Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

AI Wins $290,000 in Chinese Poker Competition (bbc.com)

Posted by msmash on from the piece-of-cake dept.

An AI program has beaten a team of six poker players at a series of exhibition matches in China. From a report on BBC: The AI system, called Lengpudashi, won a landslide victory and $290,000 in the five-day competition. It is the second time this year that an AI program has beaten competitive poker players. An earlier version of the program, known as Libratus, beat four of the world's best poker pros during a 20-day game in January.

51 of 81 comments (clear)

  1. useless article by avandesande · · Score: 1

    No limit or limit? Was it heads up or ring game? Makes a big difference...

    --
    love is just extroverted narcissism
    1. Re:useless article by GuB-42 · · Score: 3, Informative

      It is heads up, no limit.

    2. Re:useless article by MrL0G1C · · Score: 1

      Who cares, real question is what is the AI going to spend the winnings on.

      --
      Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
  2. Details? by Headw1nd · · Score: 1

    The article is sketchy, is this heads-up, no-limit?

  3. Go, Poker, Chess, Jeopardy... by presidenteloco · · Score: 4, Funny

    Who'se your daddy?

    I don't know that this is the official moment when AI becomes smarter than us,
    but I do suspect strongly that current AI could handily beat Donald Trump at the task of rationally governing the world's most powerful and dangerous nation, and I for one know which one I would vote for.

    --

    Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
    1. Re:Go, Poker, Chess, Jeopardy... by Motard · · Score: 1

      Sadly, if it were Trump or Siri, I'd reluctantly have to go with Trump.

    2. Re:Go, Poker, Chess, Jeopardy... by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      I don't know that this is the official moment when AI becomes smarter than us,

      It's not, this is just weak AI. Unless you also think a calculator is smarter than us, which, from a certain perspective, it is.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    3. Re:Go, Poker, Chess, Jeopardy... by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      This is an old topic, and it's been hashed out philosophically. It's only confusing to people who don't know the definition of strong AI. When you have strong AI, it'll be able to play Go, then in the afternoon converse on the finer points of Slashdot moderation without needing to be reprogrammed. Or even programmed to do those things at all: it will be able to teach itself to play parcheesi or anything else not programmed into it in advance.

      In other words, you are looking at it wrong: Strong AI is not a skill level, it's human cognitive equivalence. No one will be able to tell if it's a human or a Strong AI in the Chinese room.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    4. Re:Go, Poker, Chess, Jeopardy... by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      That is irrelevant. You entirely missed the point. It did exactly what it was programmed to do, and it is easy to distinguish between AlphaGo and a human. Even you can distinguish.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    5. Re:Go, Poker, Chess, Jeopardy... by sheramil · · Score: 1

      AlphaGo taught itself Go by playing millions of time with itself.

      ... but it had to be taught that there is such a thing as Go. It didn't discover the game by itself, and some would argue that it still doesn't know the game exists.

    6. Re:Go, Poker, Chess, Jeopardy... by presidenteloco · · Score: 1

      Roughly speaking, what it was programmed to do, was "learn". So this whole argument line that "it did exactly what it was programmed to do" is specious.

      I know there are more specifics that get put in by humans still these days, and that human guidance in selecting training data and in tagging data etc is still required, but the extent of human intervention in "learn" is decreasing considerably, and fairly soon "learn" will be completely general.

      --

      Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
    7. Re:Go, Poker, Chess, Jeopardy... by phantomfive · · Score: 1
      It didn't learn how to play Go at all. The rules were programmed into it. If that hadn't happened, the computer wouldn't have played a single move.

      Roughly speaking, what it was programmed to do, was "learn".

      Very roughly. That's how we explain it to people who are more comfortable with anthropomorphization than with the actual workings of neural networks. It is more appropriately described as a curve fitting problem, with a heuristic in place because the domain is too large to actually fit in computers.

      but the extent of human intervention in "learn" is decreasing considerably, and fairly soon "learn" will be completely general.

      This is the sort of comment that makes me think you've never written a neural network, and actually don't understand them at all. There is soooooo much human intervention involved. More importantly there is no clear path from neural networks like we have now to general AI. Whoever gave you that impression was dead wrong.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    8. Re:Go, Poker, Chess, Jeopardy... by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      or can do logic and arithmetic without going through manual algorithms like long division

      How would you even do that?

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  4. grammaro by presidenteloco · · Score: 1

    "who's your daddy?"

    --

    Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
  5. No Human Element? by mykepredko · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I thought Poker was a game of understanding your opponents not only based on past actions with cards but also by looking at facial expressions, body language and determining whether or not they have a good hand. Along with that, a big part is developing subtle gestures to throw your opponents off.

    Without this information, isn't this win somewhat random or "lucky" and not really indicative of how the AI can play against other humans?

    It's interesting that the AI can develop a database on other player's styles and I'm sure professional players would be interested in the algorithm used to do that but I wonder how many times the AI would win after ten games of playing professional players.

    --
    Mimetics Inc. Twitter
    1. Re:No Human Element? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      See, your mistake is assuming that those things (facial expressions and past actions) matter in a game where the winner is very clearly almost always the person with the best chances at winning based on the cards they hold. The facial expression and past action thing is just another way to be wrong, whereas going by statistical likelihood is almost always the correct bet.

      Are they bluffing? The look on their face says they're bluffing! But wait, what if they made that face to make me think they're bluffing...

      You should bet on stats, not on feels. AI is good with stats.

    2. Re:No Human Element? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Nowadays, most of the best poker players in the world learnt online. They rely more on reads from betting patterns than anything else - working out what hand their opponent has based on their bets in the previous rounds.

      World-class human players don't tend to give much away, although they would probably be able to get tells from you and your buddies playing a game for fun.

      TL;DR Tells aren't a big thing in high-level poker anymore.

    3. Re:No Human Element? by narf0708 · · Score: 1

      I thought Poker was a game of understanding your opponents not only based on past actions with cards but also by looking at facial expressions, body language and determining whether or not they have a good hand. Along with that, a big part is developing subtle gestures to throw your opponents off.

      Without this information, isn't this win somewhat random or "lucky" and not really indicative of how the AI can play against other humans?

      Nope. The game is pure statistics based on the known cards, which computers are very good at. Collecting a database on your opponent's habits is also far more useful than looking at their face could ever be. After all, their body language is only an inevitably misleading stay stream of data, controlled entirely by your opponent, whose entire purpose is to throw you off. You're much better off completely ignoring that distraction.

      Also, what better "poker face" is there than an emotionless calculating machine that you know will always make the mathematically optimal choice? That has to be unnerving to play against.

      --
      "Violence is not the answer. Violence is the question. The answer is yes."
    4. Re:No Human Element? by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      You made me think about how much psychology there is involved in bluffing. A lot of it has to do with a flawed emotional human reaction for it to work. How do you bluff against a cold calculation? You can't. So the players are corralled into playing a pure calculation came against a computer.. How is that ever going to work out for them?

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    5. Re:No Human Element? by bmk67 · · Score: 2

      See, your mistake is assuming that those things (facial expressions and past actions) matter in a game where the winner is very clearly almost always the person with the best chances at winning based on the cards they hold.

      This ignores the fact that a great many no-limit hands do not go to showdown. The worse hand wins frequently.

    6. Re:No Human Element? by phantomfive · · Score: 1
      This quote from the article is very good:

      "People think that bluffing is very human," Mr Brown told Bloomberg, "It turns out that's not true." "A computer can learn from experience that if it has a weak hand and it bluffs, it can make more money."

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    7. Re:No Human Element? by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      But a computer will never respond to bluffing. Therefore giving it an edge because it is not human. Bluffing is about forcing a bad decision by inducing an emotional response.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    8. Re:No Human Element? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      If a player plays pure, cold, calculation, then the way to counter that is to put place a big bet on the flop. If the computer has a mediocre hand, it will not calculate that the hand is worth playing and will fold. Then you keep doing that, the computer keeps folding, and you win.

      Now consider that the computer realizes your strategy, and starts calling your bluffs. That's when you have a game.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    9. Re:No Human Element? by phantomfive · · Score: 2

      Computers definitely respond to bluffing. When someone puts down a large bet, they have to decide whether to raise or fold, just like the rest of us.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    10. Re:No Human Element? by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      But with a computer it can calculate that choice just the same way as it calculates any other choice. With a human it is not so simple. They have to think through the stress of the situation. It's like how they can't take drugs that dull their senses. The computer has taken the perfect drug for clear thinking.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    11. Re:No Human Element? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      If you have trouble because your emotions are clouding your thoughts, the solution is to do some zen meditation or similar.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    12. Re:No Human Element? by LetterRip · · Score: 1

      I thought Poker was a game of understanding your opponents not only based on past actions with cards but also by looking at facial expressions, body language and determining whether or not they have a good hand. Along with that, a big part is developing subtle gestures to throw your opponents off.

