AxelWolf
AxelWolf
Joined: Oct 10, 2012
  • Threads: 151
  • Posts: 19437
June 24th, 2014 at 12:33:10 PM permalink
Quote: Asswhoopermcdaddy

If I remember correctly it was indeed limit, but I noticed that the re raises increased progressively so it felt like no limit......so optimal strategy is to buy in with a low stack?

Nope because I think if you run out of credits you lose the button. And since he always gets the button first. You cant one hand it every time.

I find them very fascinating its to bad they didn't take off better. I heard they have a second version?

Unfortunately I think they crush normal players to fast. People, even some AP's, think the machines cheat, If AP's think this then certainly every ploppie thinks this.

At the beginning they had a glitch in the programming. It played weak with a certain system. This didn't last long.

I'm up over all on these however I don't have the Patients to really put significant time in. I'm also wary and I don't trust something about them,not sure what, I cant put my finger on it. I

As far as I can tell NO ONE can beat them constantly. Guys I talked to always start off with a bang and then slowly they get crushed. I have a feeling this is due to patterns they think they see.

I have talked to a few very smart (mathematically, analytically and logical) AP's who play both poker and machines and understand both very very well. They wont touch them anymore now that most all the theoretical has been cut.

I have heard big name pros say they can beat them(guys who helped promote them?) but they have some excuse why they never play. One problem with the big limits (unless they fixed this) A hand pay resets the button to the Bot every time.

Does anyone know all the locations of them and if any still have a good rating? I wouldn't mind having a go at them if I can get some descant benefits.
♪♪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♪♪
AxiomOfChoice
AxiomOfChoice
Joined: Sep 12, 2012
  • Threads: 32
  • Posts: 5761
June 24th, 2014 at 12:37:29 PM permalink
Quote: AxelWolf

Nope because I think if you run out of credits you lose the button. And since he always gets the button first. You cant one hand it every time.

I find them very fascinating its to bad they didn't take off better. I heard they have a second version?

Unfortunately I think they crush normal players to fast. People, even some AP's, think the machines cheat, If AP's think this then certainly every ploppie thinks this.

At the beginning they had a glitch in the programming. It played weak with a certain system. This didn't last long.

I'm up over all on these however I don't have the Patients to really put significant time in. I'm also wary and I don't trust something about them,not sure what, I cant put my finger on it. I

As far as I can tell NO ONE can beat them constantly. Guys I talked to always start off with a bang and then slowly they get crushed. I have a feeling this is due to patterns they think they see.

I have talked to a few very smart (mathematically, analytically and logical) AP's who play both poker and machines and understand both very very well. They wont touch them anymore now that most all the theoretical has been cut.

I have heard big name pros say they can beat them(guys who helped promote them?) but they have some excuse why they never play. One problem with the big limits (unless they fixed this) A hand pay resets the button to the Bot every time.

Does anyone know all the locations of them and if any still have a good rating? I wouldn't mind having a go at them if I can get some descant benefits.



It is entirely possible that they are playing a perfect mixed strategy (I assume that it's possible; I don't really follow poker research so I don't know if this is a solved problem). If they are then the game is not beatable long-term; the best you can do is break even if you also play perfectly (which is realistically not possible without a computer).

Even if they are playing a very good game theoretic strategy (ie, not perfect, but close) it's highly unlikely that a human could do better without examining the programming and finding the flaws in their strategy. Even then, I would not like a person's chances.
mickeycrimm
mickeycrimm
Joined: Jul 13, 2013
  • Threads: 62
  • Posts: 2299
June 24th, 2014 at 12:57:41 PM permalink
Quote: AxelWolf I have heard big name pros say they can beat them(guys who helped promote them?) but they have some excuse why they never play. One problem with the big limits (unless they fixed this) A hand pay resets the button to the Bot every time. [/q



There was a lot of scuttlebutt online about this game when it first came out. And there was a glitch that got exploited until it was fixed. I think the excuse the big name pros used when they quit playing was they took out the 10-20, 20-40, and left only lower betting like 2-4, 3-6, etc.

"Quit trying your luck and start trying your skill." Mickey Crimm
DrawingDead
DrawingDead
Joined: Jun 13, 2014
  • Threads: 9
  • Posts: 2233
June 24th, 2014 at 5:18:45 PM permalink
Disclaimer: I would describe myself as merely a moderately competent only slightly better than mediocre poker player, who normally relies upon his ability to only play with tables of drunks, lunatics, drooling imbeciles, and testosterone poisoned douchebags putting on a show in front of girlfriends.
Quote: AxiomOfChoice

There is no mathematical advantage to being short-stacked in heads-up play. Heads-up, both stacks are essentially of equal size. Being short-stacked only confers a mathematical advantage in games with 3 or more players.

I agree *IF* preflop ranges are the same for each opponent. The size of the shorter stack becomes effective stack size which is in-play for both. What short-stacking does is eliminate implied odds from post flop play, and *IF* pre-flop ranges are the same for the human and the HAL9000 Pokah-Wizard thingamajjiger potentially makes the LHE game close to a break-even slot machine, which could be interesting if it provided comps/credits at some rate that was material, which it did not. But "optimal" on this machine may be a long-range expectation of a loss as close to zero as possible.

My experience was that I think some pretty decent live poker players had a reaction of: "No f'ng way; this mudderforking gizmo just has to be rigged!" (close to a direct quote) when trying it because correct head-up ranges are so very wide, much more so than most who play full-ring games would imagine, including me. I didn't really understand this until I began researching what should be my optimal range for experimenting with this thing. And what I found is that it should never open-limp (not so surprising) and should also fold very few hands, resulting in raises with hands that makes it appear (to many full-ring game players) to be a maniac chimpanzee on crack (or rigged) when it beats you like a mule with "that crap."

Basically I don't think you will beat it, at least in the LHE version. You could very nearly break-even. Essentially I did. While carefully recording everything it did for several weeks, at the multiple locations where they were installed, which is a lot of hands because it plays fast, I think I luckboxed my way into taking them for dollars. Not thousands, or hundreds. or tens of dollars, but a final total of single digit dollars, resulting in a win rate of essentially zero, and what I believe was actually a long range expectation of a small fraction less than zero. But I (and the others who were interested) were only considering the LHE machine that existed.

I believe the list of locations I posted was complete as of that time, and I think the availability in the Las Vegas area has more likely contracted rather than expanded since then.
"I'm against stuff like crack and math" --AxelWolf
AxiomOfChoice
AxiomOfChoice
Joined: Sep 12, 2012
  • Threads: 32
  • Posts: 5761
June 24th, 2014 at 5:24:37 PM permalink
Quote: DrawingDead

Disclaimer: I would describe myself as merely a moderately competent only slightly better than mediocre poker player, who normally relies upon his ability to only play with tables of drunks, lunatics, and drooling imbeciles.I agree *IF* preflop ranges are the same for each opponent. The size of the sorter stack becomes effective stack size which is in-play for both. What short-stacking does is eliminate implied odds from post flop play, and *IF* pre-flop ranges are the same for the human and the HAL9000 Pokah-Wizard thingamajjiger potentially makes the LHE game close to a break-even slot machine, which could be interesting if it provided comps/credits at some rate that was material, which it did not. But "optimal" on this machine may be a long-range expectation of a loss as close to zero as possible.



If I understand you correctly, you're saying that if you play sub-optimally, you can reduce the cost of your mistakes by being short-stacked. That's probably true.

However, it will never give you an advantage, and, if possible, you would be better off just correcting the errors in your play.

I was mostly replying to this:

Quote: DrawingDead

but doing the same in a NLHE structure would be very different, and worth investigating whether it would be possibly profitable.


My point is that it can't possibly be profitable.
DrawingDead
DrawingDead
Joined: Jun 13, 2014
  • Threads: 9
  • Posts: 2233
June 24th, 2014 at 5:27:59 PM permalink
Quote: AxiomOfChoice

If I understand you correctly, you're saying that if you play sub-optimally, you can reduce the cost of your mistakes by being short-stacked. That's probably true.

However, it will never give you an advantage, and, if possible, you would be better off just correcting the errors in your play.

I was mostly replying to this:


My point is that it can't possibly be profitable.

That is true if there are identical pre-flop ranges. If pre-flop ranges differ, and effective stacks do not allow for post-flop play, it becomes a matter of simple math with the difference in the ranges determining the long-range outcomes.

ADDENDUM: As an aside, I think all humans play sub-optimally. To varying degrees.
"I'm against stuff like crack and math" --AxelWolf
AxiomOfChoice
AxiomOfChoice
Joined: Sep 12, 2012
  • Threads: 32
  • Posts: 5761
June 24th, 2014 at 5:32:04 PM permalink
Quote: DrawingDead

That is true if there are identical pre-flop ranges. If pre-flop ranges differ, and effective stacks do not allow for post-flop play, it becomes a matter of simple math with the difference in the ranges determining the long-range outcomes.



The assumption is that the computer is playing the correct pre-flop range. You can break even with it by playing the same one, or lose money by playing worse.
DrawingDead
DrawingDead
Joined: Jun 13, 2014
  • Threads: 9
  • Posts: 2233
June 24th, 2014 at 5:41:11 PM permalink
Quote: AxiomOfChoice

The assumption is that the computer is playing the correct pre-flop range. You can break even with it by playing the same one, or lose money by playing worse.

With that assumption, which I believe is true for the LHE machine that exists, we fully agree. Would a hypothetical NLHE version of HAL9000 on the casino floor adjust to play one sort of game with deep stacks and large post-flop implied odds, and adjust to another with a pre-flop "all-in or fold" game? I haven't spent time considering the matter; perhaps it would end in the same place.
"I'm against stuff like crack and math" --AxelWolf
AxiomOfChoice
AxiomOfChoice
Joined: Sep 12, 2012
  • Threads: 32
  • Posts: 5761
June 24th, 2014 at 5:46:10 PM permalink
Quote: DrawingDead

With that assumption, which I believe is true for the LHE machine that exists, we fully agree. Would a hypothetical NLHE version of HAL9000 on the casino floor adjust to play one sort of game with deep stacks and large post-flop implied odds, and adjust to another with a pre-flop "all-in or fold" game? I haven't spent time considering the matter; perhaps it would end in the same place.



I have no doubt that the correct strategy depends on stack size as one of its parameters. I have no idea how far along research in this field is, so I don't know how feasible this is. IIRC a lot of research was being done at the university of calgary.
DrawingDead
DrawingDead
Joined: Jun 13, 2014
  • Threads: 9
  • Posts: 2233
June 24th, 2014 at 6:20:00 PM permalink
I'm in Aria fairly often (though not to play these things) and I noticed as recently as a few months ago the ones at that property still offered the higher stakes. So, if that is someone's excuse, it is lame. They are right in front of one of the 3 biggest busiest most prominent poker venues in town. I rarely see anyone playing them.
Quote: mickeycrimm

Quote: AxelWolf I have heard big name pros say they can beat them(guys who helped promote them?) but they have some excuse why they never play. One problem with the big limits (unless they fixed this) A hand pay resets the button to the Bot every time. [/q



There was a lot of scuttlebutt online about this game when it first came out. And there was a glitch that got exploited until it was fixed. I think the excuse the big name pros used when they quit playing was they took out the 10-20, 20-40, and left only lower betting like 2-4, 3-6, etc.

"I'm against stuff like crack and math" --AxelWolf

  • Jump to: