Poker-AI.org Poker AI and Botting Discussion Forum 2022-10-18T21:23:51+00:00 http://poker-ai.org/phpbb/feed.php?f=25 2022-10-18T21:23:51+00:00 2022-10-18T21:23:51+00:00 http://poker-ai.org/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=3581&p=9630#p9630 <![CDATA[Poker Papers • Re: AlphaBluff: An AI-Powered HUNL Poker Video Game]]> So in order to measure realistic winrate aagainst humans you would need to offer high money rewards so that humans play motivated like Libratus team did.
I like the user interface, i think such 3d table is more interesting to recreational users than standard 2d tables.Good luck.

Statistics: Posted by nbiresev — Tue Oct 18, 2022 9:23 pm


]]>
2022-10-17T20:01:20+00:00 2022-10-17T20:01:20+00:00 http://poker-ai.org/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=3581&p=9628#p9628 <![CDATA[Poker Papers • Re: AlphaBluff: An AI-Powered HUNL Poker Video Game]]> Statistics: Posted by mirjanamia — Mon Oct 17, 2022 8:01 pm


]]>
2022-07-21T10:10:37+00:00 2022-07-21T10:10:37+00:00 http://poker-ai.org/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=3581&p=9574#p9574 <![CDATA[Poker Papers • AlphaBluff: An AI-Powered HUNL Poker Video Game]]>
Abstract
---------
Complex games require disparate behaviors in order to be solved, giving space to researchers to study AI model behaviors in various settings. At the same time, the video game industry benefits by incorporating these models in their games for delivering realistic and challenging gameplay experience to users. However, there is a well-known difficulty of implementing and training efficient models in complex games for entertainment purposes. In this paper, we report on our approach to overcome this challenge and ultimately develop AlphaBluff, a Heads-Up No-Limit Texas Hold'em (HUNL) Poker variation video game developed in the Unity game engine, in which human players can play against trained AI opponents. Initially we trained different state-of-the-art AI models and analyzed their individual performance scores in a custom HUNL environment, as well as their performance against each other. AlphaBluff was developed with the goal of producing a professional-level poker video game that includes cutting-edge AI opponents, which, to our knowledge has never been developed before. Using data gathered by gameplay sessions from beta testers, we performed a statistical analysis and concluded that our models have a high win rate against human players. An adaptation of our system can further enrich this unique gameplay experience by combining these models, data and statistical reports, in order to develop an efficient player-opponent matchmaking mechanism.
---------

Link: https://ming.csd.auth.gr/alphabluff/
Feedback form: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIp ... Q/viewform

Statistics: Posted by poker_scientist — Thu Jul 21, 2022 10:10 am


]]>
2022-04-08T09:52:22+00:00 2022-04-08T09:52:22+00:00 http://poker-ai.org/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=3233&p=9062#p9062 <![CDATA[Poker Papers • Re: Superhuman AI for multiplayer poker]]> cubesnyc wrote:

How is it possible that they were able to develop a base strategy for ~200$? It seems unbelievable.

It's just very crude

Statistics: Posted by spears — Fri Apr 08, 2022 9:52 am


]]>
2022-03-29T00:58:41+00:00 2022-03-29T00:58:41+00:00 http://poker-ai.org/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=3233&p=9057#p9057 <![CDATA[Poker Papers • Re: Superhuman AI for multiplayer poker]]> Statistics: Posted by cubesnyc — Tue Mar 29, 2022 12:58 am


]]>
2022-01-10T15:34:57+00:00 2022-01-10T15:34:57+00:00 http://poker-ai.org/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=3233&p=9009#p9009 <![CDATA[Poker Papers • Re: Superhuman AI for multiplayer poker]]> Statistics: Posted by Player50 — Mon Jan 10, 2022 3:34 pm


]]>
2021-10-11T12:09:22+00:00 2021-10-11T12:09:22+00:00 http://poker-ai.org/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=3215&p=8842#p8842 <![CDATA[Poker Papers • Re: ASHE: Adaptation and opponent exploitation HUNL]]> non-gamstop casinos. In the future, I would like to become a poker agent. I think it's a unique experience.

Statistics: Posted by PaulSmt — Mon Oct 11, 2021 12:09 pm


]]>
2021-12-23T20:15:04+00:00 2021-03-27T15:01:21+00:00 http://poker-ai.org/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=3233&p=8667#p8667 <![CDATA[Poker Papers • Re: Superhuman AI for multiplayer poker]]> Statistics: Posted by LisaPullman — Sat Mar 27, 2021 3:01 pm


]]>
2021-04-14T12:32:24+00:00 2021-03-23T08:31:06+00:00 http://poker-ai.org/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=3233&p=8657#p8657 <![CDATA[Poker Papers • Re: Superhuman AI for multiplayer poker]]> fi.vikingslots.com since you can withdraw money directly to a bank card. Plus, online is very different from the live table, as inexperienced players can get caught, and because of this, you can easily win money

Statistics: Posted by COBaker — Tue Mar 23, 2021 8:31 am


]]>
2021-03-19T00:04:31+00:00 2021-03-19T00:04:31+00:00 http://poker-ai.org/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=3106&p=8640#p8640 <![CDATA[Poker Papers • Re: Artificial Intelligence Goes All-In: Computers Playing P]]> someone_else wrote:

Wow, he does the entire thing on one GPU? Very cool and encouraging. Can't believe you can do this on a laptop!


