We've build solver on VR-MCCFR basis, with depth limited search to be able beat players in headsup as well as 3+ games.
Solver seems to perform around 0.15/BB hand in headsup games. Less for 3+ games, but still seems to be quite profitable.
However I would note that we have only around 20k sample size, so not quite sure about real profitability.
I can also say we beat slumbot by good margin.
We are not doing opponent modeling just yet but that will come soon.
We got RTA working with PPPoker and PokerBros and we are able to estimate how "fishy" opponent is.
We are looking for to take few customers onboard.
However we are not sure what should be the price.
I want to ask around, what you will be willing to pay for good RTA?
Where would you look for first customers (except this forum)?
Statistics: Posted by norman — Thu Aug 24, 2023 5:27 pm
]]>
Yes, we can implement support for any (or almost any) poker room, incl. applications for android. The cost is negotiated individually, depending on the complexity of the animation, the presence of elements that change their position on the poker table (usually these are board or hero cards) and other things that complicate the creation of hand histories on the fly using OCR. The term for the implementation of support for one room is from 1 month.
P.S. Recently implemented support for PokerBros.
http://www.pokerocr.com/en/v3.html
[email protected]
Telegram: pokerocr
Statistics: Posted by XStalker — Sat Jul 15, 2023 4:10 pm
]]>
Yes, we can implement support for any (or almost any) poker room, incl. applications for android. The cost is negotiated individually, depending on the complexity of the animation, the presence of elements that change their position on the poker table (usually these are board or hero cards) and other things that complicate the creation of hand histories on the fly using OCR. The term for the implementation of support for one room is from 1 month.
P.S. Recently implemented support for PokerBros.
http://www.pokerocr.com/en/v3.html
[email protected]
Telegram: pokerocr
Statistics: Posted by XStalker — Sat Jul 15, 2023 4:07 pm
]]>
Statistics: Posted by Liamsimpsony — Wed Jul 05, 2023 12:59 pm
]]>
]]>
]]>
]]>
nbiresev wrote:
"because you have to make a lot of assumptions about what villain holds and what the possible actions are."
GTO doesn't require assumptions about what villain holds or possible actions.
I didn't say it did. If you are using a GTO solver like Pio in 6 max games you have to make a lot of assumptions about what villain holds and what the possible actions, because you are using a GTO solver for only part of the game, and the GTO solution isn't for the game you are solving.GTO doesn't require assumptions about what villain holds or possible actions.
Yes if you start on the flop you need to assume what is opponent range in such spot. Usual way is to use solver preflop solutions and put opponent and hero on such ranges.
Statistics: Posted by nbiresev — Wed May 24, 2023 8:40 pm
]]>
nbiresev wrote:
If Pluribus wins with 5bb/100 it doesn't mean that live solvers would win as well. .... I would say, it depends how many solutions live solver has to cover the entire game tree, will depend how much winrate it has. .
Yes, that's my point.
nbiresev wrote:
Pluribus is as well just trying to play GTO as much as possible, it doesn't have "blueprint" (gto) solution for each spot so it does abstraction and subgame solving to overcome this issue.
It's true that it doesn't have blueprints for all spots, but the live subgame solving is supposed to make up for that deficiency.
Yes subgame solving is what made it win vs humans, difference between losing and winning. They made experiments without subgame solving, it was much worse. Pluribus and Libratus are basically brute force bots that thanks to powerful GPUs pre-calculated and saved huge amounts of blueprint strategies and then use subgame solving on turn and river where it is fast enough to calculate it while playing.
I don't find it impressive as humans learn games by very few samples and learn how to generalize, while libratus and pluribus iterate over almost whole abstracted game tree and write solutions on disk, it is difficult to even see elements of AI / ML in this. I find deepstack more interesting as it at least uses DNN to predict CF values, instead of brute force run all blue print strategies.
Statistics: Posted by nbiresev — Wed May 24, 2023 8:34 pm
]]>
Another important aspect is that solid human players who use live solver can play max exploit strategy against weak players which would yield much higher winrate than "GTO" strategy that Pluribus plays or someone who strictly would follow RTA hints.
