spears wrote:
mainly I'd like to hear what you think about implementing a rule based core in a montecarlo AI
- What does this mean exactly?
Sorry, this must be a semantic problem as this is the poker player writing. I meant to ask if you can do a decent rule based bot and then let a montecarlo and NN based AI perfect its strategies. Or, in general, if this is a viable approach or not.
spears wrote:
- Do you model the opponents?
We will, in the montecarlo phase. But maybe obv we could have to change this approach and implement oppos modeling in the rule based core.
spears wrote:
- Does chance play a part in the action you calculate?
You mean to ask if we are making the bot so that he will not always do the same things in the same situations? If so, yes. He will have a part of his range with which he'll do some times x and some times y.
If not, again I'm sorry, it must be my poor understanding of the matter in a strictly theoretical mathematical sense. I'll ask to the physicist and come back (he's doing conferences abroad at the moment).
spears wrote:
- Can describe what you propose to do with the board post flop
Should we proceed with the idea we have now, we'll set some simple rules of engagement, so to speak. For example the bot will raise cbets on a class of strategically similar flops when his holding is in an assigned rank (TPTK+, MidPair + backdoor FD etc.) and the opener is in a steal position and his cbet % is a certain value and the bot is IP or OOP and so on.