Since there will be 120k hands played and the variance will be around 180bb/100, these odds of 1.45 indicate around a 5bb/100 winrate for the humans. According to a simulation I did on http://pokerdope.com/poker-variance-calculator/

Last time humans were not playing to maximize their winrate. The bot is very slow on the river (waiting 30 seconds to check the river in a checkdown pot) so Doug Polk tried to avoid playing rivers by playing with more aggression on earlier streets.

This time the humans will be playing 2 tables so they will be less bored, it could help them.

The top humans have an incentive to not give bot creators valuable information about their play. These guys are from Doug Polk's evil empire so they are one step below elite.

Also, the humans have to play for 20 days for 8 hours a day. The prizepool for the four players is only $200k, so not enough to make these elite players interested.

What could happen is that these players lose and that they make the elite players an offer to beat them for a much larger prizepool.

That is not good :-//

Proof that live poker is rigged.

That is still -17bb/100, hope they will at least get into the 1 digit realm of losing.

The programmer of Libratus said on twitch it runs on a 50 x 28 core CPU per game so it might still be a little far from utilizable and also said that Libratus won't be available for public.

He also said the algorithm is a general algorithm that is not designed to only play poker, so if the only thing it had to do was play poker they could simplify it a lot.

"The bot has weak fundamentals" 3betting T5off is good fundamentals? :D

3betting T5off is good fundamentals? :D

Well he was facing a 2.5x open. Against an 60% uncapped (the 2.5x range is probably somewhat stronger than the limp or 2x range so this is a rough estimation) range T5o has 36.3% equity.
You need realize 150/(150+100+250) = 30% equity. Since T5o plays poorly postflop OOP against a range that is somewhat strong it will realize less than its estimated 36.3%. It could be around break even or slightly losing to call with T5o.

So it makes a lot of sense to 3-bet these hands with mediocre equity and little playability, because these hands benefit the most from getting a fold to the 3-bet.

Also, you seem to suggest that T5o is a 'bad' hand. It is the only hand in no limit hold'em that can make EVERY straight and TWO flushes. That is not bad in my book!

Yeah, but getting called by K9 off pre suggests that you probably only fold out weak hands that you block. And you can and should fold the very bottom of your range against raises. Just bc you cannot call doesnt mean that you should raise in any frequency. I do understand the strategy behind, but reversly you would make therefore 3betting 80% of your range or so profitable with this justification which cannot be a good plan long run wise.

K9o might be quite high up in the bot's range when it makes a 2.5x raise.

T5o is a 70th percentile hand against a random hand. So this hand is not the very bottom of your range. It is also a hand with more equity than hands like 52o, so it will have higher EV when getting called.

Also the bot folds some hands to a 3-bet. The bot (implicitly) designs its defense ranges against 3-bets to make certain hands breakeven between calling. Naturally, the worser a hand gets the lower its EV for calling will be, so relative to calling the EV of 3-betting (and getting a fold) will get higher.

This probably goes down all the way to the very worst hands, but since you are not forced to call (you can fold) these hands will often have folding as their preferred action to a raise.

72o has 30.4% equity against the top 60% and it needs to realize 30% to call a 2.5x, so it almost certainly not a call. But it might be a call or a just slightly losing call against a 2x raise where it only needs to realize 25%. So against a minraise it would more sense to 3-bet hands like 72o, whereas they would still be folds against a 2.5x.

Btw, I'm not claiming that it is optimal or profitable to 3-bet T5o against this bot. I'm only claiming that it is reasonable to 3-bet some hands that are roughly as strong as T5o. I'm also not claiming that the humans have a correct 3-bet frequency. Just claiming that this is not an obvious and large fundamental mistake.

K9 didn't have a double gutter on the TT6J turn.

If you only raise a ten or a strong draw with a flush, you have no bluffs on a diamond turn. And in general your range will be so strong that Jason can fold almost anything, so the bot would face many folds to him raise, so he gets no value.

Also it gives the bot an incentive to add a lot of bluffs to its range. On the river hands with no showdown value that don't block missed flushdraws are probably best to bluff.

So there is an equity chop in an all in situation? That is good. Really minimizes variance.

Dong did very similar. He made a massive 24x 3-bet, and overbet 6000 into 4800 on the flop.
Shove turn (almost) on a blank turn and the bot folds.

Dong doesn't manage to win a stack in the mirrored spot. The bot didn't 3-bet AJo.
Flop checked through, normal bet on the flop (bot traps).
River Dong bets normals, gets raised to 6252 and thinks a while how large he should raise, goes with 18k and the bot snapfolds.

Did humans got outplayed because the AJo didn't 3-bet?

Are the hands mirrorerd or something or is this just coincidence?

Yes, there are two sets of mirror matches.

Yes all hands that Jason gets are mirrored for Dong. So when Jason got AcJs in the big blind on Kh6hQhTsQc against QsTc in hand 221/400, Dong got QsTc in the small blind on Kh6hQhTsQc against AcJs. This goes the same for all hands they get.

And Dan and Jimmy are paired/mirrored in the exact same way. The idea behind this to reduce the variance that you get from a player getting better hands and/or runouts than the bot or vice versa.

He finished up 58k for the session. Kind of interested how did the rest of the guys do. I actually still think there is a chance for humanity in this one.

Will the humans book their first win today? They started the day at -193k.

They very well might, but I still think it is too early to call. It definitely looks like the players have an idea how is libratus playing.

Yeah I'm glad the humans are making some adjustments.
For instance the T5o and A7cc calls, I assume they would now always call with their blockers for trips, no more (contemplating) ubernit folds.

The hand against Jimmy with AA was 36hh.
It went raise 3-bet, 4-bet, fold. Where Dan folded the 63hh obviously.

