Poker-AI.org Poker AI and Botting Discussion Forum 2014-02-05T05:27:34+00:00 http://poker-ai.org/phpbb/feed.php?f=22&t=2516 2013-12-04T13:43:44+00:00 2013-12-04T13:43:44+00:00 http://poker-ai.org/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=2516&p=5408#p5408 <![CDATA[Re: pokersnowie?]]> spears wrote:

I could offer more explanation but I'm not going to because I don't like your tone.

I'm tempted to make this my signature. :)

Statistics: Posted by cantina — Wed Dec 04, 2013 1:43 pm


]]>
2013-12-02T17:25:29+00:00 2013-12-02T17:25:29+00:00 http://poker-ai.org/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=2516&p=5378#p5378 <![CDATA[Re: pokersnowie?]]> spears wrote:

Of course it's hard to compute a NE in the first place, but relatively easy to recognize it once calculated. And again, it doesn't have to be every hand of every player.

I could offer more explanation but I'm not going to because I don't like your tone.


Sorry, I didn't mean to offend you in any way, just wanted to discuss it.

Yes, it's hard to compute NE, especially if there are thousands of e-EQs for different abstarction techniques/models and numbers of iterations run.

Could you please explain some more?

Statistics: Posted by Flawless — Mon Dec 02, 2013 5:25 pm


]]>
2013-12-02T09:42:39+00:00 2013-12-02T09:42:39+00:00 http://poker-ai.org/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=2516&p=5367#p5367 <![CDATA[Re: pokersnowie?]]> Flawless wrote:

So, PS/FT do analyze each play in a manner "The fish hasn't been folding to any river bets 10 times in a row and the reg continues bluffing -> any good reg would stop bluffing -> this reg is a bot"? OR "SB shoves 10 times in a row preflop for 100BB HU and BB folds A2 on the 11-th time - > BOT!" Somewhat unbelieveable...

Where did I write "do analyze each play" (sic)? They could use the technique to confirm suspicions raised in other ways.

Flawless wrote:

It seems to me they need to compute EQ for every hand and watch whether some players' actions correlate with EQ to a high degree in every hand he plays. But it also seems impossible to compute NE for thousands games/second that run on PS.


Of course it's hard to compute a NE in the first place, but relatively easy to recognize it once calculated. And again, it doesn't have to be every hand of every player.

I could offer more explanation but I'm not going to because I don't like your tone.

Statistics: Posted by spears — Mon Dec 02, 2013 9:42 am


]]>
2013-12-01T21:44:44+00:00 2013-12-01T21:44:44+00:00 http://poker-ai.org/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=2516&p=5361#p5361 <![CDATA[Re: pokersnowie?]]> Statistics: Posted by cantina — Sun Dec 01, 2013 9:44 pm


]]>
2013-12-01T16:14:08+00:00 2013-12-01T16:14:08+00:00 http://poker-ai.org/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=2516&p=5360#p5360 <![CDATA[Re: pokersnowie?]]> spears wrote:

Don't recall any info or links. Suppose you deliberately played badly against someone and their strategy didn't change. Wouldn't you be a bit suspicious?


So, PS/FT do analyze each play in a manner "The fish hasn't been folding to any river bets 10 times in a row and the reg continues bluffing -> any good reg would stop bluffing -> this reg is a bot"? OR "SB shoves 10 times in a row preflop for 100BB HU and BB folds A2 on the 11-th time - > BOT!" Somewhat unbelieveable...

It seems to me they need to compute EQ for every hand and watch whether some players' actions correlate with EQ to a high degree in every hand he plays. But it also seems impossible to compute NE for thousands games/second that run on PS.

Chess seem much easier to detect bots since there are only few decent moves on every board and bots probably select some consistent lines on these boards. But in poker you can do several actions with different frequency with every hand in your range in every spot and the number of possible lines with your range is >>>>>> then in chess.

Statistics: Posted by Flawless — Sun Dec 01, 2013 4:14 pm


]]>
2013-12-01T15:57:01+00:00 2013-12-01T15:57:01+00:00 http://poker-ai.org/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=2516&p=5359#p5359 <![CDATA[Re: pokersnowie?]]> Statistics: Posted by spears — Sun Dec 01, 2013 3:57 pm


]]>
2013-12-01T14:28:32+00:00 2013-12-01T14:28:32+00:00 http://poker-ai.org/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=2516&p=5358#p5358 <![CDATA[Re: pokersnowie?]]> Nasher wrote:

EQs are easy to detect online -- Poker Stars and Full Tilt actively look at the stability of a player's strategy to discern if he/she is a bot. Billing predicted this would happen, much like it does with Chess bots.


Any info/links on this topic?

Statistics: Posted by Flawless — Sun Dec 01, 2013 2:28 pm


]]>
2013-07-05T09:01:48+00:00 2013-07-05T09:01:48+00:00 http://poker-ai.org/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=2516&p=4390#p4390 <![CDATA[Re: pokersnowie?]]> Statistics: Posted by liuyelian — Fri Jul 05, 2013 9:01 am


]]>
2013-06-30T15:31:18+00:00 2013-06-30T15:31:18+00:00 http://poker-ai.org/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=2516&p=4364#p4364 <![CDATA[Re: pokersnowie?]]> Statistics: Posted by cantina — Sun Jun 30, 2013 3:31 pm


]]>
2013-06-30T06:40:00+00:00 2013-06-30T06:40:00+00:00 http://poker-ai.org/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=2516&p=4363#p4363 <![CDATA[Re: pokersnowie?]]>

Mostly I tried variations of RL. Also, NEAT was not bad at all. Just google around if you are interested in. In many cases the solution was good and pretty playable, but was always exploitable if two or more players are deviating from computed strategy.
Now I'm using multiplayer-modified version of CFRM and there are much less problems than with NNs. That's why I'm so sceptical about their NN methods whatever they are.

Statistics: Posted by sn0w — Sun Jun 30, 2013 6:40 am


]]>
2013-06-30T06:16:30+00:00 2013-06-30T06:16:30+00:00 http://poker-ai.org/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=2516&p=4362#p4362 <![CDATA[Re: pokersnowie?]]> I'm curious what algorithms you tried, and how you tried them? I know with CFRM it's not such a straight forward task to train NNs.

Statistics: Posted by cantina — Sun Jun 30, 2013 6:16 am


]]>
2013-06-30T06:03:20+00:00 2013-06-30T06:03:20+00:00 http://poker-ai.org/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=2516&p=4361#p4361 <![CDATA[Re: pokersnowie?]]> Nasher wrote:

I give them credit for getting an NN to converge to any kind of descent solution, even if it doesn't live up to the hype. Any thoughts on the "iterative algorithm" they used?


That's what makes me think that it stinks. I waste around a year in attempts to create a robust agent for multiplayer game using NN/reinforcement learning. Tried almost every and each algorithm and their augmentations, but it is impossible to ensure robustness (i.e. SNE) of resulting solution.

So, if their claims are true and pokersnowie's solution is any good, it'll still be heavily exploitable just because with neural networks you cannot guarantee convergence even to NE (not to mention SNE).

Statistics: Posted by sn0w — Sun Jun 30, 2013 6:03 am


]]>
2013-06-30T05:20:00+00:00 2013-06-30T05:20:00+00:00 http://poker-ai.org/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=2516&p=4360#p4360 <![CDATA[Re: pokersnowie?]]> Statistics: Posted by cantina — Sun Jun 30, 2013 5:20 am


]]>
2013-06-28T18:23:56+00:00 2013-06-28T18:23:56+00:00 http://poker-ai.org/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=2516&p=4358#p4358 <![CDATA[Re: pokersnowie?]]> Quote:

Playing devil's advocate a bit here - that is human thinking not EQ thinking. Every non-terminal action in an EQ solution needs to contain strong and weak hands. If you never call on flat boards with weak hands then that is exploitable. Floating is not -EV by a math definition, it is part of a balanced strategy


That is a very good point. I will have to think about that as I am probably missing out on opportunities on dry boards. I have it calling many other types of weak hands on dry boards so perhaps I have already compensated for that. I have to gone to big lengths in order to make it balanced. I guess my definition of floating is probably not right. When I think of floating I think of repping a hand I do not have with total air. So I have no draw, no pair and no outs. So then I take my preflop action and board texture and determine if I could credibly rep a draw (like if I called a preflop raise which would generally indicate a typical flatting hand like a broadway, suited connector, etc) or a made hand in order to take the pot away. On a dry board I could really only rep a made hand which is harder to do especially against a good hand reader.

You have me thinking now on other possible floats when I know his range to be weak. On a dry board his range will be even weaker...

Statistics: Posted by shalako — Fri Jun 28, 2013 6:23 pm


]]>
2013-06-28T17:31:45+00:00 2013-06-28T17:31:45+00:00 http://poker-ai.org/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=2516&p=4357#p4357 <![CDATA[Re: pokersnowie?]]> shalako wrote:

If you notice on the their main front page with the "Snowie Tip" it mentions floating with that gutshot. This does not sound like an equity based bot or NE as floating would be -EV on any math calculation. This sounds more like an expert system to me. I am not sure how floating could be figured out mathematically but it makes sense on certain boards (mostly wet) and player actions. I have several floats incorporated into my bot but I need to add in many more. Technically I think any kind of backdoor draw/gut could be considered a float but I think having nothing but air and no outs would be a "true float" if that makes any sense.

In fact after thinking about that Snowie Tip I think its totally wrong. You cannot rep many hands on that 95A rainbow flop. So apparently he called that flop with no draws present so all he could rep is top pair or a set which is rather unlikely.

Playing devil's advocate a bit here - that is human thinking not EQ thinking. Every non-terminal action in an EQ solution needs to contain strong and weak hands. If you never call on flat boards with weak hands then that is exploitable. Floating is not -EV by a math definition, it is part of a balanced strategy

Tysen

Statistics: Posted by trojanrabbit — Fri Jun 28, 2013 5:31 pm


]]>
2013-06-28T15:48:57+00:00 2013-06-28T15:48:57+00:00 http://poker-ai.org/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=2516&p=4355#p4355 <![CDATA[Re: pokersnowie?]]>
In fact after thinking about that Snowie Tip I think its totally wrong. You cannot rep many hands on that 95A rainbow flop. So apparently he called that flop with no draws present so all he could rep is top pair or a set which is rather unlikely.

Statistics: Posted by shalako — Fri Jun 28, 2013 3:48 pm


]]>
2013-06-24T18:15:44+00:00 2013-06-24T18:15:44+00:00 http://poker-ai.org/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=2516&p=4354#p4354 <![CDATA[Re: pokersnowie?]]> winnie wrote:

if they play by gto, as written at their website, it will not be exploitable...

It's exploitable, unless it's a perfect EQ. If a pure strategy, it will be easily identifiable.

Statistics: Posted by cantina — Mon Jun 24, 2013 6:15 pm


]]>
2013-06-24T13:09:45+00:00 2013-06-24T13:09:45+00:00 http://poker-ai.org/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=2516&p=4353#p4353 <![CDATA[Re: pokersnowie?]]> http://webdocs.cs.ualberta.ca/~johanson ... l-size.pdf.
And this is just HU...
I am very skeptical of their claims.

Statistics: Posted by nemesis17 — Mon Jun 24, 2013 1:09 pm


]]>
2013-06-24T12:04:12+00:00 2013-06-24T12:04:12+00:00 http://poker-ai.org/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=2516&p=4352#p4352 <![CDATA[Re: pokersnowie?]]> sn0w wrote:

Maybe... Well, they could say whatever they want, but it will take at most three-four weeks to integrate AI into poker client. And if their solution is so good, they will make much more money (in order of magnitude) then any subscription service ever will.


- Sell 100 subscriptions and charge 10% winnings you make 10 times what you could make yourself.
- I doubt psuedo NE play actually makes big money.

Statistics: Posted by spears — Mon Jun 24, 2013 12:04 pm


]]>
2013-06-24T11:50:07+00:00 2013-06-24T11:50:07+00:00 http://poker-ai.org/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=2516&p=4351#p4351 <![CDATA[Re: pokersnowie?]]> Quote:

Maybe he thinks he can repeat the multi million pound success he made with his backgammon product. Maltese company accounts available if you want to look.

Maybe... Well, they could say whatever they want, but it will take at most three-four weeks to integrate AI into poker client. And if their solution is so good, they will make much more money (in order of magnitude) then any subscription service ever will.
All of this looks really strange.

Statistics: Posted by sn0w — Mon Jun 24, 2013 11:50 am


]]>
2013-06-24T11:40:57+00:00 2013-06-24T11:40:57+00:00 http://poker-ai.org/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=2516&p=4350#p4350 <![CDATA[Re: pokersnowie?]]> sn0w wrote:

Neural networks found a NE solution via self play in multiplayer game? That stinks. They missed "quantum" somewhere on the site.
I think, it's all about money and nothing more. Really, who of us wants to sell a money printer?


Maybe he thinks he can repeat the multi million pound success he made with his backgammon product. Maltese company accounts available if you want to look.

