Thanks tried my best but looks like I'm going to end up a small loser. Happy with how I've played the last half of the challenge though, been putting up a solid WR since really figuring things out...and getting out of the runbad

ever heard of auto-top up?

Ever heard of each player winning successive hands?

I tried to point this out earlier and the fan boys of this match were crying like little biotches !

This rule plus the equity sharing that occurs if all the money is in before the final board card is exposed makes this match a waste of time.

Kids playing with fake money, that's all this match is.

Decisions being made with no consequences.

Free reloads every hand.

This is why cheet's is making unmotivated poor decisions.
He plays way better than this with real money.

Reminds me of the old Full Tilt Poker days when the chosen ones would play high stakes poker knowing if they lost they weren't going to pay the losses back.

nope, because i crush

Hey NoMeansYes,
This might be an interesting wiki for you

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

A thorough explanation here


http://blog.gtorangebuilder.com/2014...at-it.html?m=1

Come on, man.

We had this thread in late September last year dedicated to Tartanium7: http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/29...25/index5.html. In this thread, several posters pointed out that -- since the bot is playing a static strategy that resembles your best approximation of a NE in 200bb deep hunl -- an exploitability number or a lower bound of expl. is not only useful but imperative to measure how well the bot/strategy actually is. If you go to the last page of this thread, you see that it died with this exact discussion going on and was left unaddressed, eventually.

After a 6 month posting hiatus, you come back and post

Together with you questioning the "scientific value" of exploitability, this post indicates that for some reason, you and your team are resisting to understand the importance of the issue. punter11235 has made a lot of good posts explaining exploitability and its importance -- it's the most natural test, and it lets you/us actually quantify how well the approximation is rather than relying on relative benchmarks (other bots/humans) with results also being affected by variance. The fact that you beat other bots and that you (probably) lost with Claudico at a 9ish bb/100 rate really tells us nothing other than the obvious (x is better than y over z hands).

I'm not coming here to bring any hate, I have congratulated you on Tartanian7 and I really enjoyed following this challenge as well. It is simply inconceivable for me that you and your team are apparently resisting to understand the entire concept. It becomes even more inconceivable after reading

How are you going to publish papers based on these poker bots without giving out that number? If the answer is "the referees don't demand it", then it is in line with my own experience in academia (although from an unrelated field). meh

Also, this question still stands:

In contrast however, you have quoted the Cepheus bot and its exploitability number, implying you understand its usefulness -- which brings me to my last point:

You absolutely cannot recommend any technique to other domains like national security or medicine without measuring how well it actually works, so as long as you are not giving out that number...

Looking forward to your reply and all infos on how Claudico works.

Sure, a "normal" match doesn't play that way ... but it seems impossible to implement the "mirrored hands" system with changing stack sizes.

One standard stack size is obviously better for the bot which doesn't need to brute-force itself through countless other stack size possibilities - but then again, with the standard starting stacks of 100bb which humans mostly use, the advantage of the Brains team would likely be considerably less.

So they are done? Now what?

samooth, you're missing the point. obviously there's value in computing exploitability and sam never said otherwise. the question is what value is there in computing exploitability using an abstraction. if we're exploitable for 5 bb/100 using an abstracted tree, what does that translate to in terms of exploitability using the full game tree? i'm guessing from sam's comments that meaningful translation of this sort is nontrivial if not impossible.

punter never really addressed this and instead asked what's the value in creating a strategy without being able to assess how far from equilibrium it is, which imo is a silly question. of course there's value. if, for instance, your algorithm generates successive strategies such that strategy n beats all strategies 1 to n-1, then you're still getting closer to equilibrium with each successive iteration without ever knowing how far you are from it, and inevitably you will eventually arrive at equilibrium with enough iterations.

this relies on testing the value of the strategies empirically (i.e. by actually playing bajillions of hands), so as you got far enough along and started generating successive strategies that were extremely close to equilibrium, the edges would be so small that you would never be able to peg down precisely where equilibrium was. that doesn't mean there still isn't immense value in getting close to equilibrium, or at the very least demonstrably improving. it would be like saying we can't measure how far we are from a complete understanding of the laws of physics, so what value is there in even trying to understand them in the first place? literally all of science is measuring how a method/model compares to our current understanding & how well it performs empirically, not some sort of ground-up value assessment which would require complete omniscience of everything in the universe. generally speaking we only have the luxury of ground-up assessment in small and controlled systems that we humans created.

We will be playing the final 200 hands each tomorrow for the media

Third place. Very strong. After they fix whatever leak li was exploiting, i will buy it.

Best of luck making it into the black on the last day.

It didn't get third place, it played two teams of humans with mirrored hole cards and it lost to both teams

Thanks a lot, it's pretty close but more likely than not gonna end in the red. Gotta gamble it up pretty hard tomorrow to have a chance of hitting more prize money, but likely nothing will change.

What's the distribution of prize money between the 4 of you?

If we're now analyzing selective samples of this, I'm winning at 21 bb/100 for the past 8k hands after really figuring things out. But that's not the spirit of the challenge here and it's not the story here. The story is that the humans with the mirrored hole-card format put together a cumulative 9.56 bb/100 over 79,200 hands so far. That's something we're all really happy and proud about. We all worked together and put together a big win and showed that humans still have the edge in this game for now.

so....if it lost to both teams doesnt that put it in third place?

Lol wp

Douche much?

Gambooooooolllll

Have to do it to get analytic value out of the mirrored hands

Thanks for streaming and putting on an entertaining series of matches.

How so? I'd buy it to . Seems like it would at least beat up to $1k and probably crush $400 and lower. And ironically that is probably the best compliment that the programmer on here has received the entire time.