Man Vs Machine?

[jdcox32 0]

Guessing that this has been talked about already but i am to lazy to look around for it. http://www.aaai.org/Pressroom/Releases/release-07-0612.pdf

[DrZoidberg 0]

I understand their idea with dealing the same hands to the computer in the second round, but wouldn't that mean that the human player will get the corresponding hand that the computer had, and wont he remember some of them and know what the boards gonna be? I'm sure they've already thought of this, but they don't really go into detail in that article.

[TheMathProf 0]

More importantly, won't the computer remember what the human showed down and be able to bluff accordingly?

[JoeyFinngars 0]

I think by them playing "duplicate bridge" type format they are going to determine who played each hand better (human or computer) by seeing who won more chips, lost less chips on the losing hands, etc...This actually sounds quite interesting and I would love to know the reults when it is done.

[hblask 1]

I think by them playing "duplicate bridge" type format they are going to determine who played each hand better (human or computer) by seeing who won more chips, lost less chips on the losing hands, etc...This actually sounds quite interesting and I would love to know the reults when it is done.

I'm thinking it won't be against the same human, or possibly it will only be after so many hands that nobody could remember them all. Of course, it will be changed by the fact that they have already played hands against that opponent.

[TheDelta 0]

I'm thinking it won't be against the same human, or possibly it will only be after so many hands that nobody could remember them all. Of course, it will be changed by the fact that they have already played hands against that opponent.

I think that's the reason why there are two human players there, letting the same person play the same hands reversed would simply be too unfair.The computer of course will still "remember" those hands, but as it does not have the information this its opponent holds the same hand it had "last time" it can draw no advantage from this.

[JoeyFinngars 0]

I think that's the reason why there are two human players there, letting the same person play the same hands reversed would simply be too unfair.The computer of course will still "remember" those hands, but as it does not have the information this its opponent holds the same hand it had "last time" it can draw no advantage from this.

When the same hands are dealt the second time, they are given to the opposite person. So if Player A gets A/K first hand then his opponent gets it on the first hand in the second round. Atleast this is how I read the article....

[opie 0]

A better write of this event up is provided at the University of Alberta games research group. You may have heard of them since they made news this week for solving checkers! Yeah, that's right - they have proven (constructive proof available on line) that checkers is identical to tic-tac-toe, they can guarantee that at worst they will draw.Anyway, more details about the man vs. machine poker match is available at:http://www.cs.ualberta.ca/~games/poker/Basically, Phil Laak will play against one computer in a 500 hand match while Ali Eslami plays another computer in another 500 hand match, with Phil and Ali getting opposite cards - in one game, the computer plays the "North" side while the human plays the "South", and then in the other game it is reversed with the human getting the cards the computer got in the other game. I assume to make it fair there is either 2 computers with the same initial seed to a random number generator, or else the computer is reset back to its initial state and thus "forgets" about the hands it just played.Incidentally, this is the same group who came up with AI part of Daniel's STACKED video game. This is what the U. Alberta Games group has on their web page about that, "The game has not been getting great reviews, but the AI is receiving kudos from the new audience."Peace,Opie

[CBass1724 1]

It sounds like Phil and the other guy get the same hands then the computer gets the hands the humans had for the 2nd match. Doesn't it seem like the humans might remember certain hands especially when it comes to a showdown? Like if the computer shows down AK in the 2nd match, Phil might remember his hole cards for the immediate hand after?Sounds retarded to me.

[opie 0]

It sounds like Phil and the other guy get the same hands then the computer gets the hands the humans had for the 2nd match. Doesn't it seem like the humans might remember certain hands especially when it comes to a showdown? Like if the computer shows down AK in the 2nd match, Phil might remember his hole cards for the immediate hand after?Sounds retarded to me.

No, that's not right. It is hard to explain. I'll try again. There are 2 simulataneous matches, with 2 humans each playing against a different copy of a computer program. Each match has the same cards dealt, but in one match the human gets the cards for player-1 and in the other match the computer gets the cards for player-1. Here are the rules from the web page.Rules

• The game for the event will be two-player Limit Texas Hold'em.
• A team of two humans will play against a team of two computer programs (both being copies of the Polaris poker technology).
• Teammates will play the same series of hands, but from opposite sides (one North, the other South) to reduce the element of luck to a minimum.
• No communication between teammates is permitted during play.
• All players (bot and human) will connect to an independent poker server run by Poker Academy (www.poker-academy.com), which will administer the parallel games.
• Each series of cards will be generated randomly, based on a combination of independent seeds provided by the human team, representatives of the bot team, the match arbiter, and the match administrators (no single entity determines the cards to be dealt).
• There will be four duplicate sessions of 500 hands each, played over two days (two sessions per day).
• The human team will receive an additional $5,000 for each session that is won by more than +25 small bets (+0.05 sb/h).
• The human team will receive an additional $2,500 for each session that is won or lost by +25 small bets or less (a statistical tie).
• All hands played will be made publicly available after the completion of the event.

<H2 class=special>Duplicate matches</H2>In poker, luck has an enormous impact on short-term results. Even playing many thousands of games can be inconclusive in deciding the best player. In typical contests with only a few hundred hands and rapidly increasing blinds and antes, the outcome is largely a coin-flip -- Lady Luck almost always decides the issue.The Man versus Machine match is a scientific experiment, and has been designed to gain as much statistical evidence as possible, measuring the difference in skill while factoring out much of the luck element inherent in the game of poker. To this end, each 500-hand session will be played as a duplicate match.This means that the same series of cards will be used in the two parallel matches, with the two humans having the opposite hands in each match. In other words, Ali will have the "North" seat against Polaris_A, whereas Phil will have the "South" seat against Polaris_B. No communication is allowed between the two humans, nor between the separate copies of the Polaris program.At the end of each session, the combined bankroll of the human team will be compared to the combined bankroll of the bot team to determine the winner of the duplicate match. In the case of a small margin of victory (within 25 small bets of break-even), the match will be declared a statistical tie. Four separate duplicate sessions will be played over the two-day series, allowing both teams an opportunity to learn more about their opponent, and adjust their strategy accordingly.Duplicate matches have been shown to greatly reduce the natural variance in poker due to luck. The format has been studied both theoretically and empirically in recent publications by the U of A Computer Poker Research Group.

[CBass1724 1]

That's not how the original link reads.