Hacker News Reader

Comment by bcassedy | Hacker News Reader

Anyone that's interested in reading a more detailed account of the experiment can do so here:

http://www.pokerlistings.com/libratus-poker-ai-smokes-humans...

The above article spells out some of the details of the competition. The winrate (14.72bb/100) that the AI achieved over the 120k hand sample is almost certainly not due to luck. It is a huge winrate that most pros have to employ strong game selection techniques to achieve (only play against bad players).

Here's a layman's explanation of how a poker AI can be trained: http://www.pokersnowie.com/about/technology-training.html

And some details about the weaknesses resulting from how they've abstracted the game: http://www.pokersnowie.com/about/weaknesses.html

View on HN

If it was paying rake like online players do, then that winrate would drop into single digits.

That's pretty impressive, the win rate and amount of hands played. It's certainly not a fluke. At the same time, these 4 pros, I've never heard of them. This AI and organizers should focus on HU specialists. Perhaps even invite players like Negreanu, Ivey, and more recent online pros who've made a fortune. Just don't let Hellmuth to play this machine, it would be a disaster.

These pros are considered to be top 20 HU online specialists, they would destroy Negreanu and Ivey over the long run at this particular variant (which they have played millions of hands at).

Back when I played poker (up to ~2010), Negreanu was mostly a celebrity, as well as a pretty good blog writer. He was no match for the best pro players, but perhaps he has dramatically improved.

Ivey was pretty good at managing his image, too.

Say that all you want, those guys play(ed? I'm out of the loop) in the big game, and...whoever you're thinking of, basically--didn't.

Conversely, not many of the celebrity players have had much success playing online. Ivey did have some good years but even he has been struggling for the past few years.

Almost all pros who have had success both online and live agree that live games a ridiculously soft compared to online games. The reason more online pros don't play live is because you have to live in Las Vegas or Macau to play a the highest stakes, or you have to be invited. Also, the big live games are usually mixed games that don't afford a huge edge to online pros who specialise in a few games.

I don't dispute any of that, I simply dispute whether or not Negreanu is a "top pro," or whether he would be a match for "the top pros."

He is a top pro. Not in HU cash. He couldn't hang with these guys at HU cash, at least not with his current skill in the discipline. But hey, poker is not that narrow of a term. It includes all kinds of disciplines, live and online, horse and stud and hold 'em, the list goes on.

Those same "top pros" who Negreanu wouldn't play HU Cash wouldn't sit in the big game with him.

Arguably bankroll management is the most important skill of a top poker professional, and that's maybe what big-game players are best at.

Also, a small caveat to all of your comment is that live games are soft compared to online games of the same limit. There is no online equivalent of the big game, or at least there wasn't when black friday hit and knocked me out of the professional poker scene.

There is no question that Daniel Negreanu is a very good tournament player, possibly one of the best. I don't think there is any evidence that he is anywhere near the top when it comes to cash games of any popular variety.

And while bankroll management is certainly an important and required skill to endure as a professional poker player at any level, it is by no means what differentiates high-stakes pros from pros at the lower levels. There are lots of small stakes and mid stakes players who practice sensible bankroll management, but who will never acquire the skill necessary to make it at the highest levels. If you want to get a sense of how much skill goes into playing poker at the highest level, you should watch some of Phil Galfond's strategy videos on YouTube (see for instance [1]). Poker strategy has come a long way since Super System[2] and The Theory of Poker[3]. Even players who were considered very good just five years ago, can no longer compete at the highest levels.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khdoSFCQ9iA [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super/System [3] http://www.twoplustwo.com/books/poker/theory-of-poker/

The "Big Game" which was run by Doyle Brunson, Chip Reese, etc had nothing to do with HUNL. It's mostly run hoping that some inexperienced player would drop in. It also almost always ran as a rotation of games to both bring in players who though they had an edge in "their" game and then exploit them in the other games.

The Big Game and online HUNL are both technically "poker" but they are truly completely different games.

I'm fully aware--I was a poker pro for a while in a niche (HUSNGs).

The post I responded to slighted Negreanu, saying he wasn't a "top pro." He certainly is. Not a HU cash pro, of course, but a top pro? Absolutely. A match for the "best pro players?" Certainly.

The "best pro players" in a given niche wouldn't have sat in the big game, and he wouldn't have sat in their specialty. Overall he's the better poker player.

Parent's comment about the big game is accurate; they were all friends waiting for some whale to show up, so playing there doesn't mean you're one of the best players in the world, skill-wise.

Up to 2010, Negreanu had some up and down and as poker theory developed, his game showed a number of pretty big flaws--which he himself admitted. Sure, he was a competent player, so calling him just a 'celebrity' might be misleading, but there were many players in the top online scene who did a lot more of volume and analysis that Negreanu, who pushed more edge and who leaked much less.

I certainly agree with you that Negreanu is a top pro. I thought I was responding to the parent post from marklgr. Current threading looks like I missed a couple of levels.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com