Seems like you need some intense processing power to train the thing to form a strategy though!

Statistics: Posted by someone_else — Fri Mar 19, 2021 12:04 am


]]>
2021-03-13T20:35:36+00:00 2021-03-13T20:35:36+00:00 http://poker-ai.org/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=3106&p=8634#p8634 <![CDATA[Poker Papers • Re: Artificial Intelligence Goes All-In: Computers Playing P]]> Statistics: Posted by someone_else — Sat Mar 13, 2021 8:35 pm


]]>
2021-02-25T12:28:59+00:00 2021-02-25T12:28:59+00:00 http://poker-ai.org/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=3106&p=8616#p8616 <![CDATA[Poker Papers • Re: Artificial Intelligence Goes All-In: Computers Playing P]]> Statistics: Posted by evewalther — Thu Feb 25, 2021 12:28 pm


]]>
2020-11-10T07:08:30+00:00 2020-11-10T07:08:30+00:00 http://poker-ai.org/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=2852&p=8538#p8538 <![CDATA[Poker Papers • Re: Heads-up limit hold’em poker is solved]]> _________________________________________________________
https://www.score88poker.bid/mobile.php
Life, like poker, has an element of risk. It shouldn’t be avoided. It should be faced. ” ~ Edward Norton

Statistics: Posted by horizonman — Tue Nov 10, 2020 7:08 am


]]>
2020-04-17T02:00:54+00:00 2020-04-17T02:00:54+00:00 http://poker-ai.org/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=2852&p=8436#p8436 <![CDATA[Poker Papers • Re: Heads-up limit hold’em poker is solved]]>
flopnflush wrote:

Heads-up limit hold’em poker is solved
by: Michael Bowling, Neil Burch, Michael Johanson, Oskari Tammelin

Abstract
Poker is a family of games that exhibit imperfect information, where players do not have full knowledge of past events. Whereas many perfect-information games have been solved (e.g., Connect Four and checkers), no nontrivial imperfect-information game played competitively by humans has previously been solved. Here, we announce that heads-up limit Texas hold’em is now essentially weakly solved. Furthermore, this computation formally proves the common wisdom that the dealer in the game holds a substantial advantage. This result was enabled by a new algorithm, CFR+, which is capable of solving extensive-form games orders of magnitude larger than previously possible.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/347/6218/145.abstract

Statistics: Posted by craig — Fri Apr 17, 2020 2:00 am


]]>
2020-04-07T18:23:44+00:00 2020-04-07T18:23:44+00:00 http://poker-ai.org/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=6&p=8420#p8420 <![CDATA[Poker Papers • Re: Sliding Windows to Generate Action Abstractions]]> Statistics: Posted by doberso — Tue Apr 07, 2020 6:23 pm


]]>
2020-04-07T18:23:24+00:00 2020-04-07T18:23:24+00:00 http://poker-ai.org/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=2852&p=8419#p8419 <![CDATA[Poker Papers • Re: Heads-up limit hold’em poker is solved]]> Statistics: Posted by doberso — Tue Apr 07, 2020 6:23 pm


]]>
2019-10-01T14:37:48+00:00 2019-10-01T14:37:48+00:00 http://poker-ai.org/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=3215&p=8160#p8160 <![CDATA[Poker Papers • Re: ASHE: Adaptation and opponent exploitation HUNL]]> https://mega.nz/#!voNThaaQ!N8tfyIcp_7jb ... KDe_MSschg
This work will be continued but I thought I'd briefly share information.

In a few words: The lstm + genetic algorithm approach of ASHE was reused (with some tweaks). It was expanded for a 6max sit and go setting. The bot developed is trained and tested against various weak bots. The report then follows with a qualitative analysis of the strategy developed. One contribution of this work is the bot itself (6max sng agents being less explored); the other contribution is to obtain information from the bot's developed strategy on how to beat another (human readable) beginner strategy.

The main insights for those considering to follow a similar path are:
-the genetic algorithm / neuroevolution is effectively learning. The number of games played before estimating the fitness of an agent must be high enough, otherwise an all-in-or-fold strategy develops. Heuristically, the bare minimum is to play four times 6 games (one for each position) at a table to get a reasonable estimate of the agent's fitness. Games last about a 150 hands.
-as the opponents are almost beaten to the maximum, the neural network architecture (and the lstm approach) has not been seriously put to test (yet). No serious conclusion can be drawn. Also adaptation is a tricky thing to measure and it is not possible to determine whether long term memory is used. To further test the capacity of the model and get a stronger bot, it should be confronted to stronger opponents.
-some hardware is required but it is not excessive. An aws ec2 instance c5.18xlarge is used, and the code is written to exploit multi-threading. To simulate 100'000 games it took between one and two hours. To train against one table (=set of opponents), 420'000 games are simulated. In the last implementation there are four different tables, thus the training took about 24 hours. Though a fast hand evaluator was used (OMPEval), calculating the equity is still the most time consuming element of training. Similarly, the training of ASHE (as presented in the paper above) would take roughly 5 hours.

