Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

iqisoverrated t1_j6xg46i wrote

Reply to comment by Acceptable-Cress-374 in [P] AI Poker/Machine Learning/Game-Theory by Much_Blacksmith_1857

>Do you do this against a median of other players, against GTO, or what?

Against GTO. Against a median of other players would make no sense.

>'ve seen streamers playing 3-4 tables at once and playing pretty close to GTO

Since GTO doesn't even exist yet for many handed play...press 'x' to doubt. Human players are still pretty far from GTO. There were already challenges with best of the best heads-up players against GTO bots and they lost (mirror matches so it wasn't due to variance in hands). Someone playing 4 tables at the same time? No. Nowhere close to GTO. Maybe preflop with charts, but that's as good as it gets.

(It would also be super stupid as a human to try and play only GTO if you knowy ou play against other humans. While GTO guarantees that you - on average - don't lose it is by FAR inferior to looking for exploitative spots. Trying to play GTO-ish is the baseline you go back to when you don't know what to do - not the default strat as a player)

​

>What about making your own version of "spin the wheel" strategy where, depending on where you're at in the tournament ICM wise, you switch between strategies, adjust your opening hands, raising spots, etc. Sure you'd get away from Nash equilibrium, but you'd probably still rake in money.

Well then you have a bot that is going to be taken for a ride by other bots ;-)

If someone fields a bot he has to be aware that bots are a thing...implementing a losing strategy to another scammer is probably not something he'd put so much effort in.

1

Acceptable-Cress-374 t1_j6xgzoa wrote

> going to be taken for a ride by other bots

So.. bots are a thing? :)

What I'm trying to say is this: if being close to GTO is better than humans, your bot doesn't need to always play perfectly to not be detected. And if you say there's no GTO yet that means there's no standard yet.

To re-visit the chess analogy, in chess they compare each player's moves against top engines and come up with a score. Either centipawn loss or whatever else they do (chessdotcom doesn't comment on their measures, understandably so). What tools would a poker TO employ? Are there even such tools? And would your own bot even resemble that?

I'm still not convinced this is as easy as you said...

edit:

> It would also be super stupid as a human to try and play only GTO if you knowy ou play against other humans. While GTO guarantees that you - on average - don't lose it is by FAR inferior to looking for exploitative spots. Trying to play GTO-ish is the baseline you go back to when you don't know what to do - not the default strat as a player

Well ...

> Pluribus, a new AI bot we developed in collaboration with Carnegie Mellon University, has overcome this challenge and defeated elite human professional players in the most popular and widely played poker format in the world: six-player no-limit Texas Hold'em poker. Pluribus defeated pro players in both a “five AIs + one human player” format and a “one AI + five human players” format. If each chip was worth a dollar, Pluribus would have won an average of about $5 per hand and would have made about $1,000/hour playing against five human players. These results are considered a decisive margin of victory by poker professionals.

I don't have a quote handy, but I remember listening to a podcast with the creator of pluribus, and they didn't specifically code an "exploitative" strategy, AFAIK. Whatever their bot did, seemed to work tho... So not that stupid? :)

1

iqisoverrated t1_j6xnak9 wrote

>, your bot doesn't need to always play perfectly to not be detected

I'm pretty sure that current detection methods use a closeness metric (you can't use a "perfect GTO" metric because that would mean your observation horizon would have to be infinitely long)

> What tools would a poker TO employ?

Well, the simplest tool to start with would be preflop charts. And then solver charts for the usual betting sizes. At least that's where I would start if I were to implement such a system.

1