Humans Dominating Poker Super Computer

New submitter IoTdude writes: The Claudico super computer uses an algorithm to account for gargantuan amounts of complexity by representing the number of possible Heads-Up No-limit Texas Hold'em decisions. Claudico also updates its strategy as it goes along, but its basic approach to the game involves getting into every hand by calling bets. And it's not working out so far. Halfway through the competition, the four human pros had a cumulative lead of 626,892 chips. Though much could change in the week remaining, a lead of around 600,000 chips is considered statistically significant.

Comments

Is it too hard to list chip counts?

[ranton]

How are we supposed to have any idea what a cumulative lead of 626,892 chips means without knowing how many total chips there are? If there are 650,000 chips then the game is almost over, but if there are 1,000,000,000 chips then there hasn't been any movement at all.

This is some pretty poor journalism.

They thought this would work?

[PAjamian]

So let me get this straight. At the start of the game the computer calls all bets and then it lets the other players train it and change their strategy to take advantage of that training? And they thought this would beat a seasoned professional poker player?

This is basically a beginning poker player (fresh blood) but who is more consistent. A pro will absolutely clobber it.

Re:They thought this would work?

[Idarubicin]

This is basically a beginning poker player (fresh blood) but who is more consistent. A pro will absolutely clobber it.

In other words, either the researchers involved are complete idiots, or a Slashdot poster jumped to a useless conclusion based on a strawman argument spun from the summary. Hm.

Re:They thought this would work?

[belthize]

That's good entry level tight strategy but will get you cleaned out playing no limit against a seasoned pro. You really have to learn how to win with any two random cards against any flop. You don't make a run at the hand every time but you must occasionally. If you know your opponent only plays face cards and likes to slow play strong hands preflop I'd rather call a minimum bet preflop with 2 3 than with KQ. I can get out cheap or absolutely clobber him with a good flop and I avoid the risk that he has some Ax, KK, QQ, JJ or some other face cards that can put my KQ in an uncomfortable spot.

Lastly, if in doubt never call. Either raise or fold. Calling should be a very deliberate play. Most folks call because they have no clue if they're winning or losing a hand. Hint, you're losing.

Don't know about the technology...

[Idarubicin]

I don't know about the technology or the algorithm(s), but the linked article is certainly nonsense.

“You could use the same basic framework to do robust decision making like trying to come up with insulin and glucose monitoring plans [for diabetes patients],” says Neil Burch, a computer scientist at the University of Alberta who helped design a poker-playing AI earlier this year. “You get regular snapshots of glucose levels, and you have to decide how much insulin you should take, and how often.”

Look, I get it. Nobody wants to admit that they're spending their grant money this way because it's fun to get a computer to play Hold 'em. But that's got to be the dumbest justification I've ever read. Human metabolism is complex, but the pancreas doesn't bluff.

That's not what arbiter1 meant.

[tlambert]

And what facial expressions would the computer betray?

That's not what arbiter1 meant.

"Reading your opponent" doesn't rely on facial expressions or tells when you are playing online poker.