Select Page
Poker Forum
Over 1,291,000 Posts!
Poker ForumFTR Community

XKCD

Results 1 to 22 of 22
  1. #1

    Default XKCD



    Notice where poker sits. I <3 this comic, but this doesn't seem correct.
    So you click their picture and then you get their money?
  2. #2
    JKDS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    6,780
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Well, computers can beat some humans considering all the fish that complain about the bots.

    In terms of actual competition, the University of Alberta has a bot that has been able to win against stoxpoker pros for some games including HU limit texas holdem. Theyve had moderate success against players in other games, but fall short.

    Maybe it should be further down, just because they dont specify which poker. Certainly if it was ALL poker...computers still lose to most humans just because the UofA's bot Polaris i dont think can play things like Omaha or stud yet. If it was just limit...its probably fine where it is.
  3. #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).
  4. #4
    oskar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    6,914
    Location
    in ur accounts... confiscating ur funz
    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.
    I would not be surprised to learn that bots already compete at midstakes. People smart enough to program these are likely smart enough to hide from detection.
    The strengh of a hero is defined by the weakness of his villains.
  5. #5
    bode's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    8,043
    Location
    slow motion
    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.
    eeevees are not monies yet...they are like baby monies.
  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by bode View Post
    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.
    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.


    For those that don't know, there are different types of bots. These are not the same bots that were playing 01c/02c on UB.
  7. #7
    Random musings:

    Seeing that bots seem to be taking over, maybe it's simply the future of poker - in order to win you have to program the best bot which involves having the most optimal strategy, adjusting ranges to different players based on HEM databases, basically do all the stuff that we do anyway as poker players but automated and tilt-free. The only thing the human player does is continue to gather more data, program in read-based optimizations vs opponent bots (this bot 3bets in this position X%, but WHICH X%?) etc, figure out which enemy bots have made adjustments to your bot, which then you have to write more code to counter-adjust vs those specific bots...

    In a theoretical situation where the above became the norm, could one still consider it to be poker?
  8. #8
    i might be thinking of a different botting scandal, but the last time i heard about bots winning at midstakes they were colluding
  9. #9
  10. #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.

    Having an edge over the best players in the world is a COMPLETELY different issue. I don't mean that it is to a completely different proportion, so the programming has a long way to go down the same road they're already on; I'm saying beating top players is not in any way at all the same as beating the royal hell out of fish at a higher rate than they spew to regs.
  11. #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."

    As it's drawn it's like they're saying that they've got a lot of tweaks and bugs to fix, but it's not too far away. Beating fish does not make me feel it's all that imminent.
  12. #12
    JKDS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    6,780
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Bet on the bot | The Economist

    ^^Polaris information against pros like Phil Laak in HU limit matches in case anyone was interested
  13. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by JKDS View Post
    Bet on the bot | The Economist

    ^^Polaris information against pros like Phil Laak in HU limit matches in case anyone was interested
    Playing break-even-ish HU-limit poker against Phil Laak puts zero fear in me.

    EDIT: This was more meant to be a joke about Phil Laak and limit poker than it was meant to be me shitting on your article that I found interesting.
    Last edited by surviva316; 01-15-2012 at 05:10 AM.
  14. #14
    oskar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    6,914
    Location
    in ur accounts... confiscating ur funz
    The strengh of a hero is defined by the weakness of his villains.
  15. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by oskar View Post
    ehh in the video it looks like the computer's advantage is being capable of buzzing in the fastest, but thats about it
  16. #16
    bode's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    8,043
    Location
    slow motion
    Quote Originally Posted by surviva316 View Post
    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.

    Having an edge over the best players in the world is a COMPLETELY different issue. I don't mean that it is to a completely different proportion, so the programming has a long way to go down the same road they're already on; I'm saying beating top players is not in any way at all the same as beating the royal hell out of fish at a higher rate than they spew to regs.
    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.
    eeevees are not monies yet...they are like baby monies.
  17. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by bode View Post
    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.
    Well yeah, I mean +1,000,000, but that's a completely different discussion from what's going on in OP.
  18. #18
    There are top humans at Snakes and Ladders?

    How is there any skill to that game at all?
  19. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by BennyLaRue View Post
    There are top humans at Snakes and Ladders?

    How is there any skill to that game at all?
    There is no skill, so everybody is a "top" human, because everybody is as good as each other at that game. Which means a computer is also just as good. At least I think that's what the author is trying to say.
  20. #20
    oskar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    6,914
    Location
    in ur accounts... confiscating ur funz
    Quote Originally Posted by Imthenewfish View Post
    ehh in the video it looks like the computer's advantage is being capable of buzzing in the fastest, but thats about it
    That's part of the game, isn't it
    You can get the whole thing on Youtube, it's pretty damn impressive. I think it buzzes faster the more sure it is that it got it right. Even with a delay I think it would still hold its own. Can't wait until there's a publicly available version *_*
    The strengh of a hero is defined by the weakness of his villains.
  21. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by Imthenewfish View Post
    ehh in the video it looks like the computer's advantage is being capable of buzzing in the fastest, but thats about it
    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.
  22. #22
    This describes how Watson buzzes in: IBM Research: How Watson “sees,” “hears,” and “speaks” to play Jeopardy!

    Watson’s buzzing is not instantaneous. For some clues he may not complete the question answering computation in time to make the decision to buzz in. For all clues, even if he does have an answer and confidence ready in time, he still has to respond to the signal and physically depress the button.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •