zoobrew
zoobrew
  • Threads: 13
  • Posts: 309
Joined: Jan 12, 2015
April 24th, 2015 at 1:48:39 PM permalink
The humans took the early lead against the computer this morning at Rivers Casino.

In what has been dubbed “Brains Vs. Artificial Intelligence,” for the next two weeks four of the world’s best Heads-Up, No-Limit, Texas Hold ’em poker players are taking on a highly advanced computer program designed by researchers at Carnegie Mellon University for their share of a $100,000 prize pot.

From 11 a.m. to 10 p.m. every day till May 7, with one day off for rest, they will play 80,000 total hands of poker in an effort by CMU’s researchers to prove for the first time that a computer can beat humans at this most complex version of poker.
.
.
.
The public is invited to watch the event in person at Rivers Casino for free. Visit here to check out the daily progress and watch each competitor hand-by-hand.

The full story on link.

http://www.post-gazette.com/local/city/2015/04/24/CMU-Brains-Vs-Artificial-Intelligence-poker-tournament-begins-Pittsburgh-s-Rivers-Casino/stories/201504240281
Kerkebet
Kerkebet
  • Threads: 1
  • Posts: 362
Joined: Oct 2, 2014
April 24th, 2015 at 1:51:09 PM permalink
Quote: zoobrew

The humans took the early lead against the computer this morning at Rivers Casino.


The "humans" programmed the computer.
Nonsense is a very hard thing to keep up. Just ask the Wizard and company.
Gandler
Gandler
  • Threads: 35
  • Posts: 1795
Joined: Jan 27, 2014
April 24th, 2015 at 4:18:07 PM permalink
AI will win. Even if not in this event, then eventually.

Humans are the most intelligent animal on the planet. But, that's not saying much.

AI can be encouraged to make the proper move in any scenario with no emotional entanglements, no second guesses, no reserves, etc.... In the long run a perfect AI program will beat any human at anything. This is simply reality. Humans are too ingrained to emotions and dispositions which can be and likely will be our downfall.


For many years already there have been AI programs that can beat the best Masters at chess. Poker will only be a matter of time. And, life in general will be only a bit longer still.
surrender88s
surrender88s
  • Threads: 20
  • Posts: 291
Joined: Jun 23, 2013
April 24th, 2015 at 5:32:47 PM permalink
Quote: Gandler

AI will win. Even if not in this event, then eventually.

Humans are the most intelligent animal on the planet. But, that's not saying much.

AI can be encouraged to make the proper move in any scenario with no emotional entanglements, no second guesses, no reserves, etc.... In the long run a perfect AI program will beat any human at anything. This is simply reality. Humans are too ingrained to emotions and dispositions which can be and likely will be our downfall.

For many years already there have been AI programs that can beat the best Masters at chess. Poker will only be a matter of time. And, life in general will be only a bit longer still.



Heh, this is basically the premise of the Matrix.
"Rule No.1: Never lose money. Rule No.2: Never forget rule No.1." -Warren Buffett on risk/return
DrawingDead
DrawingDead
  • Threads: 9
  • Posts: 2263
Joined: Jun 13, 2014
April 24th, 2015 at 5:42:51 PM permalink
A quibble, not really relevant to the 'man v. chip' story line that probably interests most people and sells newspapers & generates website hits in Pittsburgh:
Quote:

at this most complex version of poker.

NLHE is not the "most complex version of poker." It is among the least. And the article even stumbles (apparently unknowingly) into a mention of the fundamental flaw in the basic structure that is a primary reason:
Quote:

In particular, Claudico fairly regularly bet “all-in” when it felt like it had a really good hand,...

Suck dope, watch TV, make up stuff, be somebody on the internet.
rxwine
rxwine
  • Threads: 209
  • Posts: 12166
Joined: Feb 28, 2010
April 24th, 2015 at 5:52:52 PM permalink
Quote:

Two-player no-limit Hold’em, Sandholm said, has 10161 (1 followed by 161 zeroes) situations, or information sets, that a player may face —vastly more than all of the atoms in the universe. By contrast, the easier game of limit Hold’em, in which bets and raises are limited to a pre-determined amount, has only 1013 (1 followed by 13 zeroes) information sets.



http://www.cmu.edu/news/stories/archives/2015/april/computer-faces-poker-pros.html

I started a thread earlier.
There's no secret. Just know what you're talking about before you open your mouth.
ThatDonGuy
ThatDonGuy
  • Threads: 117
  • Posts: 6219
Joined: Jun 22, 2011
April 24th, 2015 at 6:15:53 PM permalink
Pardon me for being in pedantic mode, but if you are going to express something raised to a power, don't just smash the numbers together. 10 to the 161st power can be written either as 10^161 or, if you use the [sup] and [/sup] codes, as 10161.

Here's a question for the readers: how many computer programming languages besides BASIC use ^ for exponentiation? I remember FORTRAN uses **, and C requires a separate function (pow( ), IIRC). It just seems strange that this is what caught on in text.
Dieter
Administrator
Dieter
  • Threads: 16
  • Posts: 5479
Joined: Jul 23, 2014
April 24th, 2015 at 6:29:15 PM permalink
Quote: ThatDonGuy

if you are going to express something raised to a power, don't just smash the numbers together.



I'm sure it was an oversight of the copy & paste process. Sometimes, some of those quirky formattings get mangled.


Quote: ThatDonGuy

Here's a question for the readers: how many computer programming languages besides BASIC use ^ for exponentiation? I remember FORTRAN uses **, and C requires a separate function (pow( ), IIRC). It just seems strange that this is what caught on in text.



http://rosettacode.org/wiki/Exponentiation_operator
May the cards fall in your favor.
DrawingDead
DrawingDead
  • Threads: 9
  • Posts: 2263
Joined: Jun 13, 2014
April 24th, 2015 at 6:55:22 PM permalink
Quote:

has 10161 (1 followed by 161 zeroes) situations, or information sets, that a player may face

Oh my. That is an extremely simplistic misunderstanding that's really not at all relevant to the comparative complexity of the game, because most of those will NOT be "faced" among competent non-random players. Here is what most commonly will be: one or two streets, all-in, call or fold, game over. For much more depth on that topic, I'd refer you to the extensive writing of Ed Miller on that subject in both short article form from poker publications available online, and treated in more depth by him in some of his books that are widely regarded as among the fundamental texts for the game.

Perhaps it requires more lines of computer code when programming for each theoretical possible "information set" as defined above. But most of them will not occur, and that silly metric is not = comparative complexity of decision making. I'd much rather play an AI device in a NL structure than the LHE machines that currently exist in some casinos. But I wouldn't expect to win from either without being a superb HU player, which I am certainly not.
Suck dope, watch TV, make up stuff, be somebody on the internet.
rxwine
rxwine
  • Threads: 209
  • Posts: 12166
Joined: Feb 28, 2010
April 24th, 2015 at 7:50:00 PM permalink
Quote: DrawingDead

Oh my. That is an extremely simplistic misunderstanding that's really not at all relevant to the comparative complexity of the game, because most of those will NOT be "faced" among competent non-random players. Here is what most commonly will be: one or two streets, all-in, call or fold, game over. For much more depth on that topic, I'd refer you to the extensive writing of Ed Miller on that subject in both short article form from poker publications available online, and treated in more depth by him in some of his books that are widely regarded as among the fundamental texts for the game.

I'd much rather play an AI device in a NL structure than the LHE machines that currently exist in some casinos. But I wouldn't expect to win from either without being a superb HU player, which I am certainly not.



I think it's similar to all the chess moves that would be obviously not preferred as a next move, but still a computer needs some sort of sorting mechanism in it algorithms in order to not just be brute force calculation.

It's why a checker game is solved and a chess game is not. All those non-practical moves need to be eliminated in one manner or another, so I guess you could refer to it as complexity.
There's no secret. Just know what you're talking about before you open your mouth.
DrawingDead
DrawingDead
  • Threads: 9
  • Posts: 2263
Joined: Jun 13, 2014
April 24th, 2015 at 8:29:41 PM permalink
Quote: rxwine

I think it's similar to all the chess moves that would be obviously not preferred as a next move, but still a computer needs some sort of sorting mechanism in it algorithms in order to not just be brute force calculation.

It's why a checker game is solved and a chess game is not. All those non-practical moves need to be eliminated in one manner or another, so I guess you could refer to it as complexity.

I think I get that, and I gather the "complexity" remark was from the particular point of view of the distinct task of the programming geeks. And for programming purposes rather than playing, perhaps that's right. Or not, I don't know.

But the result of particularly using a NLHE structure will not in the end produce a relative chess match as played compared to checkers in choosing another commonly used poker game format, unless it is a result of the opponent being Mr. Checkers or Ms. Tic-Tac-Toe, and the AI executing a player-specific learning function. Try playing the algorithm in the LHE machines locally at Aria or Red Rock or Caesars Palace Bellagio over a significant number of hands. And record the cards and action in the hands (you can view HAL9000's cards when the hand is over). I have, and ended up with a hugemongous spreadsheet from doing so after finally fleeing HAL's pod bay doors weeks later. It is not simply a straightforward matter of "if this, then that" over anything like a smallish set of realistic potential datasets. For one thing you'll find that HAL's play in identical circumstances will vary, as it should.

In play, it is not checkers, nor is it chess, in either case.

EDIT: Corrected a location of the HAL9000 Pokah Wizard thingamajigger.
Suck dope, watch TV, make up stuff, be somebody on the internet.
AxelWolf
AxelWolf
  • Threads: 164
  • Posts: 22272
Joined: Oct 10, 2012
April 27th, 2015 at 12:12:37 PM permalink
Quote: Gandler

AI will win. Even if not in this event, then eventually.

Humans are the most intelligent animal on the planet. But, that's not saying much.

AI can be encouraged to make the proper move in any scenario with no emotional entanglements, no second guesses, no reserves, etc.... In the long run a perfect AI program will beat any human at anything. This is simply reality. Humans are too ingrained to emotions and dispositions which can be and likely will be our downfall.


For many years already there have been AI programs that can beat the best Masters at chess. Poker will only be a matter of time. And, life in general will be only a bit longer still.

Chess is nothing like poker. There's to many variables in NL. Bluffing, bet sizes, slow playing, tilting, trapping, players mood,style of play, emotions.

You have to teach the computer to read minds or predict what a player will do or detect unique betting patterns or emotions. That will be very hard to do. for the exact reason you think it will be good. It cant detect emotions nor does it have any. Sometimes Humans change their mood (even if slightly) each second for hundreds of different reasons.


I think it will be a very very long time before they could put something like this (NL) in a casino environment.

I watched the actual play for quite a while and it's very weak especially free flop. It's bluffing was horrible, but it got bluffed often.

What I would like to see done. Without the computer or human knowing. Both the human and computer get the exact same starting hands same positions, flop, turn and river. Take all luck out of the situation. This should help define the computers skill quickly.
♪♪Now you swear and kick and beg us That you're not a gamblin' man Then you find you're back in Vegas With a handle in your hand♪♪ Your black cards can make you money So you hide them when you're able In the land of casinos and money You must put them on the table♪♪ You go back Jack do it again roulette wheels turinin' 'round and 'round♪♪ You go back Jack do it again♪♪
rxwine
rxwine
  • Threads: 209
  • Posts: 12166
Joined: Feb 28, 2010
April 27th, 2015 at 12:54:37 PM permalink
Too early. 80,000 hands is still aways away. One human is down. 3 up.
There's no secret. Just know what you're talking about before you open your mouth.
Gandler
Gandler
  • Threads: 35
  • Posts: 1795
Joined: Jan 27, 2014
April 27th, 2015 at 3:16:37 PM permalink
Quote: AxelWolf

Chess is nothing like poker. There's to many variables in NL. Bluffing, bet sizes, slow playing, tilting, trapping, players mood,style of play, emotions.

You have to teach the computer to read minds or predict what a player will do or detect unique betting patterns or emotions. That will be very hard to do. for the exact reason you think it will be good. It cant detect emotions nor does it have any. Sometimes Humans change their mood (even if slightly) each second for hundreds of different reasons.


I think it will be a very very long time before they could put something like this (NL) in a casino environment.

I watched the actual play for quite a while and it's very weak especially free flop. It's bluffing was horrible, but it got bluffed often.

What I would like to see done. Without the computer or human knowing. Both the human and computer get the exact same starting hands same positions, flop, turn and river. Take all luck out of the situation. This should help define the computers skill quickly.



Programs can detect emotions, facial expressions, it won't be long before a program can keep track of facial ques and betting styles to predict bluffing likleyhood. Or even just betting patterns.

It has no emotions, but it can be trained to bluff, especially in ideal scenarios (based on past plays of players). It can be set to evaluate the betting styles of players and their frustration, and bluff accordingly based on past plays.

I agree its far different than chess. But I was just making the point, at any specific task a computer can usually be made to be better because it can instantly see all of the data and automatically know the ideal play every turn.

You experiment would be interesting. But I feel that after a couple hand both the computer and the players would realize what was happening (at least I would hope so). You would maybe have to integrate it in a single hand basis here and there throughout the game to see how their decisions compare to fair/random hands.
rxwine
rxwine
  • Threads: 209
  • Posts: 12166
Joined: Feb 28, 2010
April 29th, 2015 at 11:38:49 PM permalink
Humans still with the most money, but two humans in the negative at the moment. Was just one.

There's no secret. Just know what you're talking about before you open your mouth.
AxelWolf
AxelWolf
  • Threads: 164
  • Posts: 22272
Joined: Oct 10, 2012
April 30th, 2015 at 1:38:27 AM permalink
Quote: Gandler

Programs can detect emotions, facial expressions, it won't be long before a program can keep track of facial ques and betting styles to predict bluffing likleyhood. Or even just betting patterns.

I agree with this part.
Especially if it started reading heart rhythms, body temperature, breathing patterns, sweating, micro eye movements, body quirks, etc.
Things most humans can't do. I'm assuming the poker community would never allow that. It takes away from what poker really is. I Assume at some point computers will be able to actually read peoples minds, but that's ridiculous to think we would play poker with something that could do that.

Assuming a computer won't have the ability to read your mind or detect the things I mentioned from a different location. I don't think it would win in an online situation playing a good player. Especially if it randomly played vs good players.

I don't think they will make a NL cash game computer AI that could profit playing good players.
♪♪Now you swear and kick and beg us That you're not a gamblin' man Then you find you're back in Vegas With a handle in your hand♪♪ Your black cards can make you money So you hide them when you're able In the land of casinos and money You must put them on the table♪♪ You go back Jack do it again roulette wheels turinin' 'round and 'round♪♪ You go back Jack do it again♪♪
rxwine
rxwine
  • Threads: 209
  • Posts: 12166
Joined: Feb 28, 2010
May 8th, 2015 at 7:28:18 PM permalink
Quote:

Though three of the four pros had higher winnings than Claudico, their $732,713 collective lead over the A.I. program was not quite large enough to attain statistical significance — in other words, the results can't be accepted as scientifically reliable. In all, $170 million was "bet" during the two-week "Brains Vs. Artificial Intelligence" exhibition. So despite the apparent lead by the humans, the competition ended in a statistical tie.



Quote:

In the final chip tally, Bjorn Li had an individual chip total of $529,033, Doug Polk had $213,671 and Dong Kim had $70, 491. Jason Les trailed Claudico by $80,482. Each of the players is ranked among the world's top 10 professionals in heads-up (two-player) no-limit Texas Hold'em.



http://www.scs.cmu.edu/news/poker-pros-rake-more-chips-carnegie-mellons-artificial-intelligence-program-during-80000-hand-contest
There's no secret. Just know what you're talking about before you open your mouth.
MangoJ
MangoJ
  • Threads: 10
  • Posts: 905
Joined: Mar 12, 2011
May 9th, 2015 at 10:43:02 PM permalink
Quote: Gandler

AI can be encouraged to make the proper move in any scenario with no emotional entanglements, no second guesses, no reserves, etc.... In the long run a perfect AI program will beat any human at anything. This is simply reality. Humans are too ingrained to emotions and dispositions which can be and likely will be our downfall.



You forgot the most important thing: Even if Humans would know perfect (mixed) strategies, they would still lose.
AI can draw practically unbiased random numbers. Humans fail at this quite miserable.
rxwine
rxwine
  • Threads: 209
  • Posts: 12166
Joined: Feb 28, 2010
January 27th, 2016 at 7:02:18 PM permalink
Human "Go" champion beaten by computer program

There's no secret. Just know what you're talking about before you open your mouth.
  • Jump to: