Go to Naut's Thoughts
- Add a comment
- Go to Another blow…
That is interesting about a computer being able to play poker. Chess does not surprise because there are more or less set situations that it can figure out in response to the opponent's move. With poker, you have to read that poker face and know when to hold or fold.
posted by
FormerStudentIntern
on February 2, 2017 at 9:28 AM
| link to this | reply
Re: Naut
Thanks for a thoughtful comment, pat. You're absolutel correct - chance and probability always always play a role a role, as does luck. But if probability were the only factor, in the very long run things woud even out for everyone - everyone would get the same hands in the long run. But there are a lot of other things involved; I've read some books in the past (Sklansky, Hilger and a couple of others) and they have helped. I used to play fairly regularly, and even though I had the odd losing session, I won far more. And some people lost a lot but won occasionally...I think among other things it's a matter of being able to 'read' others...
posted by
Nautikos
on February 1, 2017 at 8:09 PM
| link to this | reply
It's interesting but a bit creepy at the same time! sam 
posted by
sam444
on February 1, 2017 at 7:51 PM
| link to this | reply
Will catch up later.
posted by
Sea_Gypsy
on February 1, 2017 at 7:48 PM
| link to this | reply
interesting
posted by
Annicita
on February 1, 2017 at 4:36 PM
| link to this | reply
Nautikos
Playing that well how come you're not in the casinoall week????????
posted by
WileyJohn
on February 1, 2017 at 1:14 PM
| link to this | reply
Naut
This is a very interesting topic (to me, at any rate). You may or may not find out about what Penrose's view is, but I'll tell you what mine is. I agree that ultimately poker, including Hold'em, is a game of skill. The key word is 'ultimately'. Being able to compute the chance/probability of a specific card or cards being dealt next is what makes the game a game of skill. In the long run, correct application of probability will deliver victory. But for probability to provide a clear advantage, one would have to play millions of hands. In practical terms, at a rate of c. 30 to 40 hands per hour, even an eight-hour session would come to no more than 240 to 320 hands. However clever the AI may be 'in the long run', in the short run there is no way of telling whether the River Card will or will not be one which will give one's opponent a Royal Flush. In other words, luck can never be discounted. And if luck cannot be discounted, knowledge of probability can never be 100% infallible. BTW, there is an interesting demonstration of this, ridiculous as it may be, in the film 'The Cincinnati Kid'
posted by
patmore
on February 1, 2017 at 11:12 AM
| link to this | reply
What I meant to say is, it's not the robots or the AI that want to
dominate - it's the guys who own the patents and already have 99% of the money.
posted by
Pat_B
on February 1, 2017 at 10:59 AM
| link to this | reply
I saw an interview with Bill Gates & Warren Buffet on Channel 9
a few days ago. It seems industy, esp. high tech industry and at the highest levels throughout the world, are on their way to more and more advanced AI. Chess? Driving a vehicle? Planning an ad campaign? Cooking, cleaning, fashion design? Oh, yes.
posted by
Pat_B
on February 1, 2017 at 10:57 AM
| link to this | reply
I can't think what Robots would do by taking over the World. They don't need money aor luxury or all the things that make humans so pathetic. I suppose power. Well not in my life time so good luck folks.
posted by
Kabu
on February 1, 2017 at 10:41 AM
| link to this | reply