What happened? I also wondered why there were less hands at the end of the day?

Quoting Jason:

At the start of each session and each table we enter a seed number to randomly generate our hands. Dong and I use the same seed numbers so our hands are mirrored.

I was instructed to enter a several digit seed number and I asked for the CMU representative to confirm it was correct. Coincidentally today I also asked for them to be confirmed on server side so we never make the mistake of playing hands that have to be invalidated.

Unfortunately that happened today on my Session 2 Table 1. As a result Dong and I played two separate strings of 350 hands. The CMU team and us are in agreement the hands have to be invalidated in order to preserve the integrity of the competition. Therefore, Dong and I are now 350 hands behind Jimmy/Dan and we will have to make them up at some point.

From a results oriented point of view it sucks because I won approximately 28k off that table and Dong won approximately 30k. We still had a winning day but unfortunately not as good as we INITIALLY thought. I wanted you guys to know this so you understood why we only gained 40k today when it would appear much more if you were watching on stream.

In order to prevent his from happening again, CMU will now be responsible for setting up every match. Therefore we will no longer have any responsibility on a match setup so if this happens again, it won't be our fault and the hands will have to stand as is.

Remember that there is a reason they play 120k hands. Variance is still massive over the current sample compared to the edge that is to be expected. Because the bot just plays its approximation of Nash equilibrium the humans should be expected to get most of the edge after they find and exploit weaknesses in its programming.

In short it's too early to tell much about the final outcome from the results alone.

I was just making fun of CMU's press release where they called a 9bb/100 loss over 80k hands a tie last time they played.

To be fair to CMU, these bot vs bot matches often were played over much larger samples than 80k. So it is natural there to use 95% certainty to decide if a match is a draw or a win. But elite poker player don't want to play millions of hands HU against a bot that tanks for a minute in a checkdown pot for any amount of money that is afforable to CMU.

For humans beating someone for 9bb/100 over 80k hands is just crushing.

Dong just lost 2k instead of full stack, folding this river.

what the heck!

it's a destiny that bots beat human , the x factor is only time.

No matter how you interpret the data, it can be said that there is at least a tendency that the bot is better than the humans. I d say lets see how the entire thing turns out and then judge. Players will probibably present the final outcome than the researchers and there will always be room for discussion and interpretation.

(

Yeah Jason said he'd like to know what does the bot do overnight when it is 'studying'.

If you turn a selflearning AI that has a set goal, it wont stop calculating and learning until the goal is completly fullfilled. In this case, it probably calculates all possible permutations of boards, ranges and lines.

The AI bots be like:

And it looks like it is further extending its lead. At this point I do think the bot is just too good.

The AI bots be like:

Libratus is unfortunately just way too good.

What does that mean for HU poker?

This is my identity:

.

being better then the humans

Like in playing more accurately?

Its all in the balance. You shouldn't see large differences in strategy between the bot and the humans . It just happens that math is better at solving equilibriums than intuition and bots will always be better at math.

(I'm of the personal opinion (quasi-backed up by PIO) that those big flop overbets are actually mistakes)

'Doesnt adjust'?
Isnt it a self-learning AI that's trying to find the best strategy against these specific players? I wonder does it search for 1 single best strategy against all 4 players or is it adjusting individually? And then, if it is a single one and Dong Kim knows some leaks of other human players he can play more exploitatively in some spots against AI, right? :)

It's playing an approximation of Nash equilibrium that doesn't change during a match, but it's also supposed to be able to learn from the matches over night. From watching Jason's stream for a couple of hours yesterday I got the impression that not even the players know exactly what kind of learning and adjustments it makes to it's strategy from day to day.

dat stastical tie

Impressive by Dong! It's going to be interesting to see if he can keep the lead for the rest of the challenge. His mirror partner Jason is down the most...

You certainly seems to like Ace Poker Solutions... for some reason :p

I think they're playing 120k hands no matter the results in first X amount of hands, so about five more days until it's finished.

its one of the blogs i follow in CC

Will the humans end down one million?

Well looks like yea ://
https://www.twitch.tv/libratus_extra

pretty sure most of us knew this already.

Back to the drawing board!

Yeah games still very soft, players like Mush donk a lot of money to frabby cakes! <3

Winning by double digit bb per 100 is basically melting your HU opponent. And considering that it didnt take that much time from losing 10bb/100 in the previous test to winning 10/100bb amplifies that effect.

Still poker is not dying as long as recreational players come and stay long enough. These are also more likely not to even aknowledge this challenge. I mean rationally, they shouldnt play the game at all when they are losing anyways.

The biggest challenge is on the pokersites preventing bots to play in the game and protecting the intergrity of the game.

So it's a split, right?

Great vid.

I liked it too!

Doug has come along way with his youtube videos I must say, watched the Dan Blitz review and was in stitches.

Come learn PLO :)

The programmer on twitch said that it wouldn't be that hard to beat PLO for the AI.

Not this again. We had the same conversation 4 years ago when Snowie first launched and if anything the games have improved. Even tuff fish prophesied the end of online poker way back in 2007: tuff fish interview — Pocketfives podcast 15 February 2007

Ye, if it was that easy, everyone would go to uni and get a stellar job after, because the curriculum is available to anyone.

Hope it take longer

I've never said it would be easy for an average programmer to do so, but for an entire team from one of the most prestigious universities that already created Libratus it should not be that difficult. Of course I am assuming that based upon what the programmer said on twitch.

Very sad news imo. Hope it won't affect online poker much.

I've heard from a HU pro that this will affect strategies/bet sizings/etc. For example, he said about the crazy way the bot was overbetting the river.

But I don't believe that we're about to see lots of bots at online poker too soon.
We already argue about this.

Very sad statistical tie indeed.

Doug getting a spare tire?
And look at that double