is dreamclown a bot? - long

[KTW 0]

No..... They do exist and they do malfunction. I played 1 in a small HU $100 SnG a while ago and whenever I raised it would auto fold. I am talking 100% of the time. I doubt it was designed that way. It did take me a little while to figure it out as that was my first experience with a bot. :roll:

[Konidias 0]

it took millions of dollars and hundreds of people to beat kasparov...and chess is a simple game compared to pokerthere is no way a bot could ever beat a human, let alone......as much as i hate to complete this sentence... dn

Chess does not require luck. Artifical Intelligence isn't to the point where it can factor in luck yet.Chess is far more difficult than poker could ever be. You have a computer that's thinking ahead like 100 moves. They can't really do that in a poker game. The numbers the computer recieved are random since they are based on every card dealt.

[Longshanks 0]

chess is played by soviets, not humans

[sacopoo 0]

your momma is a snowblower

[scottyno 0]

it took millions of dollars and hundreds of people to beat kasparov...and chess is a simple game compared to pokerthere is no way a bot could ever beat a human, let alone......as much as i hate to complete this sentence... dn

Chess does not require luck. Artifical Intelligence isn't to the point where it can factor in luck yet.Chess is far more difficult than poker could ever be. You have a computer that's thinking ahead like 100 moves. They can't really do that in a poker game. The numbers the computer recieved are random since they are based on every card dealt.

i dont think you can really say chess is more difficult than poker is, I think I understand what your basic point is though. Chess is much better geared towards a computer than poker is for a number of reasons.1. computers are much better at processesing numbers and combinations than humans are further in advance, which is basically what chess is. there is a correct move every single time its your turn to move in chess, while in poker there is oftentimes no one agreed upon correct move.2. in chess it doesnt matter as much who you are playing. in chess you play the board, not the person (though how you play the board may vary based on who you are playing) whereas in poker oftentimes you play the person not the cards.3. as you pointed out, chess has none or a very small amount of luck involved, while poker has much more. in chess, if you make the perfect move every time the worst you can do is draw. in poker you often make the correct move and still lose. computers are better than humans at finding the perfect move because they can go through combinations and permiutations much faster.i think its possible for a computer eventually to become proficient in high stakes limit poker, since limit is much more mathamatical than no limit. As far as bluffing goes, I assume it wouldnt be too hard to program some sort of random number generator into the computer telling it how often to bluff. however i dont think its possible for a computer to be proficient in no limit since nl is much more about playing the man than the cards, something a computer isnt really designed to do.I was captain of my chess team for 2 years before switching to poker once I graduated, there are a lot of similarities, and playing one definitely helps with the other, and a lot of great poker pros are great chess players (lederer, harrington)

[Loismustdie 0]

Awesome trash talking bot. Geez, no, and vote for the dumbest of the dumb pleez.

[DrawingDeadInDM 0]

it took millions of dollars and hundreds of people to beat kasparov...and chess is a simple game compared to pokerthere is no way a bot could ever beat a human, let alone......as much as i hate to complete this sentence... dn

Chess does not require luck. Artifical Intelligence isn't to the point where it can factor in luck yet.Chess is far more difficult than poker could ever be. You have a computer that's thinking ahead like 100 moves. They can't really do that in a poker game. The numbers the computer recieved are random since they are based on every card dealt.

i dont think you can really say chess is more difficult than poker is, I think I understand what your basic point is though. Chess is much better geared towards a computer than poker is because there is always a "correct" move in chess, and there is always a logical move. Poker players, especially low stakes poker players, certainly do not require logic as a prerequisite for any move they make.

SYPThat's, "Shortened Your Post", FYI. I Scotty.

[scottyno 0]

it took millions of dollars and hundreds of people to beat kasparov...and chess is a simple game compared to pokerthere is no way a bot could ever beat a human, let alone......as much as i hate to complete this sentence... dn

Chess does not require luck. Artifical Intelligence isn't to the point where it can factor in luck yet.Chess is far more difficult than poker could ever be. You have a computer that's thinking ahead like 100 moves. They can't really do that in a poker game. The numbers the computer recieved are random since they are based on every card dealt.

i dont think you can really say chess is more difficult than poker is, I think I understand what your basic point is though. Chess is much better geared towards a computer than poker is because there is always a "correct" move in chess, and there is always a logical move. Poker players, especially low stakes poker players, certainly do not require logic as a prerequisite for any move they make.

