AI vs GO

[betovernetcapper]

Have recently read a few books on game theory & while computers have been able to beat experts in chess, checkers & even poker, as of two years ago the game of Go was not in the wheelhouse of AI. That has just changed as Google's DeepMind has trashed the top 5 GO players in the world!

I'm far from an expert on such stuff, but this seems like a major leap forward.

[Robert Fischer]

That is so cool.


If I'm reading correctly, AlphaGo is using Monte Carlo Tree Search (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monte_Carlo_tree_search).

[Jess Hawsen Arown]

Have recently read a few books on game theory & while computers have been able to beat experts in chess, checkers & even poker, as of two years ago the game of Go was not in the wheelhouse of AI. That has just changed as Google's DeepMind has trashed the top 5 GO players in the world!

I'm far from an expert on such stuff, but this seems like a major leap forward.

Computers cannot beat anything. They are ignorant machines--just like vacuum cleaners. It is their programmers that enable them to do amazing things.

Like other machines, all computers can do is turn on and turn off. A long time ago, clever humans realized that by aligning off and on to mean different things based on their sequence, the computer age began.

[_______]

Heads up limit hold'em is essentially solved in the sense that there is an algorithm that can beat the best human players. There is an undeniable "best practice" for this specific circumstance and any deviation from it will be a long term drag on a bankroll.

But there is no algo that can consistently beat multiple players in limit. Or beat a single opponent in no limit.

And it goes without saying, no one is even trying to beat any of the other game varieties that fall under the term "poker".

So including poker in the universe of "solved" games requires an asterisk.

[Delta Cone]

http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-computers-poker-20170307-story.html

Seems the computers are making progress in heads up no-limit.

[betovernetcapper]

Heads up limit hold'em is essentially solved in the sense that there is an algorithm that can beat the best human players. There is an undeniable "best practice" for this specific circumstance and any deviation from it will be a long term drag on a bankroll.

But there is no algo that can consistently beat multiple players in limit. Or beat a single opponent in no limit.

And it goes without saying, no one is even trying to beat any of the other game varieties that fall under the term "poker".

So including poker in the universe of "solved" games requires an asterisk.


A team from the University of Alberta's Computer Poker Research Group created a program called DeepStack that did just that in December, 2016. It's written in Science Magazine. There are other AI Poker programs that consistently can beat expert players. They are programed with the usual rules & pot odds & such, but with the programs playing millions of hands, they have "learned" how to bluff & employ strategies that seem counter intuitive. Google it.:)

[_______]

http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-computers-poker-20170307-story.html

Seems the computers are making progress in heads up no-limit.

News to me. Thanks for the link.

[thaskalos]

Will horse-betting be the next casualty of this AI onslaught?

[Dave Schwartz]

Will horse-betting be the next casualty of this AI onslaught?

I sure hope so. :)

[betovernetcapper]

I sure hope so. :)

DITTO
:)

[barahona44]

Will horse-betting be the next casualty of this AI onslaught?

Before I answer that question, I have to download "R2-D2's Santa Anita Tip Sheet".:)

[DeltaLover]

Will horse-betting be the next casualty of this AI onslaught?


This question can only be answered empirically rather and not by using logic and analytical thinking.

Given the nature of the game, he who will eventually solve this game will do his best to conceal his findings so it is possible (at least in theory) to never find out. Of course this “solution” can very well become obsolete very quickly as more people will discover and start using it.

More than this, it is also possible for the game to simply be unbeatable and impossible for a machine learning / AI approach to solve it. You can understand why something like this is possible if you think of any unbeatable game (like dice, baccarat for example); no matter how large data or how sophisticated algorithms you will use it is simply impossible to find a winning solution in a game like this . Something similar is quite possible to exist in racing, especially given the huge percentage of takeout which multiplies tremendously the required scaling that the crowd needs to be beaten.

Regarding my last statement about the effect of takeout, I am not sure that decreasing it, will necessary lead to better results. In contrary I tend to believe that lowering the takeout can very well make things much worse for the winning or break even bettor. Think about!

[porchy44]

In contrary I tend to believe that lowering the takeout can very well make things much worse for the winning or break even bettor. Think about!

I would think that statement fly's in the face of common sense for obvious reasons. I am not sure what you are getting at ?

[DeltaLover]

I would think that statement fly's in the face of common sense for obvious reasons. I am not sure what you are getting at ?

So, what do you think will happen to a break-even player of the game as we know it today, if takeout will be lowered significantly?

[betovernetcapper]

tSo, what do you think will happen to a break-even player of the game as we know it today, if takeout will be lowered significantly?

If the takeout were to be eliminated entirely, player who are breaking even would have an ROI of $1.17. Any reduction or rebate could do nothing but help the player.

The HKJC gives a rebate of 9% on losing bets to large betters. A number of betting syndicates strive to break even. When your betting a quarter of a million or so in a day that 9% is significant.

[DeltaLover]

t

If the takeout were to be eliminated entirely, player who are breaking even would have an ROI of $1.17. Any reduction or rebate could do nothing but help the player.

The HKJC gives a rebate of 9% on losing bets to large betters. A number of betting syndicates strive to break even. When your betting a quarter of a million or so in a day that 9% is significant.

So, you believe that the mythical bettor who shows some kind of profitability under today's conditions will maintain the same advantage?

I completely disagree.

The lower the takeout, the most sophisticated bettors will be attracted to the game, eventually converting it to a crap shoot. Based on this, it is way more probable that the break-even player you are referring to, will remain with same result if the takeout is eliminated completely or loose at the (very low) takeout rate .

[porchy44]

So, you believe that the mythical bettor who shows some kind of profitability under today's conditions will maintain the same advantage?

I completely disagree.

The lower the takeout, the most sophisticated bettors will be attracted to the game, eventually converting it to a crap shoot. Based on this, it is way more probable that the break-even player you are referring to, will remain with same result if the takeout is eliminated completely or loose at the (very low) takeout rate .


Lower takeout helps the bettor. That is a mathematical certainty. "The game being converted to a crap shoot because of lower takeout is some type of theory of yours.

[DeltaLover]

Lower takeout helps the bettor. That is a mathematical certainty. "Converting to a crap shoot" is some type of theory of yours.

Yes it is my theory of course and I also find your comment about "mathematical certainty" very hilarious and naive!

What makes you to believe that lowering the takeout, the game will not attract much more sophisticated gamblers, raising the standards way above the existing level?

Based in what I am reading in this and other similar boards, the vast majority of the horse players have no clue about the betting side of the game. Having people still in search for their "best handicapping factor" or lacking the basic ability to understand the difference between a high ROI and high profitability or not having a complete result database or the ability to realize the tremendous benefits of it is enough evidence to me that their skills are extremely antiquated and primitive.

Even the very few of them who claim that they are break even or are small winners (personally I do not believe anyone of them), will become extremely easy prey for any gambler who will have a good understanding of machine learning and a good background in computing. The reason these type of players are kept out of the game is more than anything else the takeout which shifts their interest to games like poker, sports betting or forex.

[porchy44]

Delta, this is actually a hypothetical discussion on "significant takeout reduction affects". In reality, I have never heard of ANY track serious about significantly reducing takeout.

[DeltaLover]

Delta, this is actually a hypothetical discussion on "significant takeout reduction affects". In reality, I have never heard of ANY track serious about significantly reducing takeout.

I agree. Hypothetical discussions are not the best way to consume your energy..

[betovernetcapper]

So, you believe that the mythical bettor who shows some kind of profitability under today's conditions will maintain the same advantage?

I completely disagree.

The lower the takeout, the most sophisticated bettors will be attracted to the game, eventually converting it to a crap shoot. Based on this, it is way more probable that the break-even player you are referring to, will remain with same result if the takeout is eliminated completely or loose at the (very low) takeout rate .

Your correct that it would attract more sophisticated bettors, but it would also attract more unsophisticated bettors. Players tend to gravitate to games that have a smaller house edge. As an example, you would never have to stand in line to play the Wheel of Fortune at a casino, but you might at a blackjack table if they were offering the game with only 2 decks. A smaller takeout over a period of time would attract more bettors of all stripes, much like a rising tide lifts all ships.

[green80]

Delta, this is actually a hypothetical discussion on "significant takeout reduction affects". In reality, I have never heard of ANY track serious about significantly reducing takeout.

Wrong, the most obvious example is Oaklawn and their reduced takeout on show bets that are made on track this meet. The result was a nice increase in their on track show betting pools. The bettors could see on the mutual payouts the different prices for on track and off track show wagers. Op announced this as a success. Also several tracks have reduced takeouts on some their pic 3, and pick 4-5-6 bets. I would call Oaklawn's effort a "serious" attempt in takeout reduction.

[porchy44]

Wrong, the most obvious example is Oaklawn and their reduced takeout on show bets that are made on track this meet. The result was a nice increase in their on track show betting pools. The bettors could see on the mutual payouts the different prices for on track and off track show wagers. Op announced this as a success. Also several tracks have reduced takeouts on some their pic 3, and pick 4-5-6 bets. I would call Oaklawn's effort a "serious" attempt in takeout reduction.

The only problem is you have to be on-track to take advantage of this 17% to 10% reduction in show money takeout.