Statistics: Posted by spears — Mon Jun 24, 2013 11:40 am


]]>
2013-06-24T09:41:32+00:00 2013-06-24T09:41:32+00:00 http://poker-ai.org/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=2516&p=4349#p4349 <![CDATA[Re: pokersnowie?]]> sn0w wrote:

Neural networks found a NE solution via self play in multiplayer game? That stinks. They missed "quantum" somewhere on the site.
I think, it's all about money and nothing more. Really, who of us wants to sell a money printer?


Actually they are not selling the AI. IIRC the CEO mentioned in the interview it is going to be subscription-based. You may upload a couple of hands and then Snowie tells you how to improve your game.

Just curious how many players are going to expose their strategy (in terms of hand histories) to some strangers giving them the opportunity to perfectly exploit them :lol:

Statistics: Posted by Nose — Mon Jun 24, 2013 9:41 am


]]>
2013-06-24T09:25:54+00:00 2013-06-24T09:25:54+00:00 http://poker-ai.org/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=2516&p=4348#p4348 <![CDATA[Re: pokersnowie?]]> winnie wrote:

Nasher wrote:
Looking at the pokersnowie coaching software, it seems to be offering pure solutions preflop (i.e. saying an action should be taken 100% of the time) and giving only f/c/r options with a single recommended raise amount (not a distribution). I'm very curious about the exploitability of it's play, given that we've seen NNs that play pure strategies win competitions (Pulpo, Calamari, etc.) but remain extremely exploitable.


if they play by gto, as written at their website, it will not be exploitable...


... within their abstraction which seems to be limited to one bet amount and might therefore very well be exploitable in the unabstracted game.

IIRC the game tree of HUNL-100 consists of about 10^70 nodes; the game tree of HUL, which - as well as their abstraction - is limited to one bet amount each action, consists of about 10^12, which is approx. 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% of HUNL-100's complexity, so by human means the game has been simplified by a factor of 100%. And then you only have a model which is about the size of HUL, which ... I think? ... is still not perfectly solved nowadays. Take these numbers with a ton of salt, give each exponent a range of +/- 5.

So I would agree that there might remain some exploitability in the unabstracted, REAL HUNL

Statistics: Posted by Nose — Mon Jun 24, 2013 9:25 am


]]>
2013-06-24T07:23:38+00:00 2013-06-24T07:23:38+00:00 http://poker-ai.org/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=2516&p=4347#p4347 <![CDATA[Re: pokersnowie?]]> I think, it's all about money and nothing more. Really, who of us wants to sell a money printer?

Statistics: Posted by sn0w — Mon Jun 24, 2013 7:23 am


]]>
2013-06-24T06:48:15+00:00 2013-06-24T06:48:15+00:00 http://poker-ai.org/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=2516&p=4346#p4346 <![CDATA[Re: pokersnowie?]]> Nasher wrote:

Looking at the pokersnowie coaching software, it seems to be offering pure solutions preflop (i.e. saying an action should be taken 100% of the time) and giving only f/c/r options with a single recommended raise amount (not a distribution). I'm very curious about the exploitability of it's play, given that we've seen NNs that play pure strategies win competitions (Pulpo, Calamari, etc.) but remain extremely exploitable.


if they play by gto, as written at their website, it will not be exploitable...

Statistics: Posted by winnie — Mon Jun 24, 2013 6:48 am


]]>
2014-02-05T05:27:34+00:00 2013-06-22T16:17:53+00:00 http://poker-ai.org/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=2516&p=4345#p4345 <![CDATA[Re: pokersnowie?]]>
EQs are easy to detect online -- Poker Stars and Full Tilt actively look at the stability of a player's strategy to discern if he/she is a bot. Billing predicted this would happen, much like it does with Chess bots.

It might make those that use it better players, but there will always be fish -- the occasional hobbyist that can't or doesn't want to spend the effort to improve his game.

Looking at the pokersnowie coaching software, it seems to be offering pure solutions preflop (i.e. saying an action should be taken 100% of the time) and giving only f/c/r options with a single recommended raise amount (not a distribution). I'm very curious about the exploitability of it's play, given that we've seen NNs that play pure strategies win competitions (Pulpo, Calamari, etc.) but remain extremely exploitable.

Statistics: Posted by cantina — Sat Jun 22, 2013 4:17 pm


]]>
2013-06-22T11:06:43+00:00 2013-06-22T11:06:43+00:00 http://poker-ai.org/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=2516&p=4344#p4344 <![CDATA[Re: pokersnowie?]]> Nasher wrote:

Nose wrote:
The competitions seems to be held this month. Maybe that's why they not release their software before July ;)

Where did you see it's not released until July?


it was mentioned in the interview (link above)

Statistics: Posted by Nose — Sat Jun 22, 2013 11:06 am


]]>
2013-06-22T08:03:50+00:00 2013-06-22T08:03:50+00:00 http://poker-ai.org/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=2516&p=4343#p4343 <![CDATA[Re: pokersnowie?]]> Nose wrote:

The competitions seems to be held this month. Maybe that's why they not release their software before July ;)

Where did you see it's not released until July?

