Notice where poker sits. I <3 this comic, but this doesn't seem correct.
01-12-2012 09:24 PM
#1
| |
XKCD
| |
| |
01-12-2012 10:45 PM
#2
| |
Well, computers can beat some humans considering all the fish that complain about the bots. | |
01-12-2012 10:51 PM
#3
| |
yeah it's tough to clump all forms of poker together. FR limit is closer to scrabble AFAIK, where HU omaha would be closer to GO (or maybe calvinball). | |
01-13-2012 09:49 AM
#4
| |
You can teach your grandmother to beat four computer enemies cranked up to hardest difficulty at starcraft, so that should be way up the list from poker. I'm not sure if you think poker should be higher or lower. I think since it's a game that can be easily broken down mathematically it will be solved eventually, it's just really tedious. I would imagine that top computers can compete with top players heads-up. FR probably not so much because of a higher theoretical complexity. | |
| |
01-13-2012 11:29 AM
#5
| |
there is already a great deal of proof that mid stakes games up to 10/20 have been beaten by bots over the last year or two to the tune of millions of dollars. Look at the Iipoker bot threads on 2+2. | |
| |
01-14-2012 09:01 AM
#6
| |
This but once the bots are getting figured out they are getting beat by some regs too. That said, when a bot is good enough to be a winner at 10/20 on iPoker and Ongame and gets figured out, it's still better than 3/6 and 5/10 regs. Poker has a lot of lines to draw. | |
01-14-2012 01:56 PM
#7
| |
Random musings: | |
01-14-2012 02:38 PM
#8
| |
|
i might be thinking of a different botting scandal, but the last time i heard about bots winning at midstakes they were colluding |
01-14-2012 10:03 PM
#9
| |
Possible collusion/softplaying/botting on 1knl on iPoker. - Medium Stakes Pot Limit and No Limit - Medium Stakes Poker Forum | |
01-15-2012 03:54 AM
#10
| |
i don't want to state the obvious, but having a really good winrate at 1knl != beating top pros, nor does it even mean that they're anywhere near the possibility of beating top pros. There is a ton of money to be won off of fish, and getting software to not spew mad money to regs doesn't exactly seem like science fiction. | |
01-15-2012 04:08 AM
#11
| |
As for the topic specifically at hand, I have no opinion on what games it should be moved in front of and which it should be moved behind, but I do think that it's probably graphically shown too close to the line for "Computers can beat top humans." Unless a study of the iPoker bots came out to show that they were winning players against regs, I'd have to guess it's (at worst) closer to the comfortable middle of "further R&D needed." | |
01-15-2012 04:20 AM
#12
| |
Bet on the bot | The Economist | |
01-15-2012 05:05 AM
#13
| |
Last edited by surviva316; 01-15-2012 at 05:10 AM. | |
01-15-2012 06:46 AM
#14
| |
and regarding jeopardy's place on the list: | |
| |
01-16-2012 12:30 AM
#15
| |
| |
01-16-2012 09:10 AM
#16
| |
i could give a fuck if a bot can beat durrrr or phil G or anyone even close to their skill. What matters to me, and i assume anyone who has an interest in internet poker sticking around for years to come, is the fact that last year alone multiple millions of dollars were taken out of the poker economy by bots. | |
| |
01-16-2012 11:57 PM
#17
| |
01-17-2012 08:32 AM
#18
| |
There are top humans at Snakes and Ladders? | |
01-17-2012 09:17 AM
#19
| |
01-17-2012 06:09 PM
#20
| |
That's part of the game, isn't it | |
| |
01-20-2012 07:14 PM
#21
| |
this completely misses the point of the accomplishment of watson. yea, of course a machine will buzz in faster than a human opponent. the point is that a fucking machine actually knows the answer often enough that it can buzz in before everybody else and get the question right. | |
01-20-2012 10:39 PM
#22
| |
This describes how Watson buzzes in: IBM Research: How Watson “sees,” “hears,” and “speaks” to play Jeopardy! | |