SYPThat's, "Shortened Your Post", FYI. I Scotty.

that wasnt exactly my point. It has nothing to do with low stakes players being bad and having no logic to their plays. I think the point was could a bot compete with high stakes players heads up. It isnt that those players are bad and make donk plays, almost all of them are very good, its that all of them have different thinking and differnt logic behind their plays, some bluff more, some bluff less, some are tight, some are aggressive, which would make it much harder on a computer. its not that they play bad, they just play different, all the high stakes players have some sort of logic behind their plays, but each ones logic is different.I u2 btw

[anselm 0]

...any half-capable player would be able to beat a bot.

Phil Laak seemed to have trouble though, and he's more than capable. Limit bots are much better than you think.

[scottyno 0]

...any half-capable player would be able to beat a bot.

Phil Laak seemed to have trouble though, and he's more than capable. Limit bots are much better than you think.

didnt he win eventually though? I remember him saying he was impressed in the bots limit play, but not at all in its nl play, there was a bluff magazine article about this.i think the above statement is true in nl abut half decent players, but not in limit

[econ_tim 0]

and chess is a simple game compared to poker

is this supposed to be self evident?

[AcesOnFire 0]

there is no way a bot could ever beat a human, let alone......as much as i hate to complete this sentence... dn

As much as you'd like to think that, there are bots that sit at the high limits on Party Poker, Full Tilt and Poker Stars that make huge profits. If there is a good programmer behind it all you are stuffed. They work for years (and sometimes in teams) to perfect them.As artificial intelligence expands even the pros will be beatable.

[Fourhead 0]

No. I'm guessing the Dreamclown/Negreanu "war" is a marketing trick to draw attention to the new poker room in general and Daniel in particular.Computers can't play excellent poker. In my early days, i played around with the Wilson software products enough to gain that insight.They can be taught to play pretty mean backgammon, black jack or chess, though.

[Phillip_339 0]

...any half-capable player would be able to beat a bot.

Phil Laak seemed to have trouble though, and he's more than capable. Limit bots are much better than you think.

didnt he win eventually though? I remember him saying he was impressed in the bots limit play, but not at all in its nl play, there was a bluff magazine article about this.i think the above statement is true in nl abut half decent players, but not in limit

Yep, very true, i was reading this about bots in NL games. And Diablo (love that game), do you really think that the plays at a 1/2 game are more complicated then a player in 500/1000?? Although players at a 1/2 game can be a bit more erratic (sp?), isn't it ALOT easier to beat the 1/2 game? By your thinking, it's almost as if your saying it would be easier playing the guys who play 500/1000, as they are much more 'predictable' then people who play 1/2.And, yes i did trail of a bit, and didn't really give an answer except for 'no'. I don't think there is much of an answer for this, because, do you think people would put this much money in the hands of a bot, without any assurance that it is going to work? And how does the bot let its ego get in the way?

[barpoker 0]

Hey Guys. I have perused this site for a while (6-8 mos) but this is my first post.To answer everyones question....yes bots are out there... I wrote one that works with Texas Hold'Em Companion for PartyPoker. Results? It can beat the limit holdem games from 1/2 to 20/40...but, starts to lose profitability after that. I usually set it to play on days i go to work (at 1/2 or 2/4), and it usually grinds out 200 or 300 per day.

[AcesOnFire 0]

And, yes i did trail of a bit, and didn't really give an answer except for 'no'. I don't think there is much of an answer for this, because, do you think people would put this much money in the hands of a bot, without any assurance that it is going to work? And how does the bot let its ego get in the way?

Read my post they do trial and error for years and work in teams. Usually excellent programmers.

[Phillip_339 0]

And, yes i did trail of a bit, and didn't really give an answer except for 'no'. I don't think there is much of an answer for this, because, do you think people would put this much money in the hands of a bot, without any assurance that it is going to work? And how does the bot let its ego get in the way?