Statistics: Posted by cantina — Sat Jun 22, 2013 8:03 am


]]>
2013-06-22T07:52:35+00:00 2013-06-22T07:52:35+00:00 http://poker-ai.org/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=2516&p=4342#p4342 <![CDATA[Re: pokersnowie?]]> spears wrote:

http://www.computerpokercompetition.org/ requires competitors to submit executables and doesn't permit an internet connection. Nobody who wants to make a business out of this is ever going to agree to those terms.

Neo poker? :)

Statistics: Posted by cantina — Sat Jun 22, 2013 7:52 am


]]>
2013-06-22T07:29:06+00:00 2013-06-22T07:29:06+00:00 http://poker-ai.org/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=2516&p=4341#p4341 <![CDATA[Re: pokersnowie?]]> Nose wrote:

I would love to see their product at the yearly http://www.aaai.org/home.html contest (http://www.computerpokercompetition.org/ in particular) - but I am almost sure they would be afraid their claims would not hold ;) The competitions seems to be held this month. Maybe that's why they not release their software before July ;)


http://www.computerpokercompetition.org/ requires competitors to submit executables and doesn't permit an internet connection. Nobody who wants to make a business out of this is ever going to agree to those terms.

I seriously doubt this is a scam. Snowie already has a successful backgammon business that has been running for years. He has been developing this for 10 years. These are not the trademarks of get rich quick scammers.

And I don't see why somebody shouldn't be able to do better than U of A. Sonia did it already. Personally, I think there is a big flaw in the U of A methods: I just wish I could find the time to develop my own better idea.

Statistics: Posted by spears — Sat Jun 22, 2013 7:29 am


]]>
2013-06-22T04:48:16+00:00 2013-06-22T04:48:16+00:00 http://poker-ai.org/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=2516&p=4340#p4340 <![CDATA[Re: pokersnowie?]]> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T9l4nXqydlg

It seems like players are concerned it would kill online poker. Many reference to "smart guys" and pros stating it would be unbeatable by human players, many others give examples, trying to prove it would be total scam.
For sure the guys that created Snowie are familiar with AI (also see http://www.bgsnowie.com/) I assume their product to be better than any bot created by one person only.

On the other hand they are bounded by the same restrictions as we are so unless they have access to a quantum computer I assume (at least their 6max-version) to be far away from world class level.

I mean: UoA is now researching in the domain of poker for more than 15 years; and their statements seem to be way more realistic "[...] amateur level [..]". The point simply is that poker players don't have access to anything closer to EQ so it will be recommended almost everywhere and the guys from Snowie will make a lot of money until better programs appear.

Anyway, this appears nothing but arrogant and wrong to me http://www.pokersnowie.com/about/pokersnowie-the-best.html

Quote:

Is PokerSnowie the best player in the world?
[...]
Play perfect GTO strategy and even if your opponents know, they still have no counter-strategy against you and you're guaranteed to [strike]be a winning player[/strike] [not be a losing player] in the long run.
[...]
As such, PokerSnowie has no human strategy built in - all the learning comes from its own playing experience. The result is that it plays the game in a completely balanced way and hence, no weaknesses can be exploited by using statistical tools against it [in the abstracted game].
[...]


I would love to see their product at the yearly http://www.aaai.org/home.html contest (http://www.computerpokercompetition.org/ in particular) - but I am almost sure they would be afraid their claims would not hold ;) The competitions seems to be held this month. Maybe that's why they not release their software before July ;)

PS: You were wrong ;) http://poker-ai.org/archive/www.pokerai.org/pf3/viewtopic59af.html?f=3&t=3123&view=previous

Statistics: Posted by Nose — Sat Jun 22, 2013 4:48 am


]]>
2013-06-21T23:20:20+00:00 2013-06-21T23:20:20+00:00 http://poker-ai.org/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=2516&p=4339#p4339 <![CDATA[pokersnowie?]]> http://www.pokersnowie.com/ ?

sounds like a scam to me...

Statistics: Posted by nemesis17 — Fri Jun 21, 2013 11:20 pm


]]>