Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! ×

Comment Re: Milestone (Score 1) 338

But now you've changed your point to something that I never argued against in the first place.
Statistics surely do have to inform your betting, but I was arguing against playing purely on statistics.
You're still operating under the false assumption that it's your cards that make the plays work, but that's quite a small part of it.

Here's an rather extreme (and rare) example of not even looking at your cards.

Yes, you do need to inform your play based on statistics, but my claim was that a perfect statistical player is in fact so bad they cannot win. I was not arguing the false dichotomy that therefore any of use statistics is invalid!

Comment Re:Milestone (Score 1) 338

Is this the part where you acknowledge that you aren't familiar with the term meta-game?

Any purely probabilistic strategy is countered by meta shift.
Oh, I know, you're the guy that inevitably always suggests putting in a random number element to make it 'unpredictable'! No one ever tried that!

Let me guess, you got to the bit in maths where you applied probabilities to things and the world made sense, but not to the bit where you learn when probabilities don't work?

Are you that guy in every AI discussion that insists that with enough compute power, any problem is probabilistic!

It's a moving target.
The dynamic is more like rock, paper, scissors with a few extra orders of magnitude.

But hey, since you seem to be under the impression that your inadequate understanding of the maths is gold, go make the AI.
I mean, it's not like no one else has tried and this is a *known block* that you so bravely declare solvable.

It's clear that you must be better at this than me and all the other people that properly understand the domain. ;)

Comment Re: Milestone (Score 1) 338

No, there's no misinterpretation, that was exactly what I thought you meant.

I'm saying that that is fundamentally untrue.
A risk adverse chip strategy will lose almost always even to novice players because their risk taking will bias probabilistic estimates!

The problem isn't about the necessity for a highly optimised chip strategy, it's that a prefect probability game is inherently incompatible with ANY basic chip strategy that can even match the average player.

By committing to a perfect probability game you make *all* other winning strategies impossible.

It's not a missing component in an ideal strategy that other components can make up for, it's a component that literally makes you lose. It's not a "this didn't contribute to a win", it's a "this directly contributes so much to losing that you can't win".

Obviously accounting for variance in games - everyone wins sometimes out of luck - this strategy basically guarantees that unless every player you meet is a clueless novice, and you're also lucky, you lose.

Comment Re:Milestone (Score 1) 338

But then big stacks play off on each other, so in order to avoid them bullying you, you also lose most opportunities to recover the ground.

Good players often take more risks as the game goes on specifically because the probabilities narrow.
Mid to late game starts requiring calculated losses and risks, and if you play probabilities then you lose to that. Will you push in your 80% AA pre flop? What if three people call behind?
That's the thing about poker. You're not playing to win a single game because that's not reasonable or possible. Luck factors will overwhelm any single outcome.

You're playing to win *more games than you lose*.

A trash player is rolling 60% return. They will get there occasionally through luck. They might even play a good hand in the mix. But over many games that 60% return is a 40% loss.
A great player is rolling a 110% return. That still means luck pops them out a lot. It means bad beats 10 games in a row. It means the occasional gamble you know is the wrong call but you can't resist it. But after 50 games your average return trends to positive.

It's not like chess or go, you don't play then decide who is better and that is that. It's more like a casino where you bring your own dice dependant on your skill level. If you're good enough then you weight the averages in your favour, if you're not then you enjoy your wins as you gradually spend your bankroll.

When you play casino games it's not the single outcome that decides, it's the weight of many. The house always wins in the end because it has a small probability advantage spread over thousands of games.

Poker bots simply cannot maintain that consistency because doing the maths isn't enough.
Because the good players have weighted their dice in different ways that matter more than playing the maths can come close to.
Because it's not the average of individual hands that makes success, but the average of outcomes that require game threatening risks to achieve.

Because weighting your coin to give heads 60% of the time by playing probability isn't useful if your payout condition
Is 10 heads in a row. What you'd really want is a coin that gives the same result as the prior flip 80% of the time instead. You get streaks of tails losing, but also a much much higher chance of 10 in a row. Yet if you counted the flips over a long period of time it'd be just a 50% chance of heads. Win conditions change the relevance of probability!

Winning 600 out of 1000 hands still earns you nothing if you needed to get 100 of those hands into the one game. You need a cluster of success to make the money, not merely be better in most hands you play.

That's why poker isn't yet a solved AI problem. Even when it is, players will adapt their games and the meta game will change and new bots will be needed. We see this effect in online video game competition already, where meta-game matters just as much or more than the quality of your individual play.

The person that solves poker, they'll be rich.

Comment Re: Milestone (Score 1) 338

Incorrect. I never made any such assumption or claim.

I said that a specific weakness is too egregious to be successful, which is near the opposite.

Playing probabilities is not merely 'a relevant category', it's a fundamental fail that is so easily seen and broken by other players there's no way to victory.

There are a few basics you simply cannot exclude that aren't a matter of tactic or style.
There's a lot of variation in aggression and risk vs chip gain, and in that respect you'd be right, but if you pay to probabilities you lose so much chip speed that you fail to meet the minimum threshold for being competitive.

There is a minimum cut off, because there are blinds.
If you can't out pace them, you *cannot* win regardless of *all* other 'relevant categories'.

It's like attempting to win a marathon that's longer than the distance you can run.

Comment Re:Milestone (Score 1) 338

But it does work that way because when playing probability alone if others rarely bet you then you build no stack.
Then eventually there will be that hand that it has the 80%+ chance on versus a mammoth stack.
Big stack takes the 20% chance call because it only cost them 10% of their stack and they potentially KO a player.

If you play probability alone you will get to mid game watching the dead money go to better players. The they will out stack your probabilities through sheer abuse of their stack.

Amatuers think that probabilities save them.
They are merely donors to the winning pot.

Don't confuse being able to beat your mates with maths with the notion that it's actually some sophisticated strategy.

If you only bet probabilities you will not have sufficient 'good enough' hands to play to keep up. If every time you do no one plays then you're screwed.

Comment Re: Milestone (Score 1) 338

Chip gain speed is important to winning, so why on earth would you consider it not part of an optimal program?
It's necessary, therefore is absolutely part of an optimal program as without it you're guaranteed a loss.

Playing probabilities is basically the worst way to play because it's so incredibly predictable you can't get big wins or losses. You often will lose to the blinds before you get anywhere.

Fundamental misunderstanding of poker even at the skilled non professional level.

Comment Re:Wow (Score 2) 136

Worth remembering that a lot of women did play then but played male characters specifically to avoid the attention you're talking about.

We were always online. It's not that more women are into those games, but that gaming got more mainstream and the culture is being dragged slowly towards proper standards of behaviour.

Comment Re:What's the difference? (Score 1) 462

That is not even close to true.
A number of those 'safely categorized' then transition later in life because the decision made was wrong.

Many end up infertile, because the decision was wrong.
Some end up without sensation of sexual function, because the decision was wrong.
Some look unambiguous at birth and aren't questions as even being intersex, until they fail to menstruate and discover testes inside, or they don't have a male puberty because ovaries, or because they have a combination of both.

Most people who are intersex were not obvious at birth, and of those 'safely categorised' the fact they are intersex still has implications for their life.

The idea that docs can safely categorise intersex people at birth has been a source of pain for many intersex people, and a source of misunderstanding from the general community.

You cannot do this, you pretty much need to leave intersex people alone until an informed decision can be made by them, not for them.

Comment Re:Was not arrested (Score 5, Insightful) 287

Perhaps you missed the point, so I'll make it more clear.
While it would be really messed up to arrest someone for pointing out a problem, the key factor here is that HE WAS NOT ARRESTED.

See how that kinda changes the overall theme?

Sure, direct some anger at the idiot company that reported him for this, they are morons and the police should tell them to stop being morons.
But it sounds like they actually might have done just that, because the police did not arrest him.

They did not arrest. The overall theme should be about the idiot company, not the police.

Comment Re:Being "spied" on, or drawing attention, choose. (Score 1) 364

While it would be great if a large number of people poisoned the well of information, the unfortunate reality is that the very people able to safely do that (those with no secrets they want to keep private) are the ones that also have little motivation to do so.

The people that genuinely understand the need for such privacy and the value of information poisoning are often also the ones that don't want to have their lives scrutinised.

This sort of system works so well because they've convinced so many that there's no need to worry, and the ones that understand the risk can easily become public examples.

Comment Re:Good News / Bad News (Score 1) 182

My point to F'Nok is that it's not desirable for him or any one person to re-define autism, however poor (vague) the DSM definition is. When the mechanisms are better understood the diagnostic categories will almost certainly change, and his theory that "low functioning" autism and intellectual disability are distinct co-morbidities may or may not turn out to be true. In the meantime re-defining words is counterproductive. The DSM is bad enough - let's not confuse it further.

I am not a 'him' by any definition of that term, another things people get wrong about autism all the time.
The expression of autistic traits in women is different, and often perceived to be 'higher functioning' based on some rather gendered misconceptions as well. The intersection of sexism is autistic discourse is a rather interesting, though frustrating.

And I am not the only one saying these old definitions of autism are wrong, the low/high/aspergers distinctions are all removed from the DSM-5 because of the complete impossibility of actually defining the difference between high and low functioning.
I am one of those cases where placing either label would be misleading.

Slashdot Top Deals

try again