Poker Program Battles Humans In Vegas

Bridger writes "Poker software called Polaris will play a rematch against human players during the 2008 World Series of Poker in Las Vegas. Developed by an artificial intelligence group at the University of Alberta in Canada, Polaris will be pitted against several professionals at the Rio Hotel between July 3rd and 6th. 'It's possible, given enough computing power, for computers to play "perfectly," where over a long enough match, the program cannot lose money,"' said associate professor Michael Bowling.'"

Comments

Zero sum game

[Hatta]

Poker is a zero sum game. Pit two of these 'perfect' players against each other, and one of them will lose money.

These people don't understand poker

[taustin]

professional poker is a psychological game. Unless the computer has the feeling of anxiety it will have an edge.

Poke is almost entirely a game of skill, not chance, at professional levels. The average dufus at his weekend poker game will play for luck. Professionals play the other players. A computer has no tells, and can't read them in a human player. The computer therefore has a distince edge against the amateur, and a distinct disadvantage against the pro.

What I find impressive is the fact it lost in the past. It would also be interesting to see what it can do with some sort of lie detector software.

The only lie detector that has any hope of working - as you should know, if you read /. - is a professional poker player.

Re:These people don't understand poker

[ceoyoyo]

I'm not sure you're entirely correct. Poker is a game of skill, yes, but so is chess. The difference is that poker is based on incomplete information whereas chess is not. That just means you have to play probabilities though.

The whole tells topic is important in professional poker for increasing your odds against flawed human players. That can give you an edge over the basic statistics. However, if you're playing a computer that doesn't have any tells, my intuition says that the game reduces to basic probability.

That means the computer, given enough computational resources to play a perfect game, can wipe the floor with amateurs, and will be more closely matched (but never at a disadvantage) with the best players.

That doesn't mean that the computer would be unbeatable. Since the game is based on probability, you could still beat the computer, but in the limit you could only expect to win as many games as you lost.

The computer would also be at a disadvantage if it were playing a game with multiple human players. A good psychological poker player could use his advantage over the other humans at the table to take a chip lead, which would be an advantage over the computer.

Re:These people don't understand poker

[ElizabethGreene]

The whole tells topic is important in professional poker for increasing your odds against flawed human players. That can give you an edge over the basic statistics. However, if you're playing a computer that doesn't have any tells, my intuition says that the game reduces to basic probability.

The assumption here is that the computer has no tells. That is not a safe assumption. Most tells aren't about whether or not the guy licks the oreo on a bluff (Reference: Rounders), heart rate (a really good tell), pupil diameter, or galvanic skin response. They are about how an opponent plays in a particular situation. After a few rounds you get a feel for the types of starting hands a player will play, and their betting patterns. Unless the software opponent has each and every one of these actions randomized to a good extent, it will be read and played. "Perfect" poker software is not impossible, but it is a harder problem than it looks.

-ellie

Re:Can't lose money?

[InlawBiker]

The online poker sites are already filled with "bots" that play statistically perfect poker. Or at least perfect enough to earn a profit over time.

It's not a terribly difficult calculation to know if a bet has sufficient pot odds. Playing against imperfect players a bot is virtually garaunteed to make money.

Against professionals though it might have trouble winning, since pros also calculate pot odds more or less perfectly, but can change their play to throw off the computer. It's sort of akin to how a chess master might beat a computer.

Re:So What! it's Chess all over again!

[ragethehotey]

Because Chess is a game of complete information, and is largely a matter of brute forcing out the best move from tons of choices. Poker is a game of incomplete information (You do not know your opponents hand), as the decisions your opponent will make influence what the "correct" decision for you to make is. Chess was a matter of computing power, whereas poker is a matter of implementing game theory abilities in the AI.

Re:I'm at least as good as this software...

[brady8]

I was hoping this wouldn't have to be said, but playing Poker isn't gambling if you play it properly. The house takes a small cut from each hand which reduces your winnings by a proportionally small amount, but otherwise it's like anything else requiring skill - over time, the best player will always win more money, and the worst player (skill-wise) will lose the most money.

Re:Reminds me of those...

[alrudd1287]

Playing perfectly = keeping 100% of your money in your wallet

Re:Can't lose money?

[Karganeth]

Poker sites are not full of bots. The one I play at is full of terrible players who enjoy throwing their money away.

No bot plays perfect poker. I'm sure that no bot will be perfect for a very, very long time (way beyond my lifetime). The mathematics behind poker is incredibly complex. A good book about it is the mathematics of poker by Bill Chen and Jerrod Ankenman. From reading your post it seems to me that you have a very little idea about the problems with solving poker and even how to play poker. You can't just call when you have the odds and fold when you don't. It just doesn't work that way - that strategy is easily exploited. I'm also not sure why you were modded +5 Insightful... I guess there aren't many poker players here at /.

Re:Can't lose money?

[Anonymous Coward]

No offense, but you obviously don't understand poker very well. For example, unless the betting structure is very restrictive (e.g. heads up game with 2x BB stacks) a bot could not possibly play "statistically perfect poker" (an erroneous statement in itself) because it's a game of incomplete information. Perfect poker is only possible when you can see everyone's hole cards. Computers do not have any intrinsic edge in this regard.

Re:Additional cards not needed.

[teh moges]

This is a very ignorant view of what optimal play means. The standard example is Rock-Paper-Scissors (RoShamBo). If I play perfectly randomly, and I tell you that I am going to play perfectly randomly, there is exactly nothing you can do to beat me in the long run. This concept can be extended to poker (and all two player zero-sum games). For a computer to play truely optimal means that it can give you its exact strategy before the match and you still won't be able to beat it. A mathematically optimal play is still the same regardless of what the opponent has. Truely optimal play hides the true nature of the hidden cards from being able to be predicted by the opponent. If, by "mathematically optimum poker", you mean immediate pot odds, then you are right. Its easily beatable, however that is certainly not what mathematically optimal poker is. I suggest reading "The Mathematics of Poker" (http://www.amazon.com/Mathematics-Poker-Bill-Chen/dp/1886070253), it will absolutely change your mind into how mathematics can be used.