Seriously.

I don't know him, but as someone with many friends in the higher levels of academia I was embarrassed for him to make such a misleading and fundamentally dishonest statement that his grad students helping him and the human players would know is not true. I wish I could hear the reaction of the team when Jason relays to the them what was said. It was so outrageous that I bet they will doubt Jason's word on it.

In his one-on-one, Jason came across very well and I hope he comes back to finish at least "fourth" in this event.

I highly, highly doubt that who would best who in HUNL between Bjorn and Doug has much at all to do with which of them does better vs. the bot. Yeah, I'm going to go ahead and say that.

I don't understand why Carnegie Mellon University is saying "The first time a computer program has played human pros in a heads-up, no-limit poker game!"

They seem to forget about Orac's matches against Tom McEvoy and Doyle Brunson in the 80's. Plus the $500,000 match against Bob Stupak.

CMU is 30 years late.

This must be a level right, even the cell phone I use to type this has more computing powers than those computers from the 80s

sounds like you have a smart phone

doug making lots of MES plays now; like opening 85bb with AA; overbetting sets. seems like he also lost a bit motivation (at least it is what it looks like); and obv easy to be bored playing the bot trillion hours for that 'relatively' low hourly.
still, would be fun if claudico makes a small comeback

to troll?

From the hands I have watched I think that is true as both Doug and Bjorn seem to have taken a "what the hell" approach and been overly aggressive for the sake of being aggressive to get the rush of causing Claudico to fold.

what happened to the claudico_extra stream? Are the engineers too embarrassed at having e1 know how much the bot is down overall?

How much it is down is apparently irrelevant as all that matters now is that it is "fourth" and beating a human.

yeah that's pretty lol. am I correct in understanding that it's only 20k hands that each guy is playing vs. the bot so cheet's results are nowhere near over a significant sample?

^ I could be wrong as I don't play it but i'm pretty sure 20k is a pretty decent sample for HU

the irony is strong in this one

Humans +$673,914 through 67,770

This is fk embarrassing. Didn't these geniuses do any testing?

Testing is for suckers

anyone got a link to the professor interview?

Maybe I'm biased because I have friends who work at Tower, but Sam seems like a pretty cool guy, and I hope his research and PhD is successful.

But the professor on the other hand, just wow. I honestly don't know where to begin. When WCG was offering insight into certain spots where the bot was not playing well, he refused to even listen, he would immediately try to defend that Claudico was perfect. I get that he's really prideful in this bot and Tartanian7, but isn't it possible that the simplifications made by the abstraction algorithm allow for error (or at least, exploitability)?

i don't dislike russian bill gates but i think it's pretty clear he came into this with too high expectations and is allowing his disappointment to cause him to act in a manner that doesn't make him look very good.

Same thoughts here.
Sam was great on the stream, answered the questions straight and is genuinely interested in what is going on and what humans think about the bot as it's clear as sky it's not perfect and there is something to be learnt.
The professors though sounds like bigger and bigger bs'er with every appearance he makes.

Again, if they knew what they are doing they would measure it or at least approximate it. You can't optimize for something you can't measure. When there is a claim about Nash equilibrium or optimal play then "give me the number" follows. If the numbers are not given the claim is worthless. It's as simple as that really.
You can have all your academic papers and all your magical theories, just write some code to measure the very thing you try to optimize for.

Time code please. If its true when its biggest intrigue off match and its newsworthy.

Yeah stick it to the scientists, and their redonkulous bot. USA! USA! Wake me up when we have colonies on Mars.

1. lay off the prof a bit
2. prof, stay classy

I might be stupid but I don't get how the bot can be expected to improve its play to an extent that it would be notable during the competition? I thought the way it came up with its strategy was through brute force trial and error and in that aspect the relatively few hands played here won't be of much significance.

I've seen Sam post about "algorithm tweaks" or something like that they're doing in between sessions. What could such tweaks consist of? I assume it has nothing to do with directives such as "calling an overbet here is bad", lol.

http://www.twitch.tv/claudico_vs_jasonles/b/656376982 at 1h57min.

To be fair, he said "faaaiiirly even" but the "in the middle of the pack" and "4th out of 5 players" was straight bs.

Jason did very well in the interview imo (and also was winning vs claudico ), I found it funny how the CBS lady said something along "so you're the ONE human that's losing to the computer" several times.

I would be interested in watching the CBS report, so if anyone can post a link after it aired..