= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
DaveInNYC comments on Verifying Rationality via RationalPoker.com - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (154)
I'm dubious of the idea that I should be training mentally in an area that a computer program can already trounce all humans in. Playing optimal poker is computationally solvable and not demanding, except for figuring out the biases of the human players.
I assume that a human can't do better than a computer when playing against a player with no biases. At the professional level, play should converge closer and closer to the unbiased ideal, so that poker experience and human insight should become less and less valuable.
Do professional poker players make most of their money playing against rubes, or against other professionals? Is any of the money counted as their earnings prize money contributed by sponsors, or advertising sponsorships?
What are the arguments that a human can outplay a computer at poker? How is poker more useful than practicing multiplying large numbers together?
Bots only win at 1v1 limit poker. No bot can play professional no-limit poker, especially at a full table.
Again, the best humans are much, much better at poker than the best bots. The idea that optimal NL poker is computationally solvable and not demanding is just wrong. No one has solved it yet.
I believe that they can win LIMIT poker at a full table; does not have to be 1-1 in that case.