Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Poker Driving Artificial Intelligence Research

samzenpus posted more than 7 years ago | from the I-wouldn't-fold-yet-dave dept.

212

J-Hawker writes "The Canadian Press has a story about a University of Alberta team that is using Texas Hold-'em to study artificial intelligence. Poker seems to be a much more useful game for this research than chess. From the article: 'Poker has what are currently some of the biggest challenges to (artificial intelligence) systems, and uncertainty is the primary hurdle that we're facing,' said Michael Bowling, adding that the University of Alberta program was able to use its opponents' actions to infer certain things about their hands. 'The same techniques, the same principles that we're developing to build poker systems are the same principles that can be applied to many other problems. The nice thing about chess as a property of the game is what we call perfect information. You look at the board, you know where all the pieces are, you know whose turn it is — you have complete knowledge of the game,' he said. 'But in the real world, knowing everything is just so rare. Everything we do all day long is all about partial information. So poker's much more representative of what the real world's like, and in that sense it becomes a much harder problem.'"

cancel ×

212 comments

Straight Forward Evaluation (4, Interesting)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 7 years ago | (#15949746)

Poker seems to be a much more useful game for this research than chess.
This shouldn't be a surprise. Poker has the advantage of always being able to simply evaluate your chip count. Chess doesn't. You can't enumerate chess games through the entire gamespace so the initial opening moves are based on libraries or heuristics. In response to the machine not knowing all aspects of the "game space," I thought that there were a lot of developments in the field that allowed these to be accounted for. What ever happened to good old Trial and Error [wikipedia.org] or Fuzzy Systems [austinlinks.com] ? Aren't these viable strategies when playing poker?

What confuses me is how the poker openings differ. I would speculate that a program would be some heuristic relating the ratio of bluffing to "playing the odds." I have gambling friends that play poker all the time and they have these rules that they follow when they play initially against people. They say it's the best until you "know" the people you're playing. Once you can read them then you deviate from the rules. The real irony is that the most successful people I know adhere to a system until they learn someone's movements. Sounds to me like I would write an application that specializes in playing the odds until it recognizes a historical action that statistically reveals the player is bluffing/not bluffing.

Simply put, unless you knew someone's reputation as being a bluffer, you would play the opening hand always the same way. Aren't we forced to program the "AI" of the poker software as being this simple heuristic? Will programs ever be able to "read" players intelligently or will they rely on Markov models & statistics they develop from playing against the same human over and over?

Most unfortunate is the fact that the primary reason my friends gamble is they don't experience the same kind of rush while playing other games as they do with poker because it's more social than other games. If we program applications to beat humans, where does the "social aspect" of the game go?

Even more interesting is the network of poker bots [msn.com] that are set up and running some of the web sites that host poker players. Imagine sitting down at a table of five with four of the other seats taken. Now imagine that these aren't humans but instead bots on four different IP addresses that are sharing card information over an IP connection so that they can leverage odds over you and stop themselves from making stupid mistakes (i.e. they share a card on the table for a pair but really need three of a kind to pose a threat). There's a reason why the percentages fluctuate on TV when cards are revealed whether they be in the flop or in another player's hand.

Re:Straight Forward Evaluation (5, Interesting)

bdonalds (989355) | more than 7 years ago | (#15949790)

Now imagine that these aren't humans but instead bots on four different IP addresses that are sharing card information over an IP connection so that they can leverage odds over you and stop themselves from making stupid mistakes
Just to address a small part of your post- Bots Schmots! This is a problem already with humans. I used to like to play Euchre and the like online, but too many times it became obvious my opponents were communicating to each other and ruined the fun.

Re:Straight Forward Evaluation (3, Insightful)

Pulzar (81031) | more than 7 years ago | (#15949902)

I used to like to play Euchre and the like online, but too many times it became obvious my opponents were communicating to each other and ruined the fun.

In Euchre, knowing your partner's cards is a *huge* advantage... In poker, knowing the cards on one other player at the table gives you such a minute advantage that it's irrelevant in almost all practical cases.

Sure, if all of the players at the table except for you are sharing their cards, and are not required to conceal it (i.e. they can openly collude in their betting patterns against you), then they have a big advantage. But, that's, again, not very realistic.

Re:Straight Forward Evaluation (4, Interesting)

rcs1000 (462363) | more than 7 years ago | (#15950042)

Two things:

(1) Knowing the cards of the other players is a small, but significant, advantage. Say you've got two hearts, and your three buddies have a heart each. Well, you're chance of getting another three hearts on the table are significantly affected. (Likewise, if they have none, it increases the chance you'll want to stay in and catch the flop.)

(2) Much more serious, though, is collusion in betting. You and your buddy can conspire to raise the pot *as much as you like*. In a fixed raise game, this is an enormous advantage. Another player cannot just "call" and see the next card, as there will always be a player still to call who can reraise.

Personally, though, I love bots. I'm happy to play them all day long. (So long as they're not colluding, of course...)

Cheers,

Robert

Not true at all (2, Informative)

brunes69 (86786) | more than 7 years ago | (#15950080)

If you are chasing a flush, knowing the suits of the other person's two cards can ajust your odds bu a huge factor. For example, if you were four to a flush post-flop (giving you odds of 38/100 to hit your flush), and you all of a sudden know that two cards not in play are *not* of your suit, that ups the odds to 43/100 - this is a huge odd jump in hold-em, and can mean the difference between folding and going all-in in a race situation.

Two players colluding in a game is a huge problem. Even a marginal advantage equals to a huge advantage played out over time.

Re:Straight Forward Evaluation (2, Interesting)

Relic of the Future (118669) | more than 7 years ago | (#15950245)

When it's REAL MONEY on the line, any advantage can be significant enough to warant taking advantage of it.

That said, uses (and abuses and detection) of out-of-band communication isn't what this research is about; those are concerns for someone else's research project. It's a problem that has plagued poker (and euchre and bridge and a thousand other partial-information games) since the game was invented. That's not a technological problem or a decision making problem, it's a social problem, and A.I. hasn't quite yet advanced to the point where we can worry about it trying to cheat at cards. (Although I welcome the day that we do have to worry about that.)

Re:Straight Forward Evaluation (2, Insightful)

andrewman327 (635952) | more than 7 years ago | (#15949835)

I agree with you in part. Poker is a game of odds with lots of unknowns. It is quite easy to calculate the odds based on what limited information you have which is what the poker TV shows do to simplify things for viewers. But like you said, your buddies use more advanced practices against known players. I would love to see some advanced biometric lie detector [slashdot.org] used as part of the AI platform to determine the probability of a bluff and factor that into its thinking.

Re:Straight Forward Evaluation (2, Interesting)

Pulzar (81031) | more than 7 years ago | (#15949854)

Simply put, unless you knew someone's reputation as being a bluffer, you would play the opening hand always the same way. Aren't we forced to program the "AI" of the poker software as being this simple heuristic?


The simpler the heuristic used to program the AI, the easier it will be for the opponents to figure out what the bot is doing. A big difference between a mediocre and a successful poker player is the ability to vary their play significantly enough to make it hard for anybody to put them on a hand, without impacting their play so much that they are playing badly.

There are many systems out there developed for the "opening hand", as you call it, and, yes, AI can be programmed to play the preflop game fairly well. After the flop, though, it's a whole different game. As much as you hear about odds in poker, it's not a matter of simple math to calculate them and play "proper odds". You only know your odds if you know exactly what every opponent has... and that's where simple heuristics fail miserably.

Finally, even if you knew everybody's cards, even then you would still need to know exactly how much they are going to bet (if at all) in the future rounds of betting in order to calculate the exact odds you're getting. Once again, that's something that's still very hard for bots to figure out.

Re:Straight Forward Evaluation (2, Insightful)

Jerf (17166) | more than 7 years ago | (#15950371)

You only know your odds if you know exactly what every opponent has... and that's where simple heuristics fail miserably.

Completely untrue; you clearly don't understand the purpose of "odds" and probability. The entire purpose of "computing odds" is to deal with situations where you don't have all the information. If you had all the information, you wouldn't be "computing odds", you'd just know.

It is a simple matter of math to compute odds based on knowing what you have, and not knowing anything else. You can't compute the odds they show you on the TV when they know all the hands on the table, but the human gamblers don't get those odds either.

It isn't a simple matter of math to know what to do with those odds, and that's the problem. Computing the odds is a pretty straightforward task, though.

So, in a nutshell, you're claiming that AI players have special problems because they can't compute odds that the human players can't compute either. If anything, it's easier for bots because they can run 100%-accurate real math in the blink of an eye, where a human will probably be using an approximation.

Re:Straight Forward Evaluation (4, Interesting)

Propagandhi (570791) | more than 7 years ago | (#15949945)

Aren't we forced to program the "AI" of the poker software as being this simple heuristic? Will programs ever be able to "read" players intelligently or will they rely on Markov models & statistics they develop from playing against the same human over and over?
Playing poker with 100% consistency is no way to be an excellent poker player. It's easy to make a bot that follows a set of statistics which give it a good chance to win regardless of how their opponent ha played in the past, but if the bot takes into account the player's past actions then it can improve its chances of success. Taking into account the opponent's aggressiveness becomes especially important late in a tournament style match (when other players have been eliminated), most bots aren't designed to play in these situations (hence why you don't see many bots in tournaments, playing instead at the normal tables).

The bot would, ideally, be as good as a very observant player, noting those who bluff and those who don't. Obviously noting 1 or 2 bluffs or non-bluffs would not be enough to make a decision, but over the course of a long tournament, or even better a poker playing career, this information would become very useful. The bot would learn its opponents, and this is what makes it an interesting problem.

Even more interesting is the network of poker bots that are set up and running some of the web sites that host poker players.
I'd argue that cheating at online poker isn't very interesting at all. Humans can do the exact same thing, and online poker companies monitor game's to ensure that there isn't an uncommonly high percentage of people in the same area playing any game. Obviously it might be easier to distribute the bots across the country, but I think it's still more likely (today) to run into actual players grifting you in this manner.

There's a reason why the percentages fluctuate on TV when cards are revealed whether they be in the flop or in another player's hand.
Quantum physics, right? You can accurately determine the odds of winning, or the cards in hand, but not both at the same time? Swear I read something about this somewhere.

Re:Straight Forward Evaluation (2, Interesting)

The Mad Debugger (952795) | more than 7 years ago | (#15950025)

What confuses me is how the poker openings differ. I would speculate that a program would be some heuristic relating the ratio of bluffing to "playing the odds." I have gambling friends that play poker all the time and they have these rules that they follow when they play initially against people. They say it's the best until you "know" the people you're playing. Once you can read them then you deviate from the rules.
and
Simply put, unless you knew someone's reputation as being a bluffer, you would play the opening hand always the same way. Aren't we forced to program the "AI" of the poker software as being this simple heuristic? Will programs ever be able to "read" players intelligently or will they rely on Markov models & statistics they develop from playing against the same human over and over?
Unfortunately it's not quite that simple. First of all, the opening strategies have quite a lot of inputs. Your action varies based on the cards in your hand, the amount of money on the table, your position in the game (did you act first, or last, or somewhere in between), who is in or out, how they've acted (called or raised), etc.

Second, good poker strategy is not just reactive. It includes active attempts to probe for information by examining the reactions of others at the table. In general your strategy remains fairly constant, but you adjust your behavior (how aggressively do you play), based on the information that you've learned by observing the play of others at the table.

Third, good poker strategy is intentionally deceptive. Sometimes you might specifically decide to play the same hand a different way the second time than the first. Sometimes you will bet your cards for value, and others you won't.

In the long run, you're going to end up with an estimation of each player, and how well/poorly agressively/meekly they're playing, and that's information that you form over time. It's also hard to come by sometimes, because when a player folds, you generally don't get to see their cards, and it can be very expensive to take lots of hands all the way to a showdown just to see what the other player had. At the same time, you're trying to hide as much information as you can from the other players at the table, and possibly create a false image of your intents.

That's what this article is about there is a *lot* there, which makes it a very interesting problem. Your behaviors aren't nearly as fixed as they are in chess. It's further complicated by conflicting opinions as to the best play of certain hands and situations.

If you're interested in the mathematical and game theory aspects of poker, check out "The Theory of Poker" by David Slansky. It has lots of great discussion on the mathematical basis of decisionmaking in poker, including theory of bluffing, etc. Of course, as I just mentioned, it's not the only opinion on how poker should be played, but it's a good starting point.

Most unfortunate is the fact that the primary reason my friends gamble is they don't experience the same kind of rush while playing other games as they do with poker because it's more social than other games. If we program applications to beat humans, where does the "social aspect" of the game go?
Poker bots can be mostly sucessful because there are a lot of iditots who play mathematically unsound poker, and are pretty much begging to give their money away. If your bot playes sound poker, it doesn't matter if you give up some money to players who are playing better. Your expectation is positive because there is so much money there to be had.

If you don't like the idea of bots, get some friends, some beer, and play in your kitchen. It makes it much harder to have colluding computers (as you described) take your cash. Plus, then, you also get to drink beer.

Re:Straight Forward Evaluation (4, Informative)

brunes69 (86786) | more than 7 years ago | (#15950039)

What confuses me is how the poker openings differ. I would speculate that a program would be some heuristic relating the ratio of bluffing to "playing the odds." I have gambling friends that play poker all the time and they have these rules that they follow when they play initially against people. They say it's the best until you "know" the people you're playing. Once you can read them then you deviate from the rules. The real irony is that the most successful people I know adhere to a system until they learn someone's movements. Sounds to me like I would write an application that specializes in playing the odds until it recognizes a historical action that statistically reveals the player is bluffing/not bluffing.

You can tell you don't play much poker.

Part of what differentiates a pro player to an amatur player in poker, is the ability to "project an image". A pro player will purposefully *project* an image of a bluffer, or a tight player, so that they can exploit that image of themselves when they see fit in the game.

Thusly, it is very difficlt to get a "read" on a good poker player, because not only do you not know what cards they have, but you don't know how they would play for any two given cards, so you can't use their behaviour to prdict the cards they have.

In the end, the above description is what any decent player is aiming for while they play.

Because of this, a computer can have a hard time going beyond implied odds calulations in determining how to play a hand - and any pro ill tell you, implied odds are a good starting point, but they won't make you money in the long run.

Re:Straight Forward Evaluation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15950098)

You missed the point. TFA says that poker is more difficult to evaluate because of the uncertainty in what other players will do. Chess on the other hand has a finite (although large) number of possibilities.
 
The point is, the more complicated evaluation is more useful to AI because it takes something more like human intelligence to determine a response.

Re:Straight Forward Evaluation (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15950121)

EVERYONE CAN MAKE MONEY ONLINE, yes including YOU!!! For more information watch this movie: http://1.ws/dvd/10192005_MASTER_MSDV.wmv [1.ws] To join FREE go here: www.creativemind.ws This is how it works. Make $1/month for everyone you refer to this program. Make $1/month for everyone they refer to the program. This doesn't sound like a lot, but it is! I only make money if you make money. You can try it free for 7 days, you have NOTHING to loose!

Re:Straight Forward Evaluation (1)

XHIIHIIHX (918333) | more than 7 years ago | (#15950416)

Yes, you'll find you do a lot better at online poker if you play at extrememly reputable sites and only and tournaments of 1000+ players.

Illegal in Washington State? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15949753)

I wonder if this type of research is illegal in Washington state.

What didn't you know about... (0, Offtopic)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 7 years ago | (#15949767)

What didn't you know about vices driving technology?

The pr0n industry has been driving innovation since the days of the Apple ][

Bluffing (1)

UbuntuDupe (970646) | more than 7 years ago | (#15949805)

Aren't all the other players trying to decouple the link between what they bet and what they have? If so, doesn't that make a program designed to win by inferring from this rather ... pointless, especially since everyone else is doing the same thing? This seems along the lines of guessing the "optimal" rock-paper-scissors play. In real poker the difficulty is in cloaking *all* outward signals you give that are related to your hand -- your facial expression (poker face), sweating, eye contact, delay in placing bet, etc. (For those that want to bring up online play, the last, before the et cetera, applies.) Then again, I'm not a regular poker player, so someone can correct me.

Re:Bluffing (4, Informative)

Cherita Chen (936355) | more than 7 years ago | (#15949871)

Most good players don't actually "Bluff" in the sense that they are totally full of crap, and have no hand. Most bluffs are calculated risks based on the overall odds of "Improving" the hand, such as the case with four of a suit and two cards left to be turned over. In that case, the overall odds of hitting the flush are good enough to bet on (unless of course there is a pair showing on the board, which would indicate a possible full-house), even though the player has no "real" hand yet. Situations such as this can be quantified. Granted there are some real morons out there who will try to "bluff" with nothing, they are relatively rare and don't usually last long.

Re:Bluffing (5, Informative)

AuMatar (183847) | more than 7 years ago | (#15949918)

Good poker players constantly semi-bluff and do continuation bets. They do plain bluffs in some situations too. Its all about reading your opponent- if I think an opponent will lay down a hand if he doesn't have a pair, I will always bet on the flop even with nothing- the odds favor him having nothing as well, and if he always lays down non-pairs I'll win more money by betting than I lose.

Re:Bluffing (1)

Rich0 (548339) | more than 7 years ago | (#15949982)

This is definitely a big part of poker. If I play somebody, and they only bet if they have AK, or similar, then any time I see them bet I'm going to fold in an instant, and in the rare cases that they get strong hands they won't get anywhere with them. On the other hand, I can bet when they probably have nothing and they'll cave in letting me rob the blinds. Now, if I play a strong player and bluff liberally I'll lose fast.

The important thing in poker is to not be readable. You need to vary your game.

This is the traditional problem with AI opponents - they can be easy to read, while not reading others. It can't just fold anything less than a straight flush every time I go all-in no matter what the pot-odds say. Otherwise it will get beat by trivial play.

Re:Bluffing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15950005)

That works... If you are playing idiots.

Re:Bluffing (1)

AuMatar (183847) | more than 7 years ago | (#15950331)

It works if you study your opponents betting habbits and understand the logic of poker. It works especially well in tournament poker where blind sizes pressure people to win chips and a single mistake can mean elimination. But even in ring games the semi-bluff is probably the most important weapon in a poker player's arsenal.

Re:Bluffing (1)

kalirion (728907) | more than 7 years ago | (#15950357)

I'm not sure about what the odds really are, but are the odds in favor of your opponent having no pair AND no draw? It will take a pretty good bet to force out most players who've flopped an open-ended straight or flush draws.

Re:Bluffing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15950400)

Also, if you never bluff with crap, people won't believe you could be bluffing.

Re:Bluffing (1)

franksands (938435) | more than 7 years ago | (#15949885)

Not really, most of the poker players bet, bluff and gamble within logic, so it's possible to deduce what a person has or what they are trying to do. IMHO, the most difficutl problem with an AI playing poker is that it would have to analyze the other players facial expressions and body language, which is a good part of the game.

Re:Bluffing (1)

Best ID Ever! (712255) | more than 7 years ago | (#15949957)

The real difficulty in poker is putting your opponent on a hand. Having a good poker face is a secondary concern (and much easier to do).

Re:Bluffing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15950176)

Yes, but the AI will pick up on your habits. Like trying to steal the blinds when you are in late position. Not calling continuatuion bets. Calling continuation bets when you have nothing. Over time, as it sees the hands you play, it will pick up your tendancies. Not to mention all of your betting patterns. In order to win pots, you need to create a story that your opponent beleives. Sometimes that means raising with your pocket kings. Sometimnes that means limping in. If you are playing random, you are a fish. Because strong hands beat random hands, which is all you would represent. If you are not playing randomly, then the AI can pick up what your tendancies are.

This is signicant because betting patterns are the number one most reliable tell. Once people have mastered, or at least increased their skill level when it comes to betting and reading the texture of the board, they are then ready to take on live players who will try to read them for physical tells. But you need to get the basics down first. Unless you are just going to play online.

If you are really interested... (1)

Cherita Chen (936355) | more than 7 years ago | (#15949808)

If you are really interested in AI/poker... check this [winholdem.net] out.

Re:If you are really interested... (4, Insightful)

Best ID Ever! (712255) | more than 7 years ago | (#15949985)

If someone had a bot that could successfully beat online poker, why would they sell it?

Re:If you are really interested... (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15950049)

Why don't you read about the software? This is just a toolkit. This software provides a .DLL that will allow your machine to interface with online poker sites and gather statistical data. There is also a mode that allows for automated play. It is important to note that you really need to be skilled (software/mathematics) to effectivly use the automated software. Again, if anyone is really interested in AI/online poker, this is THE tool to get you started.

Re:If you are really interested... (1)

J-Hawker (666502) | more than 7 years ago | (#15950056)

Even better would Poker Academy (poker-academy.com). They use the AI that this article is taking about. The AI that was undefeated in two tournaments against other poker AIs. Not to mention the great online communtiy that has sprung up around the game. Thewre is no better place to play free poker online than with the Poker-academy software you can pick up for $20 at Best Buy. The game forces you to play in freerolls with other poker noobs in order to earn the $$$ you play with, called PAX. You then use the money you have earned in freerolls to play at at the PAX tables. The time it takes to win the PAX and the less than fun play uoui find in freerolls creates value in PAX, which encourages people to play more reaalistically. this is even more true, as you build your bankroll and can play at tables and in tourneys with higher limits. But the real value in Poker Academy is in leaning how to play well against the bots, which blow away any other program you will find. Plus the game provides you with all kind s of info that helps you. Showing you hand strength, pot odds ,and the like. It also keeps a database that you can go back to and find out what happened when you played aces on the button, or any pair in early position.

AI doesn't work for Spades! (4, Insightful)

Dareth (47614) | more than 7 years ago | (#15949814)

The AI is "able to use its opponents' actions to infer certain things about their hands"

While it may seem logical to use the actions of people playing to determine something about their hands, in reality people do not play logically. My uncle has been playing spades for probably better than 30 years, yet I have yet in my relatively limited 10+ years of playing to determine any rational for how he plays. Basically, he really sucks at spades. No matter how "Intelligent" artifical or otherwise I manage to code a game, it can't reason out the reasoning behind a non-logical person.

Good quote I say somewhere: Artifical intelligence is no match for natural stupidity!

And this holds true for more than card game AI. It will not be too long until AI could reasonably drive around and get from point A to point B safely. But it will be a damn long time before it can do it if it has to share the road with people driving as well!

Re:AI doesn't work for Spades! (1)

saskboy (600063) | more than 7 years ago | (#15949929)

We have to give machines a gut. Maybe a beer belly. Something that tells them to do the opposite of what they've reasoned is the right guess. The trick is then tuning how often they should do the opposite.

Re:AI doesn't work for Spades! (1)

shma (863063) | more than 7 years ago | (#15950011)

No matter how "Intelligent" artifical or otherwise I manage to code a game, it can't reason out the reasoning behind a non-logical person.

Agreed. But in texas hold em' at least, people who don't play logically can get screwed out of their money easily. It's mostly a game of patience (especially when you're playing cash games), and combining the odds with knowledge of other players betting strategy is the best way to win. In this respect, AI can perform well. Reckless, illogical players, however, will almost always lose. The more you play a bad starting hand, the more likely it is someone will mathc you with a much better hand.

Re:AI doesn't work for Spades! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15950046)

Well folks, this post says it all. I think we can safely dismiss this entire branch of CS based on the fact that this guy's uncle isn't very smart.

Seriously, you don't even understand the questions involved in this field. Your understanding of it is about as high-level as it gets. Please mod down.

AI only for AI scientist.. (1)

Dareth (47614) | more than 7 years ago | (#15950119)

... God forbid it ever get used in the real world, with real people.

My uncle is fairly intelligent, can't play spades worth a damn, but doing okay designing airplanes.

Point is that AI has to interact with people to be useful, and people can screw up most anything!
People find it difficult to interact with other people some of the time.

Forgive my analogies, but have you ever seen the guy in the arcade who random smashes buttons and occasionally beats a better player? All the practice in the world against other "good" players did not prepare you for random/stupid behavior. AI trained with the gameplay of the best players in the world would suck against beginners and vice versa.

Re:AI doesn't work for Spades! (1, Funny)

megaditto (982598) | more than 7 years ago | (#15950146)

I understand this much:
1) Strip pocker fembot (x5)
2) Make them play against each-other while you play with yourself
3) ...
4) Profit? (And see if indeed The AI is able to infer certain things about your hands

Re:AI doesn't work for Spades! (3, Insightful)

Relic of the Future (118669) | more than 7 years ago | (#15950274)

Go play against any of the simple online paper-scissors-rocks bots; then come back and re-evaluate your position.

You are not as unpredictable as you think.

I assume this is mostly related to bluffing (1)

Astarica (986098) | more than 7 years ago | (#15949828)

Since that's the only aspect where trying to model the human behavior is interesting/useful. I don't see how this represents an advancement, though. If you have a perfect memory of every hand someone played, of course it is not hard to say that last time he played like this the outcome was XYZ, so I'll guess this is the general case (clearly over a very large number of hands, this should be true). Deep Blue had Kasparov's likely moves programmed in to help. This might make the computer better at beating humans, but I don't see how you can say it is more intelligent.

Also, such a program will be trivially defeated if you assume that reading a player incorrectly results a loss that offsets the gains by reading the player correctly, as then you just need to flip a coin to decide on your strategy, and the computer will never be able to predict you with a better than 50% accuracy. Of course, the computer can probably come up with a strategy that minimizes the losses even when its prediction is wrong so it's likely to win anyway, but I think trying to predict human behavior is the wrong way to go.

I, for one... (1)

T_ConX (783573) | more than 7 years ago | (#15949832)

I, for one, welcome our Artificial Intelligence Card Sharks.

Well... (2, Funny)

El Lobo (994537) | more than 7 years ago | (#15949840)

Everything we do all day long is all about partial information.
Well, I guess this doesn't apply to proffesional chess players

This is not good ... (1)

dc29A (636871) | more than 7 years ago | (#15949849)

The PartyPoker system goes on-line August 21, 2006.
Human decisions are removed from the system.
Skynet^H^H^H^HPartyPoker system begins to learn at a geometric rate.
It becomes self-aware at 2:14 a.m. Eastern time, August 29th.
In a panic, they try to pull the plug.

It fights back.

Re:This is not good ... (2, Funny)

arose (644256) | more than 7 years ago | (#15950023)

It fights back.
They call the bluff.

More info than a real player? (3, Insightful)

Red Flayer (890720) | more than 7 years ago | (#15949856)

To ensure that no one computer got lucky, each side was given the opportunity to play its opponent's hand after each deal.
Thereby eliminating one important premise of poker -- you don't know what hand an opponent was playing unless someone called the last bet. In terms of an algorhithm for the program to 'learn' based upon others' behavior, this means the program has a lot more information than a regular player would. Of course, it's possible to verify that this info isn't fed into the algorithm, but I'd be more impressed if the info wasn't available at all.

Also, why ensure that no one computer got lucky? Isn't that the point of playing several thousand hands of limit poker, to eliminate the effect of luck in the study? If it's necessary to normalize all the hands received by the players, then something else is wrong with the study. I'd like to see if the results differed, and how, when the hand repetition is removed.

Re:More info than a real player? (1)

RobertB-DC (622190) | more than 7 years ago | (#15949971)

Foo: To ensure that no one computer got lucky, each side was given the opportunity to play its opponent's hand after each deal.
Bar: Thereby eliminating one important premise of poker -- you don't know what hand an opponent was playing unless someone called the last bet. In terms of an algorhithm for the program to 'learn' based upon others' behavior, this means the program has a lot more information than a regular player would.

Actually, I learned a lot about poker from my opponent's hand... when I was a kid. It's actually somewhat appropriate that this baby-level AI would be learning the essentials of the game the same way a human kid would, by playing one way, and then having Mommy/Daddy go back and say, "Now here's what I did with this hand..."

To be honest, though, I didn't play nearly enough games as a kid. In high school, playing nickel-ante poker with my friends, I lost consistently. We played with Pente [wikipedia.org] pieces, with each of us having a different color, but in about 30 minutes everyone was playing with my pieces. At the end of the year, most everyone had sold my debts to them to the class card shark, so I owed him $25 bucks.

Re:More info than a real player? (2, Informative)

Best ID Ever! (712255) | more than 7 years ago | (#15950082)

It's possible they're smart enough to start the programs with the same starting conditions in each case, i.e. no knowledge of their opponents hands.

The effect of luck in poker win rates can still be seen over even 100000 hands. Google for "poker" and "confidence interval" for some in depth discussions on it.

Re:More info than a real player? (1)

Relic of the Future (118669) | more than 7 years ago | (#15950282)

Give the research bots a break, they're still learning! Surely, the first few times you played, perhaps not for real money, perhaps as an uncle was teaching you, your teacher showed their cards when they didn't have to. More feedback->faster learning. No, it's not good for regular play, but it is good when you first start playing.

Not anytime soon. (3, Interesting)

Lejade (31993) | more than 7 years ago | (#15949858)

Before anyone goes off about how AIs will eventually replace us, my company runs a (GPL and GNU/linux friendly) poker site [pok3d.com] and the last thing i am worried about is bots taking over humans in no-limit games. To win consistently against serious players an AI would need to be a LOT smarter than what the guys from Alberta have. It would need to have a serious grasp of human psychology. It might happen, eventually, but by then society might have changed so much that "money" might also be an obsolete concept...

And even if such software existed, it would basically mean that you couldn't win at online poker anymore because skill would not be relevant anymore. That wouldn't be very different from the current situation with player-versus-casino luck games (like roulette or slots).
And we can all see how poorly these are doing, right? :)

Re:Not anytime soon. (1)

Red Flayer (890720) | more than 7 years ago | (#15950034)

my company runs a (GPL and GNU/linux friendly) poker site and the last thing i am worried about is bots taking over humans in no-limit games. To win consistently against serious players an AI would need to be a LOT smarter than what the guys from Alberta have. It would need to have a serious grasp of human psychology. It might happen, eventually, but by then society might have changed so much that "money" might also be an obsolete concept...
You know, you could just turn off the "tell" indicator. It might help on your AI's bluffs.

Poker is cool, and all... (1)

Lurker2288 (995635) | more than 7 years ago | (#15949865)

...but wouldn't you prefer a good game of chess? -Joshua

Already bots playing (4, Interesting)

slapyslapslap (995769) | more than 7 years ago | (#15949882)

There are already bots playing against unsuspecting people at the online casinos. I'm not sure how much AI is involved, but apparently they play better than most humans.

Multiple bots in same game... (1)

Dareth (47614) | more than 7 years ago | (#15949970)

How can a single human with access to only his own hand compete with multiple bots in the same game played by a single individual with access to each of his bot's hands?

More sophisticated setups might even let the person get ahead early on to encourage higher and more reckless betting, or it may be good enough to scrape opening bids off of many unsuspecting players.

Re:Already bots playing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15949980)

Stick to dispensing Starbucks nutrition facts, instead of these uninformed opinions.

Re:Already bots playing (2, Interesting)

UnanimousCoward (9841) | more than 7 years ago | (#15950031)

The bot issue is orthogonal to AI research WRT hold'em at this point. The theory behind deploying bots is playing 'solid' poker in low-stakes games (since that's where the 'bad' players are), winning pennies or small bucks per hour, and massively scaling up. The AI angle is, of course, more intriguing against 'good' players.

There are LOTS of bots online! (1)

raehl (609729) | more than 7 years ago | (#15950387)

I wish there were more of them. Once you've 'made' a bot, it's going to be a pretty consistent stream of income for you.

The thing to remember about bots is, they are programs. The actions of the bot are the output, and the input to the bot consists of the cards it has, the cards on the table, and your behavior. Since you have complete control over your behavior, and you know what cards are on the table, you've got some pretty damned good control over the bot's output (what it does).

Actually, poker is pretty much the same with real players, using your behavior to control what your opponents do, but bots are easier to play since their behavior is much more consistent.

The real questions are... (1)

creimer (824291) | more than 7 years ago | (#15949894)

Is A.I. research still a viable field? From what I been picking up from various computer history books, the research efforts of the 1960's and 1970's was a bust. Wouldn't Sudoku [wikipedia.org] be a more challenging to study A.I. with? I've seen some pretty unpredictable behavior when my niece and nephew try to help each other out on one of these puzzles.

Sudoku is trivial for an AI (2, Informative)

Harmonious Botch (921977) | more than 7 years ago | (#15949994)

...given a large enough stack. I think I could write a perfect Sudoku program in about 30 lines of code. Most of it would be a reursive routine.

Re:Sudoku is trivial for an AI (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15950044)

To elaborate on this, a Sudoku puzzle is a problem that has a (large, but manageably so) quantity of easily-defined possible states, with each state having several possible states that can arise from it by filling in another square. The "solution" state is trivial to define. So, as the parent said, if you can search deep enough you can find a path of states that lead to the solution. Nothing new or revolutionary here.

What are you talking about? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15950026)

Sudoku is a simple, solvable problem. There's no AI needed, you don't need to think or learn, its just math. There's already plenty of little computer programs to solve sudoku puzzles.

Re:What are you talking about? (1)

creimer (824291) | more than 7 years ago | (#15950181)

I thought the players were being modeled for the A.I. research. My niece and nephew are supposed to be helping each other solve the Sudoku puzzle but get into some really funny arguments that can last a whole day. That's a lot of spontaneous behavior that doesn't fit in neat little mathematical boxes.

Re:The real questions are... (1)

Alaria Phrozen (975601) | more than 7 years ago | (#15950091)

AI research will always be a viable field when the goal is Singularity. Whether that is possible or not in our universe...

I've mathematically analyzed Sudoku, and it would be trivial to construct an AI that could solve any (winnable) puzzle. There are only so many rules for electing where pieces can and cannot go. Just because it's a trivial game doesn't make it any less fun - unless you're playing connect4 against the computer :(

Now, finding a board with the fewest number of initially defined positions that results in a unique solution was an interesting question for my friends. Maybe somebody else out there thought that was trivial as well?

Re:The real questions are... (1)

PresidentEnder (849024) | more than 7 years ago | (#15950095)

Solving sudoku with an ai was 1 (one) small part of the final project that the smallest, second-to-dumbest team in my freshman-level java class took on. In their final presentation, they said that the "hint" button (which would solve completely if repeatedly pressed) was the easiest part. The hardest part was making the buttons work. My school isn't exactly MIT.

This would be good ai research why?

AI at SIGGRAPH (1)

peter303 (12292) | more than 7 years ago | (#15950124)

I was at the 2006 Boston SIGGRAPH (graphics convention) earlier this month. There were several talks about AI in graphics, particularly video games. The idea was to give game characters more automony. First, you wouldnt have to explicity program every possible scenario- they could make a good guess how to behave. Second, you could avoid predictable repetition. The characters could try something different each time.

Re:AI at SIGGRAPH (1)

creimer (824291) | more than 7 years ago | (#15950241)

The characters could try something different each time.

A good A.I. should know what to do when a hand grenade lands in front of them. Some games they just stand there to be blown up in red chunks. Other games have them toss it back 90% of the time. A few games they start swearing and running out of the way. But I haven't seen any game where a combination of these reactions come into play.

Of course, the opposite problem is true. The A.I. should be able to throw the grenade without being too stupid about it. Nothing worst than entering a room and taking cover as everyone else is friendly killed by one of their own grenade.

Re:The real questions are... (2, Insightful)

Helios1182 (629010) | more than 7 years ago | (#15950129)

Sudoku is incredibly easy to solve. In fact, the harder problem is figuring out how many unique boards, solutions, etc. there are. There was actually a good article in Scientific American a few months ago dealing with that.

AI as a field is still very hot. The difference is that the goals have changed and the field has fractured into smaller sub-fields. The goal of a truly "human intelligence" doesn't seem feasible in any near term scenario. Fields such as statistical learning theory, natural language processing, computer vision, genetic algorithms, and many more yielded very interesting results.

Re:The real questions are... (1)

geoffspear (692508) | more than 7 years ago | (#15950326)

Hell, the problem of just creating puzzles that will present human solvers with varying degrees of difficulty is a whole lot more interesting than the "problem" of solving the puzzles.

Innovation through vices (1)

phorm (591458) | more than 7 years ago | (#15949921)

Aside from military use (which to some might be a vice as well), isn't it interesting how much of our innovation nowadays is centered around profiting from people's vices (gambling, sex/porn, etc)

Re:Innovation through vices (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15949933)

not to be amoral, but who decides what 'vice' is... anything entertaining?

Re:Innovation through vices (2, Interesting)

tbone1 (309237) | more than 7 years ago | (#15950043)

Aside from military use (which to some might be a vice as well), isn't it interesting how much of our innovation nowadays is centered around profiting from people's vices (gambling, sex/porn, etc)

Considering that a lot of naval technology of the 16th, 17th, and 18th centuries was stimulated by things like warfare, tobacco, sugar/rum, tea, coffee, and the slave trade, is this really surprising?

Re:Innovation through vices (2, Insightful)

OldeTimeGeek (725417) | more than 7 years ago | (#15950053)

The operative word there is "profit". Profit is the motive - vice is merely the easiest way to achieve it.

Re:Innovation through vices (0)

UnanimousCoward (9841) | more than 7 years ago | (#15950072)

What do you mean, nowadays? What do you think advanced printing press technology further, the Bible or PR0N?

poker better represents the worlds than chess (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15949940)

"So poker's much more representative of what the real world's like."

As in, the top 2% have all the money and the rest of the people are goatsexd.

Limit versus No-Limit Texas Hold'em (1, Interesting)

harryk (17509) | more than 7 years ago | (#15949943)

there are a few things that stand out, about this level of developing.

First, they are playing limit hold'em, which I assume to mean pot-limit texas hold'em. While thats fine, and you'll find plenty pf people that play Pot-Limit, its still a very different game than No-Limit hold'em.

A second thing that I am inferring from the game, is that they are playing heads-up, meaning 1 on 1. Again, this is cool, and I think its a great first step, I still relate that back to Chess. Now if they can take that same AI and play against 8 or 9 other players, effectively, then I'll be impressed.

Re:Limit versus No-Limit Texas Hold'em (1)

Pulzar (81031) | more than 7 years ago | (#15950010)

First, they are playing limit hold'em, which I assume to mean pot-limit texas hold'em.

Limit and pot-limit are not the same. Pot limit is closer to no-limit because you can bet a variable amount, but you are limited to raising by the current size of the pot. On the other hand, in limit poker, you can only raise by a fixed amount (X preflop and on the flop, and 2X on the turn and river, in most kinds of limit hold'em).

Re:Limit versus No-Limit Texas Hold'em (1)

harryk (17509) | more than 7 years ago | (#15950084)

Thanks for the clarification, I don't play as much as I'd like, and when we do, we play no-limit. Thanks, harryk

Re:Limit versus No-Limit Texas Hold'em (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15950330)

First, they are playing limit hold'em, which I assume to mean pot-limit texas hold'em.

Umm... hey, want to play poker sometime? I can tell already that I'd love to play against you.

Everything I know I learned from Star Trek (2, Funny)

The_REAL_DZA (731082) | more than 7 years ago | (#15949950)

...poker's much more representative of what the real world's like...

 
Kirk had to 'splain the same thing to Spock at least once...(Re: Episode #3, "The Corbomite Maneuver")

Re:Everything I know I learned from Star Trek (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15950036)

Cpt. J.T. Kirk:
    Why look! You have a Royal Fizban!
    What are the odds?!?

    Mr. Spock, what are the odds of a Royal Fizban?

Mr. Spock:
    I have never calculated them, Captain.

Re:Everything I know I learned from Star Trek (1)

chowdy (992689) | more than 7 years ago | (#15950135)

And Data wasn't too good at poker either.

Interesting possibilities (1)

OpenSourced (323149) | more than 7 years ago | (#15949951)

Poker seems to be a much more useful game for this research than chess.

Not to mention the interest that a Deep-Blue level poker program can have to a remotely-wired real player playing for real money. I guess we'll have to bring back those old tar can and feathers.

The 40 Year Old AI (1)

PrescriptionWarning (932687) | more than 7 years ago | (#15949990)

I suppose if it plays two hours of online poker every night when its not playing Halo, then we could really be on to some awesome AI!

stupid computer (4, Insightful)

ExE122 (954104) | more than 7 years ago | (#15949995)

"Computers aren't particularly good at learning, for example, or reasoning by analogy"

Computers aren't good at retaining knowledge and recognizing patterns? That's news to me... this statement is obviously made by someone who doesn't know what he's talking about...

A very strong and useful technique in AI is to create learning algorithms. Some of these, such as reinforcement learning, are actually quite effective. Using something like Monte Carlo methods to give it a randomness factor simulates human learning, and computers don't forget what they are taught. The difficulty with learning isn't that computers can't do it... it's being able to define an effective set of state-action pairs for the computer to learn upon.

I spent time researching natural language processing, sometimes using AI techniques that did exactly what this person claims computers aren't good at: reasoning by analogy. One method involved building a knowledge base which generalized input so that patterns can be found and the grammar could be recovered. The weakness in the system wasn't reasoning by analogy, in fact I'd say computers are much better at that than people. It was rather a lack of a real world model which allowed for a wider array of perception.

The reason this game is difficult is not based on a computer's inability to solve problems, rather that there are so many possibilities that we cannot effectively design algorithms that the can be put to use. This isn't even news, the same has been said about the game of Go for the longest time.

I think a more accurate statement for this person to make would've been: "The overwhelming complexity of poker makes it a difficult game to define in a way for a computer to be able to play effectively."

--
"A man is asked if he is wise or not. He replies that he is otherwise" ~Mao Zedong

Re:stupid computer (1)

Red Flayer (890720) | more than 7 years ago | (#15950118)

I think a more accurate statement for this person to make would've been: "The overwhelming complexity of poker makes it a difficult game to define in a way for a computer to be able to play effectively."
Nah, that's a cop-out. What's the source of the complexity? What makes poker a difficult game to define for a computer to play effectively is not the complexity of poker, but the duplicity of its opponents. Computers are not very good at learning when there is a good chance that any datum is false.

One method involved building a knowledge base which generalized input so that patterns can be found and the grammar could be recovered.
What happens when up to half of the knowledge base is intentionally incorrect?

Re:stupid computer (1)

rca66 (818002) | more than 7 years ago | (#15950437)

A very strong and useful technique in AI is to create learning algorithms. Some of these, such as reinforcement learning, are actually quite effective.

Effective they might be, but compared to the human ability to learn and reason by analogy it is absolutely not impressive. So if one compares the current programs' ability to learn and reason by analogy to that of an average human being, the statement that they are not particularly good at it, is not too far off the mark.

The reason this game is difficult is not based on a computer's inability to solve problems, rather that there are so many possibilities that we cannot effectively design algorithms that the can be put to use.

I don't think that this is really the point. If the players would play the game with open cards, it would be not too interesting. I am not a poker expert, but the few times I watched it a bit on TV the commentator who like the other TV spectators knew who holds which cards can very well predict who will have the better hand at the end. It is indeed the incomplete information, which makes the difference. What I read about programs playing poker, one of the targets of a program is to deduce the strategy of the other players - when do they bluff, when do they pass etc. This is quite different from chess programs where the other player is not interesting, just the position on the board counts.

Good Excuse! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15950007)

What a good excuse to play poker instead of doing actual studying and/or work!

Game AI? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15950060)

"Everything we do all day long is all about partial information. So poker's much more representative of what the real world's like, and in that sense it becomes a much harder problem.'""

So how does this apply to game worlds were there's perfect knowledge of the world, but imperfect knowledge of the players?

What's up in Alberta? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15950066)

According to a study in Newsweek, the University of Alberta is the fifty-fifth best university on the planet.

"Fifty percent of the score came from equal parts of three measures used by Shanghai Jiatong: the number of highly-cited researchers in various academic fields, the number of articles published in Nature and Science, and the number of articles listed in the ISI Social Sciences and Arts & Humanities indices." To earn its rank, the University must have been doing good things for years and years. All those publications and citations don't just happen overnight.

I'd like to know how it happened. What attracts some of the best researchers in the world to Alberta? It sure isn't the balmy weather (unless you take balmy to mean nuts). It may or may not be a cultural mecca.

Part of the answer (the only one I have personal knowledge of) is that some researchers no longer feel welcome in the 'States for various reasons.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14321230/ [msn.com]

Computer Go (5, Interesting)

dahl_ag (415660) | more than 7 years ago | (#15950071)

While it probably doesn't have nearly the financial motivation that poker does, the AI behind Computer Go [wikipedia.org] also represents a huge challenge [wikipedia.org] . The rules of Go are very simple, but it is impossible to 'solve' using brute-force techniques like you might use with something like chess.

Re:Computer Go (1)

suggsjc (726146) | more than 7 years ago | (#15950295)

but it is impossible to 'solve' using brute-force techniques

Wrong. It isn't impossible. However the state-space is much greater than in chess. Much much greater. But just because it is "impossible" given our current processing and storage capabilities doesn't mean that it will stay that way. IBM would have probably said the same thing about chess during the 70's and 80's, but as the capabilites for a system like Deep Blue became available, the time and effort for the algorithms were put in. The same *could* be said about Go in the future (or poker for that matter but requires a *different* type of algorithm).

Using words like never, absolute, impossible, etc are just setting your self up to be corrected.

I guess this would make Kenny... (1)

Beached (52204) | more than 7 years ago | (#15950096)

I guess this would make Kenny Rogers a master of LISP and AI

You have to know when to hold them
You have to know when to throw them ...

Maybe he is a poker bot

Re:I guess this would make Kenny... (1)

jtev (133871) | more than 7 years ago | (#15950429)

I have karma to burn, so I'm going to be an ass and point out that the song goes

You've got to know when to hold 'em
Know when to fold 'em


But the thought was good. Nothing more to read here. Carry on.

Poker isn't the best! (2, Interesting)

PresidentEnder (849024) | more than 7 years ago | (#15950122)

Poker is only one of many double-blind, "real-world" games out there. I like the idea of making an AI learn poker (poker masters are more like human beings than chess masters, certainly), but it is my humble opinion that Kriegspiel [wikipedia.org] is where it's really at.

Seems an RTS would be better... (1)

Tairnyn (740378) | more than 7 years ago | (#15950150)

Writing an AI for a Real-Time Strategy game provides the same challenges involving reasoning over imperfect and uncertain information. It also adds planning, including joint and partial plans, and resource management to the mix.

If anything I would argue that Poker is best suited to research involving modeling of an opponent, since knowing how your opponents play is key to creating an optimal strategy.

Limit vs. No-Limit (2, Interesting)

BadBlood (134525) | more than 7 years ago | (#15950265)

One distinction to make is that bots can be and have been successful playing against human opponents in limit poker, where the bet size is fixed on each betting round.

In no-limit poker, when each bet has the potential to cost your opponent all of their money/chips, the decision making process is more critical and mistakes more costly. Variance in no-limit poker is much larger and the AI required to determine whether your opponent is bluffing or has "the nuts" becomes a much larger problem to solve.

New Players are the most unpredictable (1)

duffer_01 (184844) | more than 7 years ago | (#15950315)

From my research (in which I am a Prof of Stats), I have found that although it is pretty easy to come up with odds for virtually every possible scenario, believe it or not, the odds will work best on experienced players. The reason for this is that experienced players will typically play mostly by the book. The new players (or players just looking for some fun in Vegas) will be more apt to bet either just to stay in the game or because they don't know any better. Interestingly enough, this completely throws off any odds calculations that you may have. As a result, I typically end up losing more against new players then I would against more experienced ones.

Re:New Players are the most unpredictable (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15950404)

That's because you are a poor player and are making bad bets. It's funny to hear how "good" players complain about how much they lose against "bad" players. Yet bad players always lose their bankroll in the long run.

Some Actual Factual Information (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15950329)

Hi, I've been studying poker bots for a year or so. I'm not a /. member but somebody brought this to my attention and I thought I would post some useful resources.

The Alberta folks are the world's leading (publicly known) authorities on poker AI. (There may be others who are using their knowledge to cheat at online poker, but they're not talking).

Here is the link to the Alberta web site:

http://www.cs.ualberta.ca/~games/poker/ [ualberta.ca]

(Note: you have scroll down a ways to the doc links).

If you want to read just one paper about computer poker, read "The Challenge of Poker". Here is a link (PDF warning):

http://www.cs.ualberta.ca/~darse/Papers/AIJ02.pdf [ualberta.ca]

Some of the Alberta guys spun off into a local company that makes an excellent software product, Poker Academy Pro:

http://www.poker-academy.com/poker-software/ [poker-academy.com]

This software written in Java and offers a programming API so you can plug your own bots into their game. The programming API has an online forum:

http://www.poker-academy.com/forums/viewforum.php? f=3 [poker-academy.com]

Here is the resources page of one of Alberta guys, now a senior developer working on Poker Academy:

http://spaz.ca/poker/ [spaz.ca]

And here is a blog written by a guy who has some excellent LGPL code available (left side of page);

http://pokerforprogrammers.blogspot.com/ [blogspot.com]

Note: do NOT use the version of this software on the Code Project - it is out of date and buggy - get the download from this blog.

There's lots of other stuff of variable quality...all the pages linked here are high-quality content in the sense that the authors have thought deeply about the AI problem and/or are very skilled programmers.

Enjoy,
Jeff

Dangerous (1)

asterism (148910) | more than 7 years ago | (#15950420)

You shouldn't gamble while driving. The chips will stack up and clog your tubes.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...