Define "Advantage Player"

[OneHitWonder]

"Good poker" is a very, very complex game.

Like chess in the dark with every one for himself.

Too little info as in draw poker, or too much as in stud poker, there won't be any appreciable difference in skill factor.

Beyond that, the casino games always get the "tax" over and over on the same money at the table as it passes hands.

The great winners were the hustlers of the drunken and pie-eyed rich behind closed doors; or the ones sh*t lucky at the big tournaments, and then who rode the coat tails of the television hype.

[OneHitWonder]

And that babble is exactly why the term "advantage player" is nothing more than a self-confidence building state of mind for losing players. You must actually believe casinos have no idea who's coming in for all those "+EV" promotions that are out there daily, and who it is that pay a majority of the bills on a continuous basis. More proof positive: your gambling "Wizard" needing to beg his forum members for money to remain liquid, when according to people like you, all he really only needed to do was put in some more of that "money-making advantage play" and it would have saved him oodles of embarrassment. I guess winning bets are a whole lot better than so-called "good bets".

Wise up.

Double lol.

The only real AP's I know of are American Pickers, and those lottery consortiums who buy up the bulk of the tickets when the prize climbs into the tens or hundreds of millions.

[redietz]

Dan mentions an often overlooked aspect of playing poker -- the "why are they here?" question that provides a lot of information. When Negreanu chats up people as everybody's friend, he reads plenty into every word and reaction. Knowing why someone is playing, what their motivations may be, fills in a lot of information about what they may do with what hands at which point in the tournament. Not everyone is playing for the same reasons. Different goals sometimes lead to different decisions.

[OneHitWonder]

I think that all you can do is quickly ascertain another's cognitive abilities, and then assign the least likely reactions to the ones at the extremes.

A lot of studies have shown that detecting a lie is little better than 50-50 for the most seasoned investigators. The reason that lie detectors aren't for evidence in a court of law. The persons with "the cajones" to pull such stunts don't care about the talk.

[redietz]

Yes, or people who know/don't know the rules. Sadly, I played an $80 tournament at Planet Hollywood six or seven years ago, and while mulling around before the start, I noticed one guy asking the dealer which hands outranked which hands. I thought it might be somebody trying to present the appearance of a complete novice, but then who would do such a thing before an $80 tournament?

Anyway, the point is, he really had never played poker before. If you think it was a good thing to have him on my immediate right in a tournament, think again. It was brutal. I couldn't anticipate what he'd do, and I had no time to react to some of the things he did.

[Alan Mendelson]

Dan mentions an often overlooked aspect of playing poker -- the "why are they here?" question that provides a lot of information. When Negreanu chats up people as everybody's friend, he reads plenty into every word and reaction. Knowing why someone is playing, what their motivations may be, fills in a lot of information about what they may do with what hands at which point in the tournament. Not everyone is playing for the same reasons. Different goals sometimes lead to different decisions.

About ten years ago, I played with Negreanu in a World Poker Tour event. It was their "invitational" tournament and I was invited because I was working at KCAL. It had nothing to do with my poker ability. In fact, it was the very first poker tournament of my life.

Dan sat across from me and as redietz said, Dan chatted up everyone at the table. I later found out what it was all about: for the most part he wanted to know what your career was. Why? If you told him you were an actor, or a lawyer, or a TV news reporter he could immediately discount any signs of confidence in your play -- because you already have confidence. Knowing someone's career can tell you how they will act at the table, how they can handle pressure or excitement, etc. And there were two actors at my table plus me, plus a guy who owned a limo company. There were also four professionals at the table. I outlasted all but one.

Negreanu was in fact the first to bust out -- and he busted out way early. Next to go was Carlos Mortenson. Another pro was next to bust out -- and I don't remember his name. The one pro who outlasted me was Tony G who also chatted up the players to get a "read" on them.

In fact, When I had a pair of aces and folded to Tony G's big bet (I thought he had a straight but he actually had a set of queens) he called me a "poker genius." He wasn't complementing me -- he was trying to get me to like him so I wouldn't play aggressively against him. (Little did he know I had no idea about how to play aggressively.)

[redietz]

I mentioned this elsewhere, but maybe Dan can expand on this. I read that four no limit pros beat the most advanced poker-playing program one-on-one over a combined 80K hands. They actually beat it decisively.

[Rob.Singer]

I mentioned this elsewhere, but maybe Dan can expand on this. I read that four no limit pros beat the most advanced poker-playing program one-on-one over a combined 80K hands. They actually beat it decisively.

Wouldn't a computer be a lot easier to beat than other people in poker, where there's reads and tells and that chatting you mentioned that helps others understand the player and their motivation points better?

[Alan Mendelson]

I mentioned this elsewhere, but maybe Dan can expand on this. I read that four no limit pros beat the most advanced poker-playing program one-on-one over a combined 80K hands. They actually beat it decisively.

How do you bluff a computer?

How do you convince a computer that when go all-in that your pocket 2s beat the computer's KK ??

I guess it comes down to this: what was the computer programmed to do?

[Rob.Singer]

Better still, how does a computer bluff other players? Aren't these guys trained to read most bluffs? I think the person who programmed it absolutely needs to be identified. Was it a WoVer/arci type? Then you would know what the computer would do every single boring time after boring time. Or was it a common sense type thinker, who is never predictable in what they do because they tend to look at the entire situation in the very simplest of terms--something the mensa types are incapable of doing.

[arcimede$]

How do you bluff a computer?

How do you convince a computer that when go all-in that your pocket 2s beat the computer's KK ??

I guess it comes down to this: what was the computer programmed to do?

Precisely. All you need to do is pay attention and you will see how it is programmed. You can then use this information to develop an advantage over time.

[OneHitWonder]

How do you bluff a computer?

Very carefully. Computers are programmed to learn like we do, except a billion times faster.

[Dan Druff]

Precisely. All you need to do is pay attention and you will see how it is programmed. You can then use this information to develop an advantage over time.

This advantage is not enough to counteract the mathematically perfect play of the computer, nor is it enough to overcome its perfect memory and lack of fatigue or emotions.

[arcimede$]

Very carefully. Computers are programmed to learn like we do, except a billion times faster.

They could be but I don't know of any that are.

[OneHitWonder]

They could be but I don't know of any that are.

Here's a couple of links to the same story.

http://news.sciencemag.org/math/2015...olved-computer

http://www.geek.com/news/ai-solves-t...table-1613099/

[arcimede$]

Here's a couple of links to the same story.

http://news.sciencemag.org/math/2015...olved-computer

http://www.geek.com/news/ai-solves-t...table-1613099/

You're talking about specific applications, not in general. It probably took months to produce this one program. I was talking about the general case.