Feel free to shoot questions / critics. The code is now being structured so that it is easier to use :) A useful element to pursue this work would be to have one (or even multiple) strong sng bot to train / validate against. Is there one accessible that is considered a reference in that game type?

ps: if an admin feels like this post should be located elsewhere, please tell me so

Statistics: Posted by csrev — Tue Oct 01, 2019 2:37 pm


]]>
2019-07-17T01:52:34+00:00 2019-07-17T01:52:34+00:00 http://poker-ai.org/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=2381&p=8064#p8064 <![CDATA[Poker Papers • Re: Evaluating State-Space Abstractions in Extensive-Form Ga]]> ScoobySnacks wrote:

For everyone that experimenting with k-means with the Earth Mover Distance, are you guys using the traditional average to compute the centroids of each group (that is treat each histogram as a vector and compute the average of all vectors in a group)? I ask because the average is not guaranteed to be the centroid of a group for metrics other than euclidean. Do you guys think that is what these papers did? Maybe the average is good enough...

I was so confused by this I asked a question on stack exchange: http://stats.stackexchange.com/question ... 823#112823. Someone there provided a good example of why averaging does not always give you the best centroid. Any comments on this?


I have used the traditional average in the past. I know about the theoretical concerns, but for me it still worked fine. The clusters look reasonable and the resulting bot was pretty good.

Statistics: Posted by HontoNiBaka — Wed Jul 17, 2019 1:52 am


]]>
2019-07-16T10:54:06+00:00 2019-07-16T10:54:06+00:00 http://poker-ai.org/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=3233&p=8058#p8058 <![CDATA[Poker Papers • Re: Superhuman AI for multiplayer poker]]> spears wrote:

Quote:
despite using AIVAT the sample size in this format is a little shallow


Maybe, but still a lot better than 10k hands. IIRC UofA put the effective improvement due to AIVAT at a factor of 10 for bot v human.


Indeed, that's what they claim. However, the amount of variance reduction also depends on how well the value functions estimate the true expected value. I would assume that the value functions are even less precise in 6-max as opposed to heads-up. Also, if you can't factor in card distribution because you don't deal duplicate hands, you can't account for "card luck". Theoretically, Pluribus could have been dealt strong hands disproportionately often. That's why the sample size is still on the low side IMO.

Statistics: Posted by user456 — Tue Jul 16, 2019 10:54 am


]]>
2019-07-16T10:25:17+00:00 2019-07-16T10:25:17+00:00 http://poker-ai.org/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=3233&p=8057#p8057 <![CDATA[Poker Papers • Re: Superhuman AI for multiplayer poker]]> Quote:

despite using AIVAT the sample size in this format is a little shallow


Maybe, but still a lot better than 10k hands. IIRC UofA put the effective improvement due to AIVAT at a factor of 10 for bot v human.

Statistics: Posted by spears — Tue Jul 16, 2019 10:25 am


]]>
2019-07-16T10:20:32+00:00 2019-07-16T10:20:32+00:00 http://poker-ai.org/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=3233&p=8056#p8056 <![CDATA[Poker Papers • Re: Superhuman AI for multiplayer poker]]> mlatinjo wrote:

Spears, You don't seem to have an argument, except to insult someone who has opinion other than yours.

It doesn't matter if author is aware of 10k sample. There are so many news bot beats best humans in poker.
10k sample is far away of a proof of being better.

Their comment about hand JQ bot vs QT human, both hitting top pair, and claiming bot checks flop (without preflop initiative) to trap opponent, then again on turn it traps opponent and again on river traps opponent (totally fishy comments). Hands played by bot are fine, i am referring to their commenting on hands played is ridicilous.


It's reasonable to be extra cautious about some published papers as you often get the impression the result of a paper was a foregone conclusion and statistics etc. are just staged. However, in this case, the paper was written by Noam Brown who has an excellent reputation and has been very active in the ACPC since it's very start.
I think this is an excellent paper as it's very well written and is a fun read for even for non-scientists.

You have a point regarding sample size though. AIVAT is an excellent metric to compare bot vs bot performance because you can play duplicate hands with known strategies. I think even despite using AIVAT the sample size in this format is a little shallow considering they can't know the strategy distribution of the humans and they couldn't deal duplicate hands.

On the other hand, it's still an impressive result and a great paper with every information transparently included.

Statistics: Posted by user456 — Tue Jul 16, 2019 10:20 am


]]>
2019-07-16T05:46:42+00:00 2019-07-16T05:46:42+00:00 http://poker-ai.org/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=3233&p=8055#p8055 <![CDATA[Poker Papers • Re: Superhuman AI for multiplayer poker]]> Quote:

Spears, You don't seem to have an argument, except to insult someone who has opinion other than yours.

You can dish it out to Noam Brown
Quote:

In science results are often manipulated, i am wondering if it is the case here
but you can't take it.

Quote:

Sample size only 10k hands. Any poker player knows that 10k hands is way too small sample to make any conclusions.
The best player in the world could be losing after 10k hands, and bad player could be also winning after 10k hands.
100k would be appropriate sample size.

You missed the reference to AIVAT on your first reading, which was a bit dumb, so I highlighted it for you.

Quote:

It doesn't matter if author is aware of 10k sample. There are so many news bot beats best humans in poker.
10k sample is far away of a proof of being better.

And still you didn't read it, which makes you look utterly ridiculous.

It's been fun discussing this but I'm a bit short of time to continue further. Any more dumb or obnoxious comments are likely to be deleted.

Statistics: Posted by spears — Tue Jul 16, 2019 5:46 am


]]>
2019-07-15T21:19:12+00:00 2019-07-15T21:19:12+00:00 http://poker-ai.org/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=3233&p=8054#p8054 <![CDATA[Poker Papers • Re: Superhuman AI for multiplayer poker]]>
It doesn't matter if author is aware of 10k sample. There are so many news bot beats best humans in poker.
10k sample is far away of a proof of being better.

Their comment about hand JQ bot vs QT human, both hitting top pair, and claiming bot checks flop (without preflop initiative) to trap opponent, then again on turn it traps opponent and again on river traps opponent (totally fishy comments). Hands played by bot are fine, i am referring to their commenting on hands played is ridicilous.

Statistics: Posted by mlatinjo — Mon Jul 15, 2019 9:19 pm


]]>
2019-07-15T09:10:03+00:00 2019-07-15T09:10:03+00:00 http://poker-ai.org/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=3233&p=8052#p8052 <![CDATA[Poker Papers • Re: Superhuman AI for multiplayer poker]]> Quote:

Sample size only 10k hands. Any poker player knows that 10k hands is way too small sample to make any conclusions.


And the author knows this too, which is why the quoted results are those resulting from AIVAT variance reduction technique.


Quote:

In science results are often manipulated, i am wondering if it is the case here
.
I am wondering if this is sour grapes from a sore loser

Statistics: Posted by spears — Mon Jul 15, 2019 9:10 am


]]>
2019-07-14T19:33:38+00:00 2019-07-14T19:33:38+00:00 http://poker-ai.org/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=3233&p=8047#p8047 <![CDATA[Poker Papers • Re: Superhuman AI for multiplayer poker]]> The best player in the world could be losing after 10k hands, and bad player could be also winning after 10k hands.
100k would be appropriate sample size.
Also their explanations about hands played are super fishy, obviously guy who was writting it is amateur for poker.
In science results are often manipulated, i am wondering if it is the case here.

Statistics: Posted by mlatinjo — Sun Jul 14, 2019 7:33 pm


]]>
2019-07-13T17:37:58+00:00 2019-07-13T17:37:58+00:00 http://poker-ai.org/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=3233&p=8045#p8045 <![CDATA[Poker Papers • Re: Superhuman AI for multiplayer poker]]> Statistics: Posted by mjk234 — Sat Jul 13, 2019 5:37 pm


]]>
2019-07-13T12:58:08+00:00 2019-07-13T12:58:08+00:00 http://poker-ai.org/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=3233&p=8044#p8044 <![CDATA[Poker Papers • Re: Superhuman AI for multiplayer poker]]> https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~noamb/research.html

Statistics: Posted by spears — Sat Jul 13, 2019 12:58 pm


]]>
2019-07-12T07:05:58+00:00 2019-07-12T07:05:58+00:00 http://poker-ai.org/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=3233&p=8043#p8043 <![CDATA[Poker Papers • Superhuman AI for multiplayer poker]]> In recent years there have been great strides in artificial intelligence (AI), with games often serving as challenge problems, benchmarks, and milestones for progress. Poker has served for decades as such a challenge problem. Past successes in such benchmarks, including poker, have been limited to two-player games. However, poker in particular is traditionally played with more than two players. Multiplayer games present fundamental additional issues beyond those in two-player games, and multiplayer poker is a recognized AI milestone. In this paper we present Pluribus, an AI that we show is stronger than top human professionals in six-player no-limit Texas hold’em poker, the most popular form of poker played by humans.

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/ ... ce.aay2400

Statistics: Posted by botishardwork — Fri Jul 12, 2019 7:05 am


]]>
2019-07-10T07:01:13+00:00 2019-07-10T07:01:13+00:00 http://poker-ai.org/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=2381&p=8042#p8042 <![CDATA[Poker Papers • Re: Evaluating State-Space Abstractions in Extensive-Form Ga]]> After performing kmeans clustering on the 169x169 matrix (kmeans++, multiple restarts, 8 clusters) I get a slightly different result like in Table 1 (page 5) of the paper.
My histograms and EMD values are the same like in the paper that is why I think I am doing something wrong between EMD calculation and clustering.

I think they reduce the 169x169 EMD matrix to a 169x1 EMD matrix because otherwise the matrices are getting pretty huge on the second and third round of the game, right?
I am happy for any hint and I am also interested in exchanging information with others who are on the same journey ;).

Statistics: Posted by uncut — Wed Jul 10, 2019 7:01 am


]]>
2019-05-23T21:59:06+00:00 2019-05-23T21:59:06+00:00 http://poker-ai.org/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=3215&p=7953#p7953 <![CDATA[Poker Papers • Re: ASHE: Adaptation and opponent exploitation HUNL]]> spears wrote:

Quote:
I don't know anyone who won with 100% nash strateg


You do now. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libratus


I was referring to 6max, 9max tables.