This is why estimating winrate for RTA is very difficult, and depends how well human player can perform in spots without solution.
I agree that estimating RTA is going to be very difficult for the reasons you mentioned. I am trying to gauge a reasonable winrate for a bot that strictly follows solver plays 1 to 1, and is coded to play a basic solid strategy in spots that solvers don't cover. Or, the winrate of an RTA player that never deviates from the solver outputs, and plays basic/solid in spots not covered.
Opinions seem to be all over the place depending on the source.
Statistics: Posted by mjk234 — Fri May 19, 2023 9:32 pm
]]>
I know at least 1 legit person that is using a gto bot and it is working for him.
Pre-rake 10 bb/100 seems way to high. Just take a look at high stakes pros win rate to see what is possible. There are some players that have over 10bb/100 but those are exceptions and usually the highest win rates are achieved on the softest games like ignition.
A pure solver based bot is not possible because you will still face situations where opponents take a zero frequency line. That means your solutions does not have an answer to the current situation. Take an example where opponent donks while your gto solution does not have any donks in that spot. You need to hard code those situations.
At midtskaes, rake takes 6-7 BB/100 winrate from you. So to beat the games at a reasonable clip it requires winning ~10BB/100 before rake. The win rates you see posted from people are including rake. I do believe the consensus is that a solver could beat a tough game without rake, nobody just seems to know what realistic winrate would be; and if it even would be enough to beat the rake.
I do understand that there will be situations that a solver does not cover, such as the donk bets you mention and limped/multiway pots, etc. And that these will account for part of the win rate of the bot.
Statistics: Posted by mjk234 — Fri May 19, 2023 9:01 pm
]]>
Greatly appreciate the insight guys.
My question was more towards putting a solver like Piosolver (with sufficient bet size availability) into a 6max game. Seems agreeable that it would beat even tough games pre-rake, just not sure if it would win at a clip high enough to beat raked games. Can you really sustain a pre-rake 10+ BB/100 win rate without ever adjusting to imbalances of your opponents? Pluribus is a bit of a different discussion but even it had only a ~5BB/100 winrate before rake.
The vast majority of postflop Pio solutions are mixes. Many spots where there is an "incorrect" option to take will only cost villain a small amount of EV if chosen. Not sure if there are enough -EV decisions (according to Pio) being made to make up for the rake, unless villains are punting off stacks with massive -EV decisions. This is true for poker in general, but adjusting to these large imbalances and obvious fish seems to be where most of your EV as a player comes from.
Was hoping somebody had some data/experience with a pure solver based bot, I'm sure there are some out there by now. But any educated insight is welcome and appreciated.
Thanks again
I know at least 1 legit person that is using a gto bot and it is working for him.
Pre-rake 10 bb/100 seems way to high. Just take a look at high stakes pros win rate to see what is possible. There are some players that have over 10bb/100 but those are exceptions and usually the highest win rates are achieved on the softest games like ignition.
A pure solver based bot is not possible because you will still face situations where opponents take a zero frequency line. That means your solutions does not have an answer to the current situation. Take an example where opponent donks while your gto solution does not have any donks in that spot. You need to hard code those situations.
Statistics: Posted by bot01 — Fri May 19, 2023 10:36 am
]]>
"because you have to make a lot of assumptions about what villain holds and what the possible actions are."
GTO doesn't require assumptions about what villain holds or possible actions. GTO is supposed to be unexploitable against any strategy or actions, assuming it has solution for any given spot. The only way to exploit
GTO bot or RTA would be if such bot or RTA is not having enough solutions to cover big parts of the game tree, and human knows exactly where such spots are and exploits it. E.g. if RTA / GTO bot, has only RFI size 2bb or 3bb,
and human knows it, it could exploit it by raising e.g. 10bb, as GTO bots / RTA usually round the actual bet size to the nearest possible one for preflop.
Pluribus / Libratus were trained with many different bet sizes even preflop, and humans were able to exploit it during the match using big bet sizes, but not for long enough as team of Libratus would run CFR for exactly those bet sizes that were missing, and tomorrow it would be able to play GTO for even such big bet sizes (i find it unfair to fine tune the bot between the matches exactly for the missing bet sizes).
The way RTA overcomes the issue of facing actions / bet sizes that it doesn't have solution is that human player takes over and plays its own strategy in such spots.
You are right that gto would need to round the actual facing bet size to match your gto model. But given the fact that most are using similar bet sizes like 33%, 66% and 100% do you think that it will matter if you treat an 75% like an 66%. Of course there will be spots where you need to hard code your bot because the action villain took can not be put into any category. For example villain goes all in a spot where gto never does.
As for raising 10bb preflop to counter gto I dont think that this is practical. First of all you would lose a lot of EV by doing so. what ranges are you going to use and how you are going to play post flop. Since you are raising so big you need to have a very tight range and the range your opponent will call such a raise will also be very tight. If you decide to use 3bb open ranges by raising 10bb you will just end up burning your money. You will win many small pots preflop and then lose huge pots post flop because you will face a very strong range and will often be dominated. People would also notice after some time and start 3 betting you light. I would start raising to 2-2.5x and now you find yourself putted 10bb raise with a shity range facing a 3bet. Furthermore it is easy to counter such a big raise. I would just code and treat such a raise like an all in and just call with top of my range.
In a short there is nothing a human can do against a good gto model with 3 bet sizes and some additional coding to counter situations where villain takes a zero frequency line. I agree though that most of the winning are coming from fish and while gto would still win against them it will not win as much as an experienced poker player but even here we can hard code our strategy and instead of using gto use this strategy against fish.
Statistics: Posted by bot01 — Fri May 19, 2023 10:20 am
]]>
"because you have to make a lot of assumptions about what villain holds and what the possible actions are."
GTO doesn't require assumptions about what villain holds or possible actions.
Statistics: Posted by spears — Fri May 19, 2023 7:54 am
]]>
If Pluribus wins with 5bb/100 it doesn't mean that live solvers would win as well. .... I would say, it depends how many solutions live solver has to cover the entire game tree, will depend how much winrate it has. .
Yes, that's my point.
nbiresev wrote:
Pluribus is as well just trying to play GTO as much as possible, it doesn't have "blueprint" (gto) solution for each spot so it does abstraction and subgame solving to overcome this issue.
It's true that it doesn't have blueprints for all spots, but the live subgame solving is supposed to make up for that deficiency.
Statistics: Posted by spears — Fri May 19, 2023 7:42 am
]]>
GTO doesn't require assumptions about what villain holds or possible actions. GTO is supposed to be unexploitable against any strategy or actions, assuming it has solution for any given spot. The only way to exploit
GTO bot or RTA would be if such bot or RTA is not having enough solutions to cover big parts of the game tree, and human knows exactly where such spots are and exploits it. E.g. if RTA / GTO bot, has only RFI size 2bb or 3bb,
and human knows it, it could exploit it by raising e.g. 10bb, as GTO bots / RTA usually round the actual bet size to the nearest possible one for preflop.
Pluribus / Libratus were trained with many different bet sizes even preflop, and humans were able to exploit it during the match using big bet sizes, but not for long enough as team of Libratus would run CFR for exactly those bet sizes that were missing, and tomorrow it would be able to play GTO for even such big bet sizes (i find it unfair to fine tune the bot between the matches exactly for the missing bet sizes).
The way RTA overcomes the issue of facing actions / bet sizes that it doesn't have solution is that human player takes over and plays its own strategy in such spots.
Statistics: Posted by nbiresev — Thu May 18, 2023 8:07 pm
]]>
If Pluribus wins with 5bb/100 it doesn't mean that live solvers would win as well. Pluribus is as well just trying to play GTO as much as possible, it doesn't have "blueprint" (gto) solution for each spot so it does abstraction and subgame solving to overcome this issue. I would say, it depends how many solutions live solver has to cover the entire game tree, will depend how much winrate it has.
Pluribus / Libratus use many bet sizes even preflop while live solvers use 1-2 bet sizes preflop. I think this is the main difference, and where live solvers loose big portion of their EV and would be heavily exploitable if opponent would use larger bet size than standard one. Considering that most people who use RTA play mid / high stake, there they rarely face unconventional bet sizes, as nearly all regulars use standard bet sizes, try to play like solvers. Only recretationals use non-standard bet sizes but human players don't need solver to beat them.
Besides this, Pluribus can play solid multiway, while live solvers offer no solution for multiway spots, or some rare preflop spots like e.g. limp/3bet. This is why people who use live solver need to be solid players so that they don't burn money multiway without solver hints.
Another important aspect is that solid human players who use live solver can play max exploit strategy against weak players which would yield much higher winrate than "GTO" strategy that Pluribus plays or someone who strictly would follow RTA hints.
This is why estimating winrate for RTA is very difficult, and depends how well human player can perform in spots without solution.
Statistics: Posted by nbiresev — Thu May 18, 2023 7:59 pm
]]>
Can you really sustain a pre-rake 10+ BB/100 win rate without ever adjusting to imbalances of your opponents?
Quote:
Pluribus is a bit of a different discussion but even it had only a ~5BB/100 winrate before rake.
Statistics: Posted by spears — Thu May 18, 2023 4:39 pm
]]>
My question was more towards putting a solver like Piosolver (with sufficient bet size availability) into a 6max game. Seems agreeable that it would beat even tough games pre-rake, just not sure if it would win at a clip high enough to beat raked games. Can you really sustain a pre-rake 10+ BB/100 win rate without ever adjusting to imbalances of your opponents? Pluribus is a bit of a different discussion but even it had only a ~5BB/100 winrate before rake.
The vast majority of postflop Pio solutions are mixes. Many spots where there is an "incorrect" option to take will only cost villain a small amount of EV if chosen. Not sure if there are enough -EV decisions (according to Pio) being made to make up for the rake, unless villains are punting off stacks with massive -EV decisions. This is true for poker in general, but adjusting to these large imbalances and obvious fish seems to be where most of your EV as a player comes from.
Was hoping somebody had some data/experience with a pure solver based bot, I'm sure there are some out there by now. But any educated insight is welcome and appreciated.
Thanks again
Statistics: Posted by mjk234 — Thu May 18, 2023 3:51 pm
]]>
]]>
]]>
Read the thread from the beginning and you will understand why I am telling this.
I read the thread from the beginning before I wrote what I did. I didn't understand why you were telling me so I asked the question. Now please answer.
Quote:
The reason why there is a difference in opinions is a misunderstanding of gto and you just confirmed this by telling that your gto need assumptions in order to work.
Quote:
I am not looking on arguing or anything
Quote:
but thinking that you need your opponent to have a specific holding or range on any street is a common mistake.
Who is saying they think that?
Quote:
rather than simply saying that gto need assumptions to work.
Where did I write that?
Statistics: Posted by spears — Wed May 17, 2023 7:30 pm
]]>
The reason why there is a difference in opinions is a misunderstanding of gto and you just confirmed this by telling that your gto need assumptions in order to work. I am not looking on arguing or anything but thinking that you need your opponent to have a specific holding or range on any street is a common mistake. If your opponent arrives on the river with a different range compared to gto that means he previously deviated. Any deviation is an immediate lose and since this is a zero sum game the ev goes to the opponent.
He may have no bluffs on the river and you would think that gto is losing but you are missing the most important point. Poker is played on 3 street and while gto would lose more money with bluff catchers on the river gto will gain ev from earlier streets with other parts of the range and it is guaranteed that the EV gained will always be more than EV lost.
This is not just an opinion but a pure fact and any decent player will agree with this. Maybe you disagree in which case I would like to hear what you have to say rather than simply saying that gto need assumptions to work.
Statistics: Posted by bot01 — Wed May 17, 2023 7:15 pm
]]>
OP was asking a specific question. There is a difference of opinions and I can confirm this by myself. I have seen someone that is selling rta services claiming gto alone can not win etc. while providing some pure solver solutions with only 1 bet size per street. Of course such a bad model is not close enough to real gto solution in order to be profitable.
Why are telling us this?
Quote:
GTO does not have any assumptions what so ever. The only parameters that make the strategy the way it is are preflop ranges, rake, stack depth, and post flop bet sizes. Gto does not care if the game is tournament cash or whatever but again only take into consideration the previously listed parameters.
Why are you telling us this?
Quote:
Saying that your opponent need to have a specific hand or a specific range in one spot in order gto to work is a pure misunderstanding of gto theory.
Who is saying this?
Quote:
Poker community understand the theory much better compared to developers and this is exactly what I meant.
What is your evidence for this statement? Why is it even relevant?
Statistics: Posted by spears — Wed May 17, 2023 6:53 pm
]]>
GTO does not have any assumptions what so ever. The only parameters that make the strategy the way it is are preflop ranges, rake, stack depth, and post flop bet sizes. Gto does not care if the game is tournament cash or whatever but again only take into consideration the previously listed parameters. Saying that your opponent need to have a specific hand or a specific range in one spot in order gto to work is a pure misunderstanding of gto theory. Poker community understand the theory much better compared to developers and this is exactly what I meant.
In a rake less game there is absolutely nothing a player can do in order to beat a good gto model by definition. With rake things are more complicated and there is no way to estimate if gto will win or lose although I really doubt it will lose even on the highest rake game.
Statistics: Posted by bot01 — Wed May 17, 2023 6:33 pm
]]>
im looking for spin and gold RTA. PM me for details.
Statistics: Posted by steves19 — Wed May 17, 2023 2:22 pm
]]>
But bots that solve the entire problem will beat the very best players. Pluribus beats high ranking pros at a rate of about 5bb/100 at 6 max NL holdem.
https://ai.facebook.com/blog/pluribus-f ... yer-poker/
It doesn't adapt its strategy to its opponents, so even greater win rates are possible
Edit ... even more so if its competition aren't pro players.
Quote:
Who do you think that understand the game better poker pros or botters ?
Software developers using machine learning techniques don't have to understand the game, though it helps a bit. Machines now beat all humans at backgammon, chess, go, poker and 99.8% of all humans at starcraft. All these AIs were developed by humans who would be absolutely crushed by their own creation.
Edit Developers are not writing programs that incorporate expert knowledge of game playing: rather they are developing programs which learn how to win through self play.
Statistics: Posted by spears — Wed May 17, 2023 12:07 pm
]]>
As you already know the poker community is clear on position that gto would crash. If you watch some game play where a pro is playing 500nl or higher you will see that he is basically trying to mimic gto as best as he can. In other words the best pros out there are just trying to play as close to gto as possible. At a high level this is what makes only sense.
You need to actually test it otherwise I dont think that is possible to estimate what win rate it can have. Rake back and every other bonus should be considered as part of your winnings. So if you paying 10 bb/100 rake in a site and you are getting 5bb/100 back through bonuses and rake back then your win rate needs to be bigger than 5 bb/100 to be winning. Now I can not show any data but only speculate. People make huge mistakes all the time and I refuse to believe that a shit reg that is playing on such high rake game is winning, where a good gto model with 3-4 sizes on every street would lose. The tricky part here is to have a decent model. You need to understand the game so you can judge where you can cut corners and where you need more precision. Every model is as good as the parameters you provide.
Having said that obviously there are some spots where your win rate could be improved by deviating from gto but I dont thing this is necessity to make the gto winning.
Statistics: Posted by bot01 — Tue May 16, 2023 10:39 am
]]>
Does anybody have experience or data with this debate? And/or an opinion on it either way?
Thanks
Statistics: Posted by mjk234 — Mon May 15, 2023 8:27 pm
]]>
am i out of luck?
Statistics: Posted by doldoli12 — Sat May 06, 2023 3:58 pm
]]>
]]>
]]>
]]>
I have done human mouse play back it looks quite realistic.
nbiresev wrote:
Do you know if poker site could detect that the mouse move and click come from software API and not from hardware by moving mouse?
Same for keyboard.
If the automated mouse and keyboard actions are realistic and come in from another machine via usb (or serial) they can't tell. Otherwise they can in principle. Different sites have different abilities. Stars can and will detect everything.
Statistics: Posted by spears — Tue Mar 28, 2023 11:51 am
]]>
Same for keyboard.
