Yes, it's just my feeling, and it's based solely on my stereotype of Americans, as an American just out of his teenage years. Believe me, my stereotype of the fine Dutch people is one of much higher esteem. I figure children in a country with legalized hash and prostitutes could find something better to do than play a videogame every day. Maybe my emotional opinion is faulty, but I'll stand by it until proven wrong. Or I won't, quite honestly, it's not an opinion I hold dear to my heart.
The anology would be closer to not knowing whether the opponent had a rook or a queen on any given spot on the board... that's a lot harder to program AI for.
I'm certainly not saying that there will never be a program that can beat the best poker players, but that day is far off, and it will be very, very difficult.
It's possible to see all the moves in a chess game that are possible, they're all right there on the board. Not true in poker. There is unknown information (your opponents hole cards), and thus, no perfect way to play.
I didn't say that I believe in it, I said that Doyle Brunson does. If you didn't know, Brunson is a living legend of poker, practically helped invent texas hold em, has won over a dozen World Series of Poker bracelets, and is in general just a good player.
Collusion is of course a problem, which is what that whole last part of my post is about. Quite frankly, you don't really need a bot for that. You need a buddy, an IP blocker, or a chat client like MSN messenger. Collusion will be a problem no matter what in online play. Quite frankly, it's tough to make it a huge advantage, however.
Interestingly enough, many books specific to online poker do say that there are tells. Instant calls generally mean flush draws. Insta-checks mean the check/fold button is clicked. Long periods before betting usually mean a made hand. In my experience, these tells aren't that reliable, but neither are many tells in real life. Whatever edge you can get, in my opinion.
There's a lot more involved, although that information is of course valuable. You would also have to program it to understand that good players vary their betting based on their position related to the blinds, as well as if the game is currently aggressive/passive, etc. Knowing every possible hand is really only a first step.
A friend of mine was actually working on the same thing, for an artificial intelligence class. The program failed miserably, but he did get an A, so he at least got a start:)
Very true, but I don't think this will affect the sites too much. Quite frankly, a mediocre player is giong to lose all their money in the long run anyway, if a bot can beat them. Whether it goes to a player or a bot is really irrelevant.
Also, it's impossible to create a bot that plays the odds perfectly, since so much of the beauty of poker is the unknown odds from what your opponent is holding. A bot will never be perfected to deal with this situation, at least not as far as I can see. A bot can be made to play perfect chess, because you can see all the moves, that is not the case in poker.
Yeah, I get it, and the collusion between bots is definately a real problem. But, the idea of "ideal poker" is a myth since it varies so much from situation to situation. I can beat a bot that plays Sklansky statistical poker all day long. I can also beat one that plays a Hanson style of playing any two cards (especially in limit, I don't think anyone would ever make this, or want to). It's when a player mixes their style to throw other players off that the true skill comes in. Bots can't do that yet.
I leave the chat off when I play, as do most people I know. Major poker sites are getting their chat bogged down with the usual spam messages ("visit x site to play perfect poker," "hey, someone give me money," etc.). Every pro who plays online has to turn off chat so they don't see the millions of comments made to them a minute. Using the chat isn't a viable option, really.
I don't think they are above it, but the respectable, well established sites would be incredibly foolish to riske their daily millions on such an idea.
Party poker and it's affiliates drag in so much for rakes because of the fact that their site is reputable and their number generator is nearly true randmoness (far more random than an actual shuffle). Why would they throw that away just to cheat a few people out of an extra hundred dollars?
Of course, the real solution to this fear would be to allow companies to operate out of the United States so that they could be more regulated. Luckily, states like North Dakota are moving to make this a reality.
I understand where this comment is coming from, but what people don't understand is that poker is actually a much different game than other forms of gambling. It's a game in which you play against other players, not the house. As far as the house is concerned, you can win every hand and become a millionaire, as long as they get their rake (the percentage a house takes out of every pot).
Poker is a skill game, that's why people can become pro's at it. That's why even semi-pro's like me can make a decent living off of it, especially now with the boom in popularity of the game.
But if you know that a bot bets a certain amount on a flush draw, and will fold if you raise x amount, you can become incredibly profitable in a situation that occurs quite frequently.
I make my living playing poker. I used to play mainly online, and now split my time fairly evenly between brick and mortar (B&M) play and the online realm.
I can tell you that the bots are not a big deal yet. First of all, I'll be amazed when they ever come up with the technology to play no limit hold 'em. That would be a miracle program. Poker is much more than just betting and raising, and the occasional bluff. Just as important are reading your opponent, making bets that damage others pot odds, and playing your position in relation to the blinds. Plus, there's just a certain amount of feel needed in the game. Even Doyle Brunson claims ESP is important in Super System.
Limit ring games are a different ballgame, and a bot does have some chance of success. However, that chance is at best only at the low level games, where a program could actually outplay the players. Any mid to high stakes game has players who will quickly figure out the way a bot plays, and milk it for all it's worth.
As it is now, winholdem is a pretty bad program. I don't know of anyone who has made a profit with it, and I do know a couple of people who have at least taken a look at it. If you're worried about something in online poker, be much more worried about collusion, with multiple people at the same table sharing their hands with each other. But, even that doesn't give a huge advantage against a good player, unless there are upwards of six or seven people in a room sharing information against the rest. Poker is, and always will be a skill game, and none of these cheating methods can change that.
I'm not saying that there should be huge ramifications. I'm just saying that developers shouldn't pretend there are serious consequences to violent actions in these sorts of games. It's a cop out to those in the world that blame games for everything. Don't even bother with them. It's just a game!
Hardly... First of all, you could commit a ton of murders before you ever got a star. And when you finally did, oh no, you get taken to the jail, and you lose your guns. That was most of the fun of GTA. I honestly never felt like I had lost anything when the police busted me, in fact it was most of the fun, to see how long you could last before they took you down. Hell, if you really cared about the guns, you could just put a cheat in to ensure you had them back instantaneously. Look, I don't believe in video games causing violence any more than the next guy, but seriously, don't act like there are ramifications to violent actions in games. And for a game like GTA, that's how it should be.
First, this is a poll based out of the Netherlands, which would make this strictly applicable to Dutch children. Sadly, the percentage of American kids playing video games every day is probably much higher.
Secondly, I give very little credence to polls like this inthe first place. Kids are much more likely to answer polls in untruthful ways, whether it be to impress their friends or because they don't quite understand the questions. Remember those drug surveys you had to take in high school (if you're in the 20 something crowd like me)? How many of your friends ever answered those correctly? Further, even the slightest change in the wording of the questions could probably change the answers significantly.
Not an extremely useful survey at all, but definitely interesting for stimulating conversation of the topic at hand.
I think what the article found wrong and unethical was the fact that morimoto used emulation and save states that made the game absolutely perfect without truly doing the "run."
It was definitely a great save state video, but not a true speed run.
hed.
I've never seen someone actually correct another person on Golden Girls trivia. Most of us are too emeberassed to admit we would know that. Thank you for restoring my faith in humanity.
/knows the theme song and all the characters names, first and last
As someone who grew up just ten minutes away from Gayville, South Dakota, I can tell you that they have a sign, complete with a rainbow on it, that proclaims the town as the "hay capital of the world." Guess how many times the "h" in that sign got changed. Sadly, guess how many times I was the culprit. SIgh, I miss good old stupid high school times.
I love the guy who replies to himself twice to say that he hasn't seen the video yet, but it most assuredly will suck. No matter what. Gauranteed. Thanks for your input.
And from what I've heard from the conspirators, jet fuel burns at a temperature much lower than what it would take to buckle the steel beams, as is what happened when the building collapsed in upon itself. I don't know the exact figures, just saw a video a buddy got off suprnova once. It was actually fairly interesting.
Slashdot Mirror
The irony of you taking the time to make this "witty" comment is just beautiful. But then, so too is it ironic that I responded... I need to get laid.
People don't find that funny? That's why I get so many ugly looks from my neighbors...
Do you consider Frozen Throne a ripoff for just being an add-on to War3? I think that it added so much that it's absolutely worth the extra money.
Yes, it's just my feeling, and it's based solely on my stereotype of Americans, as an American just out of his teenage years. Believe me, my stereotype of the fine Dutch people is one of much higher esteem. I figure children in a country with legalized hash and prostitutes could find something better to do than play a videogame every day. Maybe my emotional opinion is faulty, but I'll stand by it until proven wrong. Or I won't, quite honestly, it's not an opinion I hold dear to my heart.
I'm certainly not saying that there will never be a program that can beat the best poker players, but that day is far off, and it will be very, very difficult.
It's possible to see all the moves in a chess game that are possible, they're all right there on the board. Not true in poker. There is unknown information (your opponents hole cards), and thus, no perfect way to play.
Collusion is of course a problem, which is what that whole last part of my post is about. Quite frankly, you don't really need a bot for that. You need a buddy, an IP blocker, or a chat client like MSN messenger. Collusion will be a problem no matter what in online play. Quite frankly, it's tough to make it a huge advantage, however.
Interestingly enough, many books specific to online poker do say that there are tells. Instant calls generally mean flush draws. Insta-checks mean the check/fold button is clicked. Long periods before betting usually mean a made hand. In my experience, these tells aren't that reliable, but neither are many tells in real life. Whatever edge you can get, in my opinion.
A friend of mine was actually working on the same thing, for an artificial intelligence class. The program failed miserably, but he did get an A, so he at least got a start :)
hed.
Very true, but I don't think this will affect the sites too much. Quite frankly, a mediocre player is giong to lose all their money in the long run anyway, if a bot can beat them. Whether it goes to a player or a bot is really irrelevant. Also, it's impossible to create a bot that plays the odds perfectly, since so much of the beauty of poker is the unknown odds from what your opponent is holding. A bot will never be perfected to deal with this situation, at least not as far as I can see. A bot can be made to play perfect chess, because you can see all the moves, that is not the case in poker.
Yeah, I get it, and the collusion between bots is definately a real problem. But, the idea of "ideal poker" is a myth since it varies so much from situation to situation. I can beat a bot that plays Sklansky statistical poker all day long. I can also beat one that plays a Hanson style of playing any two cards (especially in limit, I don't think anyone would ever make this, or want to). It's when a player mixes their style to throw other players off that the true skill comes in. Bots can't do that yet.
I leave the chat off when I play, as do most people I know. Major poker sites are getting their chat bogged down with the usual spam messages ("visit x site to play perfect poker," "hey, someone give me money," etc.). Every pro who plays online has to turn off chat so they don't see the millions of comments made to them a minute. Using the chat isn't a viable option, really.
Party poker and it's affiliates drag in so much for rakes because of the fact that their site is reputable and their number generator is nearly true randmoness (far more random than an actual shuffle). Why would they throw that away just to cheat a few people out of an extra hundred dollars?
Of course, the real solution to this fear would be to allow companies to operate out of the United States so that they could be more regulated. Luckily, states like North Dakota are moving to make this a reality.
Poker is a skill game, that's why people can become pro's at it. That's why even semi-pro's like me can make a decent living off of it, especially now with the boom in popularity of the game.
But if you know that a bot bets a certain amount on a flush draw, and will fold if you raise x amount, you can become incredibly profitable in a situation that occurs quite frequently.
I can tell you that the bots are not a big deal yet. First of all, I'll be amazed when they ever come up with the technology to play no limit hold 'em. That would be a miracle program. Poker is much more than just betting and raising, and the occasional bluff. Just as important are reading your opponent, making bets that damage others pot odds, and playing your position in relation to the blinds. Plus, there's just a certain amount of feel needed in the game. Even Doyle Brunson claims ESP is important in Super System.
Limit ring games are a different ballgame, and a bot does have some chance of success. However, that chance is at best only at the low level games, where a program could actually outplay the players. Any mid to high stakes game has players who will quickly figure out the way a bot plays, and milk it for all it's worth.
As it is now, winholdem is a pretty bad program. I don't know of anyone who has made a profit with it, and I do know a couple of people who have at least taken a look at it. If you're worried about something in online poker, be much more worried about collusion, with multiple people at the same table sharing their hands with each other. But, even that doesn't give a huge advantage against a good player, unless there are upwards of six or seven people in a room sharing information against the rest. Poker is, and always will be a skill game, and none of these cheating methods can change that.
hed.
I'm not saying that there should be huge ramifications. I'm just saying that developers shouldn't pretend there are serious consequences to violent actions in these sorts of games. It's a cop out to those in the world that blame games for everything. Don't even bother with them. It's just a game!
Hardly... First of all, you could commit a ton of murders before you ever got a star. And when you finally did, oh no, you get taken to the jail, and you lose your guns. That was most of the fun of GTA. I honestly never felt like I had lost anything when the police busted me, in fact it was most of the fun, to see how long you could last before they took you down. Hell, if you really cared about the guns, you could just put a cheat in to ensure you had them back instantaneously. Look, I don't believe in video games causing violence any more than the next guy, but seriously, don't act like there are ramifications to violent actions in games. And for a game like GTA, that's how it should be.
Secondly, I give very little credence to polls like this inthe first place. Kids are much more likely to answer polls in untruthful ways, whether it be to impress their friends or because they don't quite understand the questions. Remember those drug surveys you had to take in high school (if you're in the 20 something crowd like me)? How many of your friends ever answered those correctly? Further, even the slightest change in the wording of the questions could probably change the answers significantly.
Not an extremely useful survey at all, but definitely interesting for stimulating conversation of the topic at hand.
I think what the article found wrong and unethical was the fact that morimoto used emulation and save states that made the game absolutely perfect without truly doing the "run." It was definitely a great save state video, but not a true speed run. hed.
For not having the draft!
/knows the theme song and all the characters names, first and last
///scary
hed.
hed.
hed.
http://goldysmom.blogspot.com/ check it out.
I love the guy who replies to himself twice to say that he hasn't seen the video yet, but it most assuredly will suck. No matter what. Gauranteed. Thanks for your input.
And from what I've heard from the conspirators, jet fuel burns at a temperature much lower than what it would take to buckle the steel beams, as is what happened when the building collapsed in upon itself. I don't know the exact figures, just saw a video a buddy got off suprnova once. It was actually fairly interesting.