure if they would beat anyone but yeah, their solution is very good and won't be easy to replicate.
On the other hand they calculated it for 70 days on 4800 cores... while it's impressive they got the distributed code right it doesn't sound very impressive considering the amount of resources were spent. I mean... there is not much to compare because normal people don't have access to supercomputers and the guys who won limit competitions so far (Cepheus didn't compete yet I think) did it having way smaller hardware and they claim they solved it without approximation as well (although I have no idea if they are right about it). If they did it's safe to assume they are ahead of the curve on this one.

I understand it.There is value in developing more general approach which is used to poker than focusing just on poker. I am just saying that the fact that you are the best academic team doesn't mean you have much of automatic authority here.
It seems to me you guys made some design decisions which are just very counter-productive to developing a strong playing entity.
I am a bit jaded because there was a discussion about Tartanian before and I had the impression the author doesn't understand much about poker (although I am sure he understands a lot about math/programming in general) then there are claims that Claudico is some top AI or what not while it's clear to everyone it's blundering left and right and taking 30 seconds to recalculate river on 64 cores. It should be easy to make some claims about exploitability as well (at least for flop exploitability or w/e) and those are nowhere to be seen while the author is claiming people can learn a lot from the bot. Where you claim stuff that you have this amazing thing and people can learn a lot of from it then provide the number quantifying how good it is. It's not a rocket science to calculate it or at least approximate it well.
If it's 25bb/100 from NE then we know it's decent but far away from being close to the solution. If it's 50bb/100 we know it's just not good at all (even if it's stronger than other publicly available stuff).

punter, how do you know that limping and 6x overbets on the river are not part of a GTO strategy? Have you solved HUNL already and not told anyone?

Yeeep. Which means the arguments above about "obvious" bad lines based strictly around current consensus hold little weight.

If you are going to attribute quotes to people, please be clear whom you are quoting. I'm not sure whom "the author" refers to.

Punter,

The creators of Cepheus said previously that they initially used heuristics based on human conceptions of proper play (like never check the nuts or never fold x flush draw) but that these rules simply got in the way and made their strategy worse off so they ditched them.

Also, it's not at all clear to me that limping would be more worthless in no limit than in limit, like you claim. Can you elaborate on that? In limit we are never folding to a 3bet preflop while in NL we (probably) are.

If anyone is willing to pay enough money I'd be willing to go through the vods and create hand histories for any/all of the players. It would have to be a pretty decent sum though .

It raisefolded KdTs OTT on a T 7 4 2 board with 3 diamonds. It raisefolded to 80% stack.

I'm curious what standard deviation Cepheus has when playing with itself.

Who is better -- someone who loses 11 BB/100 vs. the top players in the world but occasionally makes random horrible plays? Or someone who loses at 30 BB/100 but never makes any plays that stand out as being clearly terrible on their own?

You're making it sound like it's a huge number but you don't have to buy a supercomputer for that. You can rent computer power through amazon or google. I don't know exactly how much it would cost but I'm guessing something on the order of $250.000. A good chunk of money, but it might be worth it if high stakes limit holdem was still alive.

sam i'd love a few sentences on why you think a NE might exist for nlhe. formal explanations are fine. thanks

Well, in a nutshell, every game has a Nash equilibrium, and NLHE is a game. I imagine this explanation is not very helpful for you though

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nash_eq...stence_Theorem

"Nash proved that if we allow mixed strategies, then every game with a finite number of players in which each player can choose from finitely many pure strategies has at least one Nash equilibrium."

It exists by definition bro, unless you think Nash was wrong lol

all games do not have a nash equilibrium


nash can be right and a NE might not exist for nlhe

Still waiting for you and durrrr to make billions and win a nobel prize with this theory you have.

For example this article:

http://www.cardplayer.com/poker-news...apon-for-poker

Is kinda a big claim when you have something exploitable for probably 40bb+/100 and playing in a way that its untypical things it does is major source of profit for the opponent.

Which also brings us to:

There is no considering here. Just calculate the number. It's a relatively straightforward programming exercise to do so (at least for well defined betting abstraction). The number on some chosen flops would be enough to give at least the ballpark.

Yeah I think 150-200k. At this point it's probably better to harvest Cepheus's preflop (or even flop) ranges and recalc from there.

its not nobel worthy, it doesnt contradict nash

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

PM me your algo for computing best response/exploitabillity in imperfect-recall games/abstractions and maybe we can work something out

what's a pure strategy in poker?

It just means 'not a mixed strategy'.

I object to this post. You are implying that I stated all the things you are saying. E.g., "you claim stuff that you have this amazing thing and people can learn a lot of from it then provide the number quantifying how good it is." But in post http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...postcount=1070 you only give links to quotes by Professor Sandholm, and you never clarified whom your different "the author"'s refer to. Please stop attributing quotes to me that I did not say.