Statistics: Posted by nbiresev — Fri Mar 24, 2023 6:23 pm
]]>
I'm not at liberty to tell you why you should test it, but believe me, when you do you are very likely to find something you have not anticipated. Plot out the generated mouse position every few hundred milliseconds and visually compare the result with recorded real ones.
Statistics: Posted by spears — Tue Mar 21, 2023 11:13 am
]]>
Statistics: Posted by HarryStiles — Mon Mar 20, 2023 2:35 pm
]]>
]]>
]]>
]]>
]]>
]]>
So, yes, 1k euro for only preflop was a theft.
And yes previous code was shit, now much better and never would have happened if I stop at first guy asking me 1k.
Good luck and take it easy.
Statistics: Posted by Maxim90 — Wed Jan 11, 2023 5:37 pm
]]>
Not just because you asked 1.000 euros for a job worthed 250 max, means I'm a bad buyer. You are someone with a big problem trying to make people pay much more than needed. So I warn everybody to buy services from you to dont get scammed basically.
Asking also mods if they can warn this gentleman that has just called me a clown and insulted me on skype several times after i've declined his offer.
I made you a very good price for this kind of work. In the end you get a perfect gto strategy for preflop. Not only I would convert thousands lines of text into a ready to use code but I would also code you a preflop tree because the profile you bought for 200$ or whatever is a trash and doesn't even has code for preflop tree.
I really amazes me how people pay so much money for these profiles. Their value is close to zero. Good luck with finding someone that will offer you less than I did.
The problem however is not the price. You would never pay for anything. You did all these to get free information. Once we agreed you started to ask my opinion about this and about that. If you think that you smart guy that can trick someone like me you are making a mistake and that is why you are a clown.
After that experience I am not interested in providing any of my services even if someone wants. Until now I did it more for fun and passion. But I see that you get to deal with retarded people that can not really value the service you provide.
Statistics: Posted by bot01 — Wed Jan 11, 2023 4:14 pm
]]>
Statistics: Posted by Maxim90 — Wed Jan 11, 2023 1:31 pm
]]>
Hi. I have this ppl code and i need to use it in an open holdem bot.
If trying to load it, it founds a lot of syntax errors.
Even trying to add only preflop in f$preflop got me several errors.
Is there a converter or something that I can use?
If not, is anybody skilled willing to give me an hand?
Regards.
Be aware of this guy people. He is either a legit crazy or thinks he is smart guy trying to get free stuff acting like he is going to pay you. You will lose so much time and in the end you will probably help him in some way giving something useful without receiving anything back.
I was chatting with him like for 2 hours and all he is doing is acting like a client and asking free information.
Just listen to me and don't do any business with him. You will only lose your time with this clown.
Statistics: Posted by bot01 — Wed Jan 11, 2023 11:32 am
]]>
Even trying to add only preflop in f$preflop got me several errors.
Is there a converter or something that I can use?
If not, is anybody skilled willing to give me an hand?
Regards.
Statistics: Posted by Maxim90 — Wed Jan 11, 2023 9:38 am
]]>
]]>
But would be cool to know some answers.
Not really looking for a bot.
I am dedicating some time to find this RTA and it's really hard, most of the rta are for holdem or for plo4.
I just want some information on operating this RTA gto/solver in a virtual machine and poker on the other computer, and I can decide how to manage the action on plo5 HU
The newbie question is;
For example I have access to plomastermind (trainer/solver/gto), vision (trainer/solver/gto) and a private one.
Is there a way to get the information? The buckets, the files from PIO/moonker or whateever?
Statistics: Posted by VipeKing — Sat Nov 26, 2022 12:38 am
]]>
1. As we promised, we have implemented multiway support (several players in the game) when playing preflop.
2. Implemented support for the new fast api CheckMath #2 both when playing directly with the solution cloud and when playing through the CheckMath program. The delay for waiting for a response is no more than 4 seconds.
3. On the turn and river, we implemented the ability to accurately recalculate the results in JeSolver based on the current values of the effective stack and pot directly from the PokerRecorder program.
Video demonstrating recalculation
Much more has been implemented.
Team PokerOCR
http://www.pokerocr.com
[email protected]
Telegram: pokerocr
Statistics: Posted by XStalker — Sun Aug 21, 2022 6:05 am
]]>