Thanks for the feedback.
@ Dowakin - I started grinding limit games .10/.25 using 5 servers each running 4 tables and switching shifts every 8 hours. I was grinding out about $50 per night on average. It sounds like easy money, but it was a full time job having to chase down hiccups, reboot, switch tables, etc. So started selling my profiles, and sold nearly 1000 profiles over the years.
Regarding opponent modelling, I had the ability to track all play into a central PTrack db, summarize the stats of each opponent by the basics, assign a category (Rock, Solid, Typical, Fish, etc.) and act accordingly. Honestly it may have been a limitation of oversimplifying the analysis, but I never found a difference in real world results and turned it off.
Overtime I proved to myself that if something works better in the simulator, it works better in practice. At first I would use online sites as proving ground for the profiles, running 10k hands and measuring the results. I know that is not statistically enough, but I gave me a good feel for the profiles. Once I was certain of that, my emphasis changed from botting to creating simulation based profiles. I haven't run a bot farm, or played limit poker in years, but continually improving the simulated results of my profiles has become sort of a hobby.
Then came the NL program. I started all over again. Not botting per se, just playing some automated speed poker, and sngs. I never sold any of the NL profiles. Now I use them to help me grind out bigger tourneys.
My problem is that the software is proprietary and defunct, I can't get the former owner to contact me even though I was the top contributor on his site. Even if it was possible to modify it (is it?), I have never written a stitch of code in my life. I am just an economist that plays poker a lot, pretty well actually. That's why I decided to show up here.
I am not sure how you use "algorithm," but I think that is where we differ. For those unfamiliar, a Monte Carlo measures the results of a statistically significant number of trials and determines the probability of different outcomes. To me, an "algorithm" calculates the probabilities using statics and math. For example, it is simple to determine that the odds or rolling a twelve using two standard dice, 1:36. Using a Monte Carlo, you would roll the dice a significant number of times and count the results. The result will eventually approach 1:36.
Applied to poker, I try to determine the maxEV for a hand in each and every situation and always choose the play will maximize my chances. A simple example is AA from the button when it is folded to hero. Hero calls, always. That's where it gets controversial. Mock me if you like, but I can quantify it. The trick breaking down the game into scenarios or "buckets" (credit to Nasher) for each and every possibility, such that the sum of the buckets represents every possible scenario. It's possible and has been done.
Now for the reveal. I am using Online Poker Inspector or OPI. I waited to tell you since like Rodney Dangerfield, it gets no respect. Probably due to the juvenile stoplight in the corner which is supposed to signal what to do. I am seen it reviewed as average at best, a training tool at worst. None ever mentions the simulator. If you look it up, you'll find that the website is down, but you can still find demos on CNet. The sim is disabled and it is, due to the lack of updates, becoming less and less compatible with most sites.
@shalanko - Respectfully, we could argue the merits of any particular strategy, but we will never really know who is right. I argue that the criteria for being "right" is the maxEV as determined by simulation. I know that if you, simulate 10k tourneys with 800 players in OPI, keeping everything else the same, including the cards and the opponent play, you will achieve the maxEV by calling there. I completely agree that the micro level there may be things we humans and maybe ai can do to give you an additional edge. My point is that eventually, all that averages out. What is left is the best way to play each player, so as to maximize the potentiality outcome.
@algonoob - It works. Where's my motivation to make this stuff up?
This should shake things up a bit, but I will leave you with this. I think that opponent modeling is irrelevant in the aggregate. If you do something enough times, facing enough opponents, you are left with the best way to play on average, which is by definition, the best way to play long term. Firestorm to follow.
Last edited by Jester on Sun Jul 06, 2014 5:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.
|