The prof is on the stream with WCG, trying to explain why Claudico folded A4o to Doug's AIPF shove (~9K). Doug is trying to explain that it's never right to fold A4 in that spot, and the prof is trying to say that Claudico made the right play, because Doug's playing of his hand (99) broke the NE. Hopefully Sam can explain it to him later.

I suppose he forgot to mention it was also in sixth, seventh and eighth.

Academics gonna academic.

I think he means their algorithm empirically does well finding the equilibrium for their abstraction but there is no proof that they will always exist to be found.

I suspect your algorithm for finding max exploitability would be useful, using a few fixed bet sizes, but not rigorous enough for academia. All your own arguments about claims without rigor would equally apply to your own metric.

and here we had geniuses(tultfill) that play 25$ nl saying claudico is **** constantly and now mr rider confirms that he beat claudico for less than he beats most of the top regs he plays online..

Nothing worse than the lifelong micro players of 2p2.

lol mack's wtf is your problem?

He is ...|... aka rewket aka max86 aka a lot of other banned account. He created this new account a few hours after the last one was banned so he could keep trash talking people. Sick life uh?

To answer your question: mental.

I didn't see the streamed press conference but on the competition homepage the professor says it was a statistical tie:

But statistically, says Tuomas Sandholm, the CMU professor of computer science who led the Claudico's development, it was a tie, and the results of the experiment would seem to be inconclusive.
The "pot" won by the human poker pros—$732,713—sounds very impressive. But during the two week "Brains vs. A.I." challenge, $170 million was bet. The winnings amount to less than one-half of 1 percent of the total pot—a statistically tiny amount.
It's impossible to say that the humans clearly beat Claudico, according to Sandholm.

Link:
https://www.cs.cmu.edu/brains-vs-ai#May-8-2015

thats atrocious

The Prof is too proud to tell it like it is. I knew the word tie would be used, I just thought it would only be the case if the computer beat two humans instead of just one (and then that is only relevant if you ignore mirroring of hands).

I did not see the press conference, but the best way to explain it to layman would be the humans on average won over $9/hand each and every hand that they played against the computer over two weeks. Nice work if you can get it.

LOLZ. What an embarrassment. The humans would need a winrate of over 21BB/100 to get to 1% of the total pot, which would still likely be deemed to be a "statistically tiny amount". I wonder if 50 BB/100 would be good enough?

someone correct me if I'm wrong but how could this be a statistical tie?

suppose the standard deviation is 200bb/100. if the mirror matchup cuts this in half to 100b/100, after 800 sets of 100 hands the sd of the average is
100/sqrt(800) = 3.5

winning at 9bb/100 is over 2.5 sds from 0 so it seems pretty significant

oh man! did anyone record this by chance?

Yes idk if the prof is delusional or just putting up a show for pr. 9bb/100 is a pretty big edge especially considering the duplicate matches.

Prof needs to keep the grant money flowing. I don't think they set all of this up expecting the bot to lose lol.

Also for future bot matches consider going through all their published papers. Many of them are about improving on some known botting method by reducing the exploitability in some way. But these methods are still exploitable so their papers are basically a well documented list of the bot's leaks.

They used the hand mirroring to get 200bb fixed starting chips... but don't want to use the hand mirroring when considering statistical significance. Lulz

The prof wants his work to go down next to deep blue as a milestone in AI.. ego is your answer. He can't have that milestone if the bot lost, so he just lies - nice. I get that the performance is pretty close to being a bot that wins, but it is not a bot that wins. Claudico won't be the one to be remembered. Maybe next year's will be.

Bet you're right.

Seeing this competition and then listening to the Prof "interpret" the results reminds me how all the global warming climate models have PROVEN wrong on the high side when the predictions are compared to the reality of temperatures each and every year forward.

Academics have trouble admitting when they are wrong. I bet the Prof thinks that Claudico gave up $9/hand to the humans because of something the humans did wrong in not playing "properly."

Okay the competition seems ended so maybe Bjorn Li will be okay if I comment it again.

That was exactly I tought and stated here before the competition started (after I read the rules):
- if the computer wins it wins and this will be a good advertising for a multimillion dollar business
- if the computer loses it will be declared as a tie so this will be a win which is a good advertising .... (you know the drill)

If the computer folds every hand it loses at 75BB/100. If it plays like a fish it loses about at 30-40bb/100. The computer declared as a good player though. Winning 5bb/100 over a regular is pretty good in long term and 80k mirrored hands is an okay sample.

Suggesting that this is a tie it is a lie. Plain and simple. We are playing poker we know what 10bb/100 means. It means anybody that able to reach this can play for living if the loser player is willing to play.

10bb/100 means the computer was crushed in regwar. Thats all, gg and better luck next time Claudico (and CMU).

So that wasn't a tie, and we know it. But telling lie is bad for us. If CMU doesn't admit the lose I think we can explain to the media what the winning rate means and how bad it looks if a head of the developer team lies about the result of an experiment on public.

I gotta believe they thought the thing was unbeatable.

Tartarian stomped the bot competition - this stomped Tartarian... so he figured it was near perfect.

And I keep harping on it - but hand mirroring was likely set up to justify 200bb fixed strategy as much as it was for statistical reasons (props to them for going all the way to 200bb though).

WOW at tie. I thought Sam was saying that they would accept 95% confidence. At std dev = 160bb/100 (quite high for HUNL I think) and winrate 9.56 humans are still 95% confidence to be winning.

Using equity chops usually reduces std dev by about 20% @ 100BB, maybe a bit less @ 200BB since you get AI pre river less. So maybe 10%. Mirror I would guess reduces (significantly) more than equity chops, but again maybe lets say 10%. So conservatively the adj. std dev is 129.6 This gives humans 98% confidence of being winners. Nice "tie".

It would be very easy for them to calculate stdev from the results

wow. what an absolutely insane statement to make.

http://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2015/...rivers-casino/

A longer segment will be on the CBS morning show tomorrow at (I believe) 9:30 am est