Statistics: Posted by mlatinjo — Thu May 23, 2019 9:59 pm


]]>
2019-05-23T21:58:13+00:00 2019-05-23T21:58:13+00:00 http://poker-ai.org/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=3215&p=7952#p7952 <![CDATA[Poker Papers • Re: ASHE: Adaptation and opponent exploitation HUNL]]> user456 wrote:

Indeed, the rake is an issue. I have played around 100k hands at 50NL (HU only) at around breakeven +0.5bb/100 and with ~14bb/100 in rake :lol: ... I assume it would get better at higher limits with rake decreasing (not sure by how much this effect would be negated by decreasing winrate though). Haven't tested anything higher than 50NL.

Collusion might be a problem at multiplayer games I am talking strictly HU though.


That seems to be a good result if you get a good rakeback deal it is excellent profit.

Statistics: Posted by mlatinjo — Thu May 23, 2019 9:58 pm


]]>
2019-05-23T13:42:22+00:00 2019-05-23T13:42:22+00:00 http://poker-ai.org/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=3215&p=7951#p7951 <![CDATA[Poker Papers • Re: ASHE: Adaptation and opponent exploitation HUNL]]>
There might be some more issues that come up when using full Nash strategies in multiplayer, such as:
Quote:

Third, in imperfect information games with more than two players and multiple equilibria, if the opponents are not following the same equilibrium as approximated by an equilibrium-based agent, the agent’s performance cannot be guaranteed (Ganzfried 2016).

Though in the future we could imagine a bot aware of multiple nash equilibria and picking in a smart way.
Thanks for mentioning Ponsen's approach earlier, I have to say it's very clean how he mixes general and opponent distribution.

Quote:

So i think the best approach is looking at last N samples + looking at showdowns of those N samples and making conclusion (if villain made light call, or in the case when villain bets if he bluffed us with some pure bluff which would mean he is bluff heavy).

That does sound like it could adapt quickly. Especially if we see that the opponent played a hand that is way off the hand range we estimated and react accordingly.

Nevertheless I decided to go ahead and implement this paper (or something close to it). My expectations are not too high but it will be fun to implement. On the long term I see it only as an opponent modeling technique that would be put in a larger architecture.

I'll get back to you once it's up and running, and might take that offer of testing vs a strong nash agent :)

Statistics: Posted by csrev — Thu May 23, 2019 1:42 pm


]]>
2019-05-22T10:57:08+00:00 2019-05-22T10:57:08+00:00 http://poker-ai.org/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=3215&p=7950#p7950 <![CDATA[Poker Papers • Re: ASHE: Adaptation and opponent exploitation HUNL]]> Quote:

I don't know anyone who won with 100% nash strateg


You do now. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libratus

Statistics: Posted by spears — Wed May 22, 2019 10:57 am


]]>
2019-05-22T06:13:15+00:00 2019-05-22T06:13:15+00:00 http://poker-ai.org/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=3215&p=7949#p7949 <![CDATA[Poker Papers • Re: ASHE: Adaptation and opponent exploitation HUNL]]> ... I assume it would get better at higher limits with rake decreasing (not sure by how much this effect would be negated by decreasing winrate though). Haven't tested anything higher than 50NL.

Collusion might be a problem at multiplayer games I am talking strictly HU though.

Statistics: Posted by user456 — Wed May 22, 2019 6:13 am


]]>
2019-05-22T01:22:01+00:00 2019-05-22T01:22:01+00:00 http://poker-ai.org/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=3215&p=7948#p7948 <![CDATA[Poker Papers • Re: ASHE: Adaptation and opponent exploitation HUNL]]> Quote:

Happy to be proven wrong though and if you really want to go forward in implementing this and are looking for a strong nash agent to test, let me know :)


did you test your nash bot on any real money tables yet? I don't know anyone who won with 100% nash strategy, the rake is too high to play 100% nash strategy, need to exploit weak opponents to make some solid winrate. Other big issue is that on most of the poker sites your nash agent would face collusion and get destroyed completely (unexploitable strategy gets brutally exploitet). Not only that bots collude but also humans, on mid and high stakes especially

Statistics: Posted by mlatinjo — Wed May 22, 2019 1:22 am


]]>
2019-05-22T01:25:08+00:00 2019-05-22T01:09:06+00:00 http://poker-ai.org/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=3215&p=7947#p7947 <![CDATA[Poker Papers • Re: ASHE: Adaptation and opponent exploitation HUNL]]> Quote:

This is the problem I am trying to explore / alleviate. Can I ask at what stakes you are? I have the feeling that at micro (and even low) stakes, many players barely adapt.


my bot plays up to 5$/10$ blinds, no limit holdem ring games and tournaments, but on sites which allow my bots to play and give 100% rakeback so with so good rakeback it is much easier to win.
Before we got most online poker rooms populated by bots, yes micro players were slower at adaption. Today poker got so much harder that even micro stake players (regulars) notice if you cbet vs them with high frequency or 3bet etc. Most Players at mid and high stakes play gto strategy which they learn from solvers, and vs fish players they play exploitative.

E.g. my bot overbet bluffs a lot on turn/river where board runout is bad for opponent, and his range is capt (weak). Population folds around 80% vs 2x overbets. At some point a player hits strong hand and calls, and sees bluff. That way he can adjust to call much looser. For human it is enough to see one showdown to make logical conclusion. That is why my bot looks at all hands from opponent how often it folded vs overbet, but also looks in last 10 samples if it made a call with weak top pair or mid pair (light call). If it did it means he most likely adjusted even though his average fold stat could be still high. Then my bot starts overbeting with balanced bluff ratio, and after some time villain will see some of the time value hand some of the time bluff so it might start to fold too much again which will be again seen in last N samples.
So i think the best approach is looking at last N samples + looking at showdowns of those N samples and making conclusion (if villain made light call, or in the case when villain bets if he bluffed us with some pure bluff which would mean he is bluff heavy). So it is very similar what humans do, observe recent sample and make conclusions using showdowns.

Neural networks are good for many different things but poker is too complex game for neural network with current state of the art.

Statistics: Posted by mlatinjo — Wed May 22, 2019 1:09 am


]]>
2019-05-21T17:42:41+00:00 2019-05-21T17:42:41+00:00 http://poker-ai.org/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=3215&p=7946#p7946 <![CDATA[Poker Papers • Re: ASHE: Adaptation and opponent exploitation HUNL]]> Quote:

That makes sense as the player is focused on exploiting and has no notion of Nash equilibria. It would need much more training and complexity to compete against NE agents I think. Do you think that most players online would be halfway solid Nash agents (honest question)?


Yeah, but the stats are so far off that ASHE should be totally exploitable vs even the weakest opponents. From a quick look, the training resulted in a hyper-aggressive play and it doesn't even seem to be adapting to opponents very much.

Also, I don't think good online players nowadays make that many clear mistakes. Actually, a lot of decisions are pretty close anyway when it comes to EV in an estimated equilibrium. Judging from what I can see in the stats, I am pretty sure every halfway decent player could absolutely destroy the version of ASHE that participated in the ACPC 2017 (not sure what version that was though and if it's actually the bot from the paper).

ASHE might be very effective in exploiting super weak strategies but I don't think any player in today's online games is as terrible as the random gambler from the paper. Again, I understand why the author has structured the paper that way, but in my opinion, this approach is in no way as strong as the paper suggests.

Happy to be proven wrong though and if you really want to go forward in implementing this and are looking for a strong nash agent to test, let me know :)

Statistics: Posted by user456 — Tue May 21, 2019 5:42 pm


]]>
2019-05-21T16:14:28+00:00 2019-05-21T16:14:28+00:00 http://poker-ai.org/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=3215&p=7945#p7945 <![CDATA[Poker Papers • Re: ASHE: Adaptation and opponent exploitation HUNL]]>
Quote:

As far as I can tell, none of your tests check what would happen if your opponent adapted to you. It is possible that they could adapt to you quicker than you adapt to them so you would always lose. Has this player ever played against humans?

So there is no specific test for this, and the player has never played against humans. However there is one bot (opponent) which may give an idea of how the player (ASHE) would react to a changing strategy: the 'random gambler [RG]' that 'randomly switches from other highly exploitable strategies every 50 hands'. In one of the test the player is trained against all the highly exploitable strategies, and then plays vs RG. The authors observe:
"[...] ASHE did not switch its strategy as RG did after every 50 hands; rather, as more hands were played, ASHE reached a strategy that exploited RG based on the overall distribution of its moves across the highly exploitable strategies it might randomly choose. That strategy, while being close to static after a few hundreds of hands, was much more effective in exploiting RG compared to SB's approximated equilibrium strategy."
My intuition is that, with an LSTM, the bot may react, potentially quickly, to past actions. E.g. if an opponent raised the player the last 4 hands, it will be in memory, and the player can already (slightly) change his strategy according to that (especially if he has already encountered an opponent raising so often). This might be a very wrong intuition ; believing in NN magic ;). Also about exploitability: the player has a pure strategy (deterministic w.r.t. its inputs), but since it is keeping in memory the past states, and using them as inputs, it will never be in the same state twice and it would be very difficult to predict its actions.

Quote:

[...] to model opponent strategies: I think this can be done by simply counting action frequencies and showdown hand frequencies and then using some statistical logic to deduce the opponent strategy.

Though I believe that the statistical approach could model the opponent accurately, I don't see it efficiently adapting to a changing strategy, or an opponent trying to exploit the player. The way I see it, it would require to keep another set of stats with less memory (e.g. 50, 200 or 1000 hands), with the trade-off between noise (variance) and reaction speed never being really satisfying.

Quote:

I have read these papers and the whole dissertation on that subject a while ago and I am rather skeptical. I also asked the author some questions but never got a reply. I also don't think the results vs Slumbot are significant as there was a "defective" version of slumbot running at ACPC 2017

Thanks for the info. I am currently also trying to reach him. This could be a red flag. Though I will still consider reproducing the work to verify its validity. It might just be a hidden gem.

Quote:

This agent has pretty unusual playing stats that make me believe that it would lose to all halfway solid Nash Agents

That makes sense as the player is focused on exploiting and has no notion of Nash equilibria. It would need much more training and complexity to compete against NE agents I think. Do you think that most players online would be halfway solid Nash agents (honest question)?

Quote:

At the beginning i was working a lot on modeling opponents using population statistics, showdowns, bluff frequencies etc. It is perfect approach to find opponent weaknesses, but whenever you exploit opponent you are open for being exploited yourself. Humans are far more better in switching strategies [...]

This is the problem I am trying to explore / alleviate. Can I ask at what stakes you are? I have the feeling that at micro (and even low) stakes, many players barely adapt.

To give some context about me: I have played poker a few years, and I have worked on AI / ML for a while. I am new to the poker AI and botting scene though. I would like to develop a bot that plays 6max at easy levels (micro stacks), and especially I would like it to focus on exploiting weak players. Hopefully I will minimize my losses vs strong players. I feel like NE has been researched a lot, and it will be costly to arrive to a reasonably good result (correct me if I'm wrong).
I currently have the first building blocks set up: fast hand (and equity) evaluator, local bot vs bot simulations, 'api' to play online, and a tight-aggressive rule-based bot, reasonable hand and state abstraction. So I'm searching for a direction to develop an AI that will suit me. I'm open to any advice / suggestion. By the way I've learnt a lot through this forum and will try to post when I have something.

Statistics: Posted by csrev — Tue May 21, 2019 4:14 pm


]]>
2019-05-21T02:43:30+00:00 2019-05-21T02:43:30+00:00 http://poker-ai.org/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=3215&p=7943#p7943 <![CDATA[Poker Papers • Re: ASHE: Adaptation and opponent exploitation HUNL]]>
At the beginning i was working a lot on modeling opponents using population statistics, showdowns, bluff frequencies etc. It is perfect approach to find opponent weaknesses, but whenever you exploit opponent you are open for being exploited yourself. Humans are far more better in switching strategies, tricking bot in different ways, so the best approach for bot is to play base nash equilibrium strategy and eventually slightly exploit opponent so that humans can hardly notice it.
E.g. if you see that human folds on river 55%, every bluff is profitable, but it might make sense to increase bluffs just a bit like 33% more bluffs which are very hard to recognize by any human.

If you try to make more extrem exploitative approach which is easier detectable by humans, it is very hard that any AI would be able anytime soon to be better than humans in detecting adaptions. Humans could especially trick bots, start by bluff raising a lot e.g. on flop, bot would quickly collect stats that raise stat is too high,
and would adjust by folding much less, betting with less bluffs, 3bet bluff etc, and human can switch back to balanced or value heavy strategy, so it would take time until average raise stat gets normal again.

Statistics: Posted by mlatinjo — Tue May 21, 2019 2:43 am


]]>
2019-05-20T14:36:19+00:00 2019-05-20T14:36:19+00:00 http://poker-ai.org/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=3215&p=7942#p7942 <![CDATA[Poker Papers • Re: ASHE: Adaptation and opponent exploitation HUNL]]>
There was a participant called ASHE in the 2017 ACPC Championship that finished 7th out of 15. This agent has pretty unusual playing stats that make me believe that it would lose to all halfway solid Nash Agents (and it did, in fact, lose quite significantly to places 1-6 during this competition).

Now, if you publish a paper you obviously want the results to be positive and I doubt a lot of the folks reading that paper had enough background knowledge to ask the right questions. I am fairly certain the results achieved by ASHE vs Slumbot are vs the defective version of slumbot which makes them totally meaningless.

Statistics: Posted by user456 — Mon May 20, 2019 2:36 pm


]]>
2019-05-20T08:29:27+00:00 2019-05-20T08:29:27+00:00 http://poker-ai.org/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=3215&p=7940#p7940 <![CDATA[Poker Papers • Re: ASHE: Adaptation and opponent exploitation HUNL]]> Quote:

I would be happy to have opinions on this paper.


I've only spent about 15 minutes reading this. As far as I can tell, none of your tests check what would happen if your opponent adapted to you. It is possible that they could adapt to you quicker than you adapt to them so you would always lose. Has this player ever played against humans? My long term aim is to produce a NE player that can then be varied slightly to exploit obvious opponent weaknesses, without also introducing large exploitabilities in itself.

I'm not convinced that you require LSTMs to model opponent strategies: I think this can be done by simply counting action frequencies and showdown hand frequencies and then using some statistical logic to deduce the opponent strategy. If I remember correctly this was the approach in Southey's paper. You do need to abstract hands and boards though, or you will never gather sufficient data. You will not get sufficient data from a single opponent to deduce his entire strategy in a realistic timescale, so you have to find how close he is to opponents you have encountered before on whom you have more data. I think this was the approach used by Ponsen.

Once you have the opponent strategy you can find the best response against it, and then mix this with your NE strategy for safety. My experiments on toy games suggest that you can exploit a lot, without becoming too exploitable yourself.

Statistics: Posted by spears — Mon May 20, 2019 8:29 am


]]>
2019-05-18T18:55:09+00:00 2019-05-18T18:55:09+00:00 http://poker-ai.org/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=3215&p=7936#p7936 <![CDATA[Poker Papers • Re: ASHE: Adaptation and opponent exploitation HUNL]]>
For those interested, there is a slightly older paper of the same authors with a simpler architecture and training process: http://nn.cs.utexas.edu/downloads/papers/xun.aaai17.pdf

Statistics: Posted by csrev — Sat May 18, 2019 6:55 pm


]]>
2019-05-18T18:43:46+00:00 2019-05-18T18:43:46+00:00 http://poker-ai.org/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=3215&p=7935#p7935 <![CDATA[Poker Papers • ASHE: Adaptation and opponent exploitation HUNL]]> Dynamic Adaptation and Opponent Exploitation in Computer Poker
by: Xun Li and Risto Miikkulainen

Abstract
As a classic example of imperfect information games, Heads-Up No-limit Texas Holdem (HUNL), has been studied extensively in recent years. While state-of-the-art approaches based on Nash equilibrium have been successful, they lack the ability to model and exploit opponents effectively. This paper presents an evolutionary approach to discover opponent models based Long Short Term Memory neural networks and on Pattern Recognition Trees. Experimental results showed that poker agents built in this method can adapt to opponents they have never seen in training and exploit weak strategies far more effectively than Slumbot 2017, one of the cutting-edge Nash-equilibrium-based poker agents. In addition, agents evolved through playing against relatively weak rule-based opponents tied statistically with Slumbot in heads-up matches. Thus, the proposed approach is a promising new direction for building high-performance adaptive agents in HUNL and other imperfect information games.

http://nn.cs.utexas.edu/downloads/papers/xun.aaai18.pdf

Statistics: Posted by csrev — Sat May 18, 2019 6:43 pm


]]>
2018-03-24T16:10:10+00:00 2018-03-24T16:10:10+00:00 http://poker-ai.org/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=3009&p=7558#p7558 <![CDATA[Poker Papers • Re: DeepStack: Expert-Level Artificial Intelligence in No-Li]]> Statistics: Posted by HontoNiBaka — Sat Mar 24, 2018 4:10 pm


]]>
2018-03-20T17:35:51+00:00 2018-03-20T17:35:51+00:00 http://poker-ai.org/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=3009&p=7555#p7555 <![CDATA[Poker Papers • Re: DeepStack: Expert-Level Artificial Intelligence in No-Li]]> HontoNiBaka wrote:

It seems, that they do ignore the opponent action. In the video on the DeepStack site, M. Bowling said, that the counterfactual values of the last resolve are an upper bound to the counterfactual values after the opponent action, so they can be used.

One thing, that I don't udnerstand though is, how do they innitialize the counterfactual values in the root? They said, that they initialize it to the value of being dealt the hand, but what does that mean? I kind of assume that they use counterfactual values, that they computed from a full cfr solution from one of their earlier bots or something, but on the other hands that would be weird.


These are just values at the root of the game computed with the same algorithm, so for example for Kuhn poker these would be [-1/3, -1/9, 7/18].

Statistics: Posted by optimizer — Tue Mar 20, 2018 5:35 pm


]]>
2018-03-17T17:37:13+00:00 2018-03-17T17:37:13+00:00 http://poker-ai.org/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=3009&p=7554#p7554 <![CDATA[Poker Papers • Re: DeepStack: Expert-Level Artificial Intelligence in No-Li]]>
One thing, that I don't udnerstand though is, how do they innitialize the counterfactual values in the root? They said, that they initialize it to the value of being dealt the hand, but what does that mean? I kind of assume that they use counterfactual values, that they computed from a full cfr solution from one of their earlier bots or something, but on the other hands that would be weird.

Statistics: Posted by HontoNiBaka — Sat Mar 17, 2018 5:37 pm


]]>
2018-01-05T12:40:31+00:00 2018-01-05T12:40:31+00:00 http://poker-ai.org/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=3106&p=7511#p7511 <![CDATA[Poker Papers • Re: Artificial Intelligence Goes All-In: Computers Playing P]]> Statistics: Posted by HontoNiBaka — Fri Jan 05, 2018 12:40 pm


]]>
2018-01-02T12:53:54+00:00 2018-01-02T12:53:54+00:00 http://poker-ai.org/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=3106&p=7509#p7509 <![CDATA[Poker Papers • Artificial Intelligence Goes All-In: Computers Playing Poker]]>
Michael Bowling

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qndXrHcV1sM

Statistics: Posted by spears — Tue Jan 02, 2018 12:53 pm


]]>
2018-01-01T12:13:54+00:00 2018-01-01T12:13:54+00:00 http://poker-ai.org/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=3104&p=7505#p7505 <![CDATA[Poker Papers • Superhuman AI for heads-up no-limit poker]]>
Noam Brown

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2dX0lwaQRX0

Statistics: Posted by spears — Mon Jan 01, 2018 12:13 pm


]]>
2017-10-21T18:24:33+00:00 2017-10-21T18:24:33+00:00 http://poker-ai.org/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=3009&p=7421#p7421 <![CDATA[Poker Papers • Re: DeepStack: Expert-Level Artificial Intelligence in No-Li]]> https://github.com/lifrordi/DeepStack-Leduc

Statistics: Posted by AlephZero — Sat Oct 21, 2017 6:24 pm


]]>