Read my post they do trial and error for years and work in teams. Usually excellent programmers.

Ok, you might have answered question one, i really don't know enough about the computers side, and whether it really is possible to beat the best with these programs, although, personally, from what i know, i don't think it is. But what about question 2?And i'll add another question, from the looks of thigs, DreamClown has been beating these limits for a while, so if they have easy money else where, why are they bothering with Daniel?

[IdleMercutio 0]

I for one would love to see AI move in the direction of developing great poker bots. In terms of advancing science and human knowledge, this would really move us a lot closing to understanding the human mind than conquering a game like chess with computers. Luck and psychology play such a strong element in poker, being able to account for both within a program would practically be a new field compared to mathematically determing the next logical move in a chess game.That being said, I would be very surprised to learn that the technology had already reached the level of sophistication to challenge the best human players.Does anyone know of any literature or links on Poker and AI? Just think of the experiments you could run with a field of bots in a tournment (with a thousand iterations!) to try and determine which strategies really are solid long-term methods.

[scottyno 0]

and chess is a simple game compared to poker

is this supposed to be self evident?

as it relates to programming yes it is, as it relates to playing the game no.

[silvergoose 0]

Many AI algorithms out there are at least somewhat based on the idea that your opponent will make the best move he has available to him, thus you can decide what to do based on that.The minimax algorithm, for example, given a number of levels of depth, finds your best move, then the opponent's best move given that, then your best move given that, and using a fun sign switch finds the best path through the resulting tree.Can't do that with poker. You need full information to do that.I know there are other algorithms out there that can function on less than full information, of course, but this is just an example.Computers can come close to "solving" certain games, but poker isn't one of them, because the information isn't all out there.Sorry for the long and unintelligable post.

[Mcs1024 0]

no

[Mcs1024 0]

no

[AcesOnFire 0]

And, yes i did trail of a bit, and didn't really give an answer except for 'no'. I don't think there is much of an answer for this, because, do you think people would put this much money in the hands of a bot, without any assurance that it is going to work? And how does the bot let its ego get in the way?

Read my post they do trial and error for years and work in teams. Usually excellent programmers.

Ok, you might have answered question one, i really don't know enough about the computers side, and whether it really is possible to beat the best with these programs, although, personally, from what i know, i don't think it is. But what about question 2?And i'll add another question, from the looks of thigs, DreamClown has been beating these limits for a while, so if they have easy money else where, why are they bothering with Daniel?

I can't answer question 2 because I don't understand what you mean by ego. If it is a bot, they would play against Daniel to further improve startergy so the play of the bot can be varied.But he is not a bot.

[AcesOnFire 0]

Many AI algorithms out there are at least somewhat based on the idea that your opponent will make the best move he has available to him, thus you can decide what to do based on that.The minimax algorithm, for example, given a number of levels of depth, finds your best move, then the opponent's best move given that, then your best move given that, and using a fun sign switch finds the best path through the resulting tree.Can't do that with poker. You need full information to do that.I know there are other algorithms out there that can function on less than full information, of course, but this is just an example.Computers can come close to "solving" certain games, but poker isn't one of them, because the information isn't all out there.Sorry for the long and unintelligable post.

No it is a good point. Computers can only make the correct decision for sure when they either have the best possible hand or they have access to their opponents hand (and if humans had that we could just play ourselves). Thing is, as AI develops the fact you don't know the opponents hand can be worked around. If a bot was written with the newest available AI technology it would store every hand your opponent was in and what they did, the bot could deduce their current hand (or have an idea of its strength). It would then act in the correct way (if it remembers the last time that the player raised 6 times the BB PF and then raised to 6BB at the flop and ended up having hit a monster on the flop, it would then fold on the flop). Of course this becomes more difficult when a player REALLY mixes up their play, making it indistinguishable to previous play (other wise the bot could still pick up on patterns). The bot would play the player and not its cards.

[iCtrl 0]

If daniel thought the guy was using a bot he would have it checked out. Its very very easy to determine if ONE player is cheating.