06-13-2005, 06:56 AM | #1 | ||||
lolzcat
Join Date: May 2001
Location: williamsburg, va
|
Poker's Version of Big Blue?
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedi...ostemailedlink
Quote:
__________________
Text Sports Network - Bringing you statistical information for several FOF MP leagues in one convenient site Quote:
|
||||
06-13-2005, 07:04 AM | #2 |
Coordinator
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Hog Country
|
It amazes me how people didn't learn their lesson when this idea destroyed the game of chess.
|
06-13-2005, 08:28 AM | #3 |
Coordinator
Join Date: Jan 2002
|
Did it? Chess still seems to be doing fine, thanks. Even the much-hyped Big Blue wasn't especially typical, since Kasparov essentially got spooked by the situation and quit when he didn't necessarily need to (not to mention ongoing rumors that Blue needed some human help).
People assume you can use a computer to do a brute-force solve of these type of games, but they misunderstand how many possibilities there are. You don't have to get many moves into a chess game before the number of possible scenarios nears the number of atoms in the universe -- this isn't tic-tac-toe where there's always a right answer. I'm not sure what the tree looks like for poker, but my guess is that the psychology will further complicate things. The one bright side is that you could see the sort of changes to poker theory that you saw with backgammon when computers were introduced. I'm amazed at how many people are convinced that current hold-em theory is "right", based on only maybe 30 years of serious thinking.
__________________
Down Goes Brown: Toronto Maple Leafs Humor and Analysis Last edited by Maple Leafs : 06-13-2005 at 08:28 AM. |
06-13-2005, 08:40 AM | #4 | |||
Coordinator
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Hog Country
|
Quote:
Yes. I disagree. Quote:
That match isn't central to my point. Quote:
I don't assume that and I don't misunderstand chess's complexities. You see here is why I think computers have ruined chess. If you could travel back to a time where there was no computer chess, you would find much more imagination and innovation in the game. Today, all you see is people tweaking their monstrous opening book because fritz tells them that 12. exd4 evaluates to 0.01 higher for white than previously thought. It's like if perfect chess was 100%, humans used to be I dunno around 20-30%. Computers have brought that number nearer to 80-90, in my opinion. Sounds great, right? Sure if your goal is to play perfect chess, which it has to be if you want to win. But now, everyone plays the same way. It is MUCH more boring to watch and uninteresting. It would be like baseball or soccer played with robots that play nearly perfectly. I don't want to see that. I want to see humans trying, failing, succeeding, innovating, creating. Sigh. It's all gone now. I can't even bear to watch another stupid GM game drawn in 15 moves because no one made a mistake. Chess is just boring now. Ugh. Of course chess engines have also totally fouled up online play. You can't play a serious game online without computer cheating being suspected. It's gross. On the subject of poker, what will eventually happen is that computers will be able to implement game theory strategies combined with huge databases of human tendencies tailored to specific situations and combinations of opponents/opponent-types. Great, another game ruined. So much for human innovation in this game, too, I guess. I think I'm just a purist when it comes to computers playing games with humans. It is MUCH more interesting to watch the humans. |
|||
06-13-2005, 08:41 AM | #5 |
Pro Rookie
Join Date: Oct 2000
|
Maple Leafs,
The problem is not that a computer will become the best poker player in the world. The problem is that bots may end up becoming effective enough to beat low and mid limit online games. As I am sure you know, your profit from poker comes from the players at the table that are worse than you. Now you might be able to beat a bot, but if the mass of fish can't then the fish are going to go broke much faster and/or quit the game. Which then just leaves bots and good to excellent players left to play. That is not a very profitable situation. Bots don't even have to be particularly good to end up ruining online poker. |
06-13-2005, 08:44 AM | #6 | |
Coordinator
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Hog Country
|
Quote:
On that point, even the THREAT of "oh I think this table is full of BOTS" will scare the fishies away. While I used to care about that, I don't shed a tear for the online poker communities preying on poor players anymore. I am much more concerned about the purity of the game, myself. I don't want to see another game become a playground for computers that stifles HUMAN creation, innovation, playing-styles, and personality. It is what makes these games great, people. Not playing "perfectly." sigh |
|
06-13-2005, 08:51 AM | #7 |
Coordinator
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Hog Country
|
By the way, one of the reasons I stopped playing poker altogether is along these lines. All the serious discussionof poker strategy assumes you use Poker Tracker and have these reams and reams of statistics on your opponent's tendencies. I long for the day when it was just one on one. Brain on brain. I really am a purist. I'm sure all the poker sharks will now come rushing to the defense of Poker Tracker because that is what they use to make sure they beat up on all the clueless fishies. I used to do that, too, so I can't complain or really disagree too much. I can just say I got tired of it and realized I miss the game of poker the way it should be.
Just like I miss the game of chess. |
06-13-2005, 08:52 AM | #8 |
lolzcat
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: sans pants
|
There was a bot named Saabpo on Party recently that had very good success in the 20+2 NL sit and go tourneys. The strategy was pretty basic, too - standard push or fold logic - but it could play non-stop, never needed rest, never needed bathroom breaks, never mis-clicked.
Maybe not a worry as a short term opponent, but a monster long term.
__________________
Superman was flying around and saw Wonder Woman getting a tan in the nude on her balcony. Superman said I going to hit that real fast. So he flys down toward Wonder Woman to hit it and their is a loud scream. The Invincible Man scream what just hit me in the ass!!!!! I do shit, I take pictures, I write about it: chrisshue.com |
06-13-2005, 09:22 AM | #9 |
Head Coach
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: North Carolina
|
Good points, MJ4H. At least computers have not yet entered the world of juggling.
On topic--what is "illegal" about bots? I know that the private companies can make whatever they want against their terms of use, so it's kind of a pointless question. But its not wrong if I play with Sklansky's books open on my lap. And it is not wrong to use PokerTracker. And it is not wrong to keep an Excel database of people's tendancies. And it is not wrong to use a calculator to compute pot odds. And it is not wrong to have my roommate Chris Ferguson giving me tips while I play. But it is wrong to have a bot play? It just strikes me as a strange line to draw. Data is sent to my computer. Processed. Sent back. I don't look at anyone else's hand. I don't engage in collusion. I just process the data sent to my computer with a tool. I know that the real reason they are banned is that they scare away the fish. But does anyone have a reason that has some sense of intellectual justification? Why should that tool be considered verbotten when others are OK? I really like the points that MJ4H makes about how computers are bad for games generally. But once Pandora's Box is open, why ban bots but allow PokerTracker, etc.? |
06-13-2005, 09:34 AM | #10 |
Captain Obvious
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Norman, Oklahoma
|
I dont see the game of chess going down like MJ4h says. Hasn't chess in the 20th century on a whole been like that MJ4h? Then you have players like Fischer who play great chess, but do it with flair and style. Its not enough to win, they want to dominate. Kasparov is very good, and sure computers have probably elevated his game significantly. But this would have eventually happened in chess. Computers just made it happen faster.
__________________
Thread Killer extraordinaire Yay! its football season once again! |
06-13-2005, 09:47 AM | #11 |
lolzcat
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: sans pants
|
For what it is worth, I think PokerTracker on it's own is fine. It is invaluable when used to analyze your own game, spot trends, leaks, etc.. Where I think it possibly crosses the line is when you take 3rd party plug-ins like GameTime+ and PlayerView that pull data from PokerTracker and overlay real-time information about all of your opponents on the poker client. In a vacuum, it simply isn't fair and it enables good players to multitable more effectively (the texture and reads you lose from multi-tabling are somewhat restored with GameTime+ or PlayerView data).
Of course, I use it all the time - it isn't banned by on-line poker rooms and I know my toughest opponents are probably using it. In fact, poker rooms have made it easier to use over the past few months - Party, Crypto, Stars and others all store real time hand histories on your hard drive - and Poker Tracker can be configured to automatically import them. And of course, that information is pulled by GameTime+ or PlayerView and immediately displayed in real time for each opponent. That said, relying on a mega-small sample size of statistics to get a read on your opponent is not really that bright either. I rarely have more than 50 hands on an opponent at the level at which I play (5/10 sh) and find myself forced to pay attention more. Lots of players have gotten rid of GameTime + and PlayerView because they feel like it has made them lazy with respect to reads. So, in short - the advantage of these plug-ins is relevant, but probably completely overrated.
__________________
Superman was flying around and saw Wonder Woman getting a tan in the nude on her balcony. Superman said I going to hit that real fast. So he flys down toward Wonder Woman to hit it and their is a loud scream. The Invincible Man scream what just hit me in the ass!!!!! I do shit, I take pictures, I write about it: chrisshue.com |
06-13-2005, 09:50 AM | #12 |
Head Coach
Join Date: Dec 2001
|
not to mention that with PokerTracker and GameTime you actually as the human have to play the game and make all the decisions.
Having a bot do that while you watch I Love Lucy reruns will be the end of online poker when it becomes as accessible as PokerTracker.
__________________
"Don't you have homes?" -- Judge Smales |
06-13-2005, 09:54 AM | #13 | |
Pro Rookie
Join Date: Oct 2000
|
Quote:
Subby already metnioned this, but one of the key things that might allow bots to thrive is that they are immune to fatigue. They are also immune to tilt. They don't care how many times the get sucked out ont hey are just going to keep making the correct mathematical play every time. That is a huge advantage. Albion you are correct that we have for the most part all of the data that would be fed to a bot at our disposal now. However a bot could do so much more. It could easily keep track of every hand you have shown down and use that in it's calculations to determine what range of hands you might be on. It can track all of the stats that PT does, but in real time and make much faster decisions based off that than we can. It can immediately calculate exact odds, which again with an exact history of showndown hands would be far more accurate than what we come up with. Some of the advantage is muffled a bit if you are only playing one table, btu where a well written bot would really shine is having an account on all of the party skins and playing 20 tables at once and being able to keep up with all the calculations. There are 2+2ers that sometimes will play 20 tables more for the novelty than anything, but they play strictly ABC poker when they do that. A bot would be able to play an informed competent game over that many tables which is just flat otu somethign a human could not do. That is a huge advantage. |
|
06-13-2005, 09:57 AM | #14 | |
Coordinator
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Hog Country
|
Quote:
I don't mean the game of chess is headed for an end altogether. But in my opinion it is a mind-numbingly dull thing to try to watch and experience as a spectator. It wasn't always this way. I mean, I *LOVE* chess. I consider myself to be quite a fine player (I have a decent USCF rating). But there is no spark to the game anymore. Years ago, there was. The innovation, creativity, personality, the LIFE is all sucked out of the game. By computers, in my opinion. It is ok with me if others don't share that opinion. I'm not articulate enough to explain exactly why I feel that way. I wish I were because I'm as certain about this as I am anything in the world. Maybe inspiration will strike me and I will be able to explain myself better sometime today. I hope you at least understand WHY I think chess is a worse game because of computers. It is not, as Maple Leafs guessed because I have a misunderstanding of the issue. On the contrary, it is one of the subjects I have spent a lot of time thinking about over the last 10 or so years. |
|
06-13-2005, 10:01 AM | #15 | ||
Coordinator
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Hog Country
|
Quote:
I don't disagree with this, really. Poker Tracker can be a good tool to use to study your tendencies. It is a bit dangerous in the slippery slope realm of things, as I think is being evidenced (the GameTime/PlayerView is a proof of concept, I think) Quote:
This is the essence of my point. In my opinion the game is worse because you have to have these tools to EVEN COMPETE now. It's like if you gave boxers weapons. The boxers would need the weapons even to compete, but boxing purists surely won't like it. I feel the same way. |
||
06-13-2005, 10:07 AM | #16 | |
Torchbearer
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: On Lake Harriet
|
Quote:
My guess is that there are plenty of poker purists who don't like online play to begin with. If you are about "playing the man," you can still head down to your local B&M casino, have a regular poker night with friends, etc. I fully understand (and agree with) the arguments regarding fish being scared away, the advantages of a fatigueless/tiltless bot, etc., but I guess I don't get the purist angle. It doesn't strike me that online poker was very "pure" to begin with. |
|
06-13-2005, 10:10 AM | #17 |
Coordinator
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Hog Country
|
I don't have a problem with online play.
Last edited by MJ4H : 06-13-2005 at 10:10 AM. |
06-13-2005, 11:44 AM | #18 |
Wolverine Studios
Join Date: Oct 2003
|
MJ4H - I think I see what you're saying about chess but there's a big difference between chess and poker in that with chess all the pieces are laid out there - in poker the cards are hidden except to the individual holding them. So you could sit and watch chess and realize that a guy is playing "perfect chess" and perhaps even predict what his next move would be but in poker you can't know for sure how a hand is being played until the cards are flipped over in the end. The better players can certainly make pretty good guesses at what an opponent may have or how he is playing the hand but you can't just sit there and see that someone is playing "perfect poker" because sometimes making what would be a horrible statistical play is the right play to make for that particular time unlike in chess where such a move would mean losing the match.
|
06-13-2005, 12:06 PM | #19 |
Coordinator
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Hog Country
|
I'm aware of the differences between the games. I alluded to how computers would bring poker to an unbelieveably high level above, though--Using game theory and huge databases of opponents/situations. It spells disaster for the game.
Just my opinion, of course. |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
Thread Tools | |
|
|