Re:Matt Maroon: Why I Quit Playing Poker For A Living
by mattmaroon on Tuesday December 04, 2007 @12:00AM
(#85824)
Also, interestingly enough, since poker is all about optimization, it would still be hard to play perfectly even if you had perfect knowledge of the state. Even sometimes knowing what someone had, it's hard to decide the perfect play.
Re:Matt Maroon: Why I Quit Playing Poker For A Living
by ntoshev on Tuesday December 04, 2007 @07:08AM
(#85906)
Chess lacks chance compared to blackjack too. Does it means chess is simpler than blackjack?
Re:Matt Maroon: Why I Quit Playing Poker For A Living
by marcus on Wednesday December 05, 2007 @01:50AM
(#86234)
No it doesn't mean that, blackjack too has an even smaller number of knowledge state (based on cards already dealt/hand/dealers card). There is a finite and small number of cards dealt and in a shoe and simple probabilistic calculation can be made to determine the absolutely correct action.
Poker is not finite, at least the wagering part of it, the interaction between the players. Even in the exact same situation as defined by the mechanics of the round, the correct answer might be different, depending on a host of psychological factors.
Re:Matt Maroon: Why I Quit Playing Poker For A Living
by DocSavage on Tuesday December 04, 2007 @03:21PM
(#86073)
No. Try an analogy with chance + bluffing + non-fixed, unlimited betting + imperfect information. Better yet, try to analyze poker.
My argument is not that EVERY game with chance + bluffing is more complex for a computer than chess. It's that poker is a very different beast than chess, and it makes no sense to argue complexity based on amount of required human training. Otherwise, we'd have computers with visual perception before chess skills.
Re:Matt Maroon: Why I Quit Playing Poker For A Living
by Tichy on Tuesday December 04, 2007 @03:16AM
(#85865)
Cool idea for removing the luck, but I think it has no bearing on the computer's strategy, only on the analysis of the results by the human observers.
Re:Matt Maroon: Why I Quit Playing Poker For A Living
by mattmaroon on Monday December 03, 2007 @11:51PM
(#85816)
That is a novel way to attempt to do so (though I still think is far from absolutely successful). Most previous attempts dealt only with sample size.
The long apprenticeship in chess doesn't mean chess is inherently tougher for computers than poker. It means for humans, chess is a difficult game that requires a lot of training. Humans would take a long time to memorize and incorporate book knowledge. Computers could suck in that knowledge in no time.
Babies acquire visual recognition and speech in a smaller time period than adults go from novice to grand masters in chess. So it depends on what you are learning, not just the time it takes.
It's also interesting that the computer vs human poker contest tried to remove "luck":
"The man vs. machine poker contest was designed to eliminate the luck factor by dealing the same cards in each hand, but in reverse. So in one hand, Laak might get lucky with two aces, but in the other room Esmali would be unlucky as the computer was dealt two aces. To finalize a winner, officials added the two human scores and two computer scores separately, and the highest number won."