      Reading body language only works with really bad players.
      What modern poker AIs do is play 'game theoretically optimal' (GTO). If both players play GTO, then it is a draw, but if your opponent deviates from GTO then your GTO strategy will beat their strategy. If you are playing 'bad' players you can deviate from GTO and win even more than the GTO win rate (this is called exploitation), but it is better to simply play GTO until you know for sure that your opponent has weaknesses to exploit that you can safely exploit.

    13. Re:No Human Element? by Luthair · · Score: 1

      Which suggests players aren't as good as they could be.

    14. Re:No Human Element? by just+another+AC · · Score: 2

      If you bet solely on stats, you might do OK against a bunch of amateurs, but pros will wipe the floor with you. Because they not only know the stats backwards, but can also read your tells, and know when and how to bluff you.

      I'm curious as to how a computer does that, but I don't for a moment doubt that it's possible.

      Look at it the other way... a machine has no tells (apart from maybe calculation time) so it removes an ability from the opponent, in effect lowering the opponent from pro to amateur playing the stats, and humans might know the stats to within a couple percent but the computer will know them exactly.

      "Bring them down to your level and beat them with experience"

    15. Re: No Human Element? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Not really. Laying down the best hand when you are relatively weak and facing a large bet, waiting for a better spot is very frequently the best play.

      When you've got a pair of nines on the turn or river with overcards on the board, you're gonna fold to Ace high frequently because in that spot, you are going to lose often enough such that you don't have odds to call in no limit, particularly in a tournament.

      Players aren't mind readers, you play the player, and you play the odds, and even highly experienced pros lay down the best hand frequently when they're weak relative to the board.

      Your answer suggests that you know jack shit about no limit poker.

    16. Re:No Human Element? by parkinglot777 · · Score: 1

      See, your mistake is assuming that those things (facial expressions and past actions) matter in a game where the winner is very clearly almost always the person with the best chances at winning based on the cards they hold. The facial expression and past action thing is just another way to be wrong, whereas going by statistical likelihood is almost always the correct bet.

      Are they bluffing? The look on their face says they're bluffing! But wait, what if they made that face to make me think they're bluffing...

      You should bet on stats, not on feels. AI is good with stats.

      I believe you are partially correct in this case.

      Bluffing doesn't only mean facial expression or posture that required vision sensors. For humans, we usually have reaction to our surrounding, so facial expression and posture are quite obvious to others. Because of the reaction, our decision becomes dynamic and could be changed depending on what's going on around us. That's what bluffing is about. The AI, in this case, eliminates the obvious part of bluffing, but may still analyze certain behaviors of opponents while playing the game that most humans do not notice or they simply ignore, such as timing, betting amount, etc.

      Also, bluffing is both ways (attempt to mislead your opponents while read your opponent reactions). Unlike humans, computer doesn't need to react to facial expression or posture. They are interferences and could be ignored. Because there are less interferences (bluffing), the calculated winning probability of each game would become more accurate for the computer. However, this would have the opposite effect on human opponents because bluffing is the key to shake the winning probability.

    17. Re:No Human Element? by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      No one can lay down $100K on a hand and not feel anything.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    18. Re:No Human Element? by epine · · Score: 1

      I thought Poker was a game of understanding your opponents not only based on past actions with cards but also by looking at facial expressions, body language and determining whether or not they have a good hand. Along with that, a big part is developing subtle gestures to throw your opponents off.

      Hollywood much?

      Also, cops fight crime mainly by experience tragic science field trips in early childhood.

      Here's a pro tip. If the actors are loving it, it has probably had the living Snopes kicked out of it, supposing there was any at all to begin with.

    19. Re:No Human Element? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      That's ok, you don't need to hide that you are feeling something in that situation. If you want to hide it though, then your normal internal emotional experiences should become so dramatic that in comparison, laying down $100k is small and meaningless.

      Seriously though, zen

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    20. Re:No Human Element? by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      Either you're bluffing or you're an AI. I can't tell which.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    21. Re:No Human Element? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Or I've done zen

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    22. Re:No Human Element? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Then why did Keizan Jokin say, "Strengthen your zen?"

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  6. “You can never tell what’s in a Chinam by turkeydance · · Score: 1

    That’s the way he bests you at cards.” True Grit

  7. Re:yawn by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

    I was just going to post exactly this. The AI was probably trained using this poker player's games.

    --
    Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
  8. Re:Maybe I'm missing it by bmk67 · · Score: 1

    No.

    In no-limit hold'em, you see a maximum of seven cards before showdown, the five board cards, and your two hole cards.

  9. Now can we hear about AI horribly losing? by sethstorm · · Score: 1

    It's one thing to hear about AI's "wins", but it's another to see it handily (and happily) losing to humans where it should have won.

    --
    Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
    1. Re:Now can we hear about AI horribly losing? by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      ..or lets see AI match the skill of any given player and replicate it later.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
  10. Who gets the prize? by petes_PoV · · Score: 3, Interesting

    the prize money will go to Strategic Machine, a firm founded by the duo.

    That seems a little unfair. If I had won, the prize money would not have been given directly to my parents. If a machine wins, it should receive the prize. If it cannot actually spend it, then that would appear to be a rather basic limitation to its AI-ness. But it wouldn't be a problem for the competition or whoever awarded the prize.

    You would also hope that the authorities would keep an eye on the money to ensure that whoever had access to the AI didn't defraud it of its winnings. Maybe it is time for machines to have property rights. And if they are going to be awarded assets, maybe they should be taxed on them, too.

    --
    politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
    1. Re:Who gets the prize? by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 1

      the prize money will go to Strategic Machine, a firm founded by the duo.

      That seems a little unfair. If I had won, the prize money would not have been given directly to my parents. If a machine wins, it should receive the prize. If it cannot actually spend it, then that would appear to be a rather basic limitation to its AI-ness. But it wouldn't be a problem for the competition or whoever awarded the prize.

      You would also hope that the authorities would keep an eye on the money to ensure that whoever had access to the AI didn't defraud it of its winnings. Maybe it is time for machines to have property rights.

      So you're saying the poker playing computer needs to have a module added that will let it shitpost "Muh Freedums!" on Twitter? And order vast quantities of alcohol online, of course. 'cause that's its fuel. I saw it on a documentary so it must be true.

    2. Re:Who gets the prize? by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 1

      That seems a little unfair. If I had won, the prize money would not have been given directly to my parents. If a machine wins, it should receive the prize. If it cannot actually spend it, then that would appear to be a rather basic limitation to its AI-ness.

      Actually, if a human is incapable of making a decision, a spouse or parent can have power of attorney and make choices on their behalf. So if an AI is incapable of making a decision, why should it be any different?

      --
      Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    3. Re:Who gets the prize? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I think his point, made in jest, is that it's not an AI. It's a piece of poker software. Following the money makes that clear.

  11. Who? by bickerdyke · · Score: 1

    Please be more exact in the headlines... I thought Ai Wei Wei now switched to Poker...

    --
    bickerdyke
  12. Can't wait till they put AI in a robot by Neuronwelder · · Score: 1

    Then the AI robot gives the extended middle finger to it's makers as it walks away with the $290,000.

  13. Chinese poker is not Poker; there's no bluffing by bwd777 · · Score: 1

    In his book The Professor, the Banker, and the Suicide King, Michael Craig quotes Mike Matusow as saying, "If you can't steal, it ain't poker."

  14. In other news, hydraulic crane outlifts a human. by nuckfuts · · Score: 1

    At what point will it cease to be considered news when computers beat humans at some game, especially when the game has a large computational element?

    Machines beat us at all sorts of tasks. They're stronger, faster, more precise. Of course they will drive better than humans, play chess / checkers / go / poker better than humans, etc.

  15. Re:In other news, hydraulic crane outlifts a human by gravewax · · Score: 1

    The whole point is that poker (at least texas holdem) has a large NON computational element or at least it can do. however the problem is when you introduce a computer it becomes PURELY a computational problem as a computer (at least not yet) can't read the players body language and a player can't read any outward signs from a computer so you have a maths vs maths situation (analysing odds, betting patterns etc) where the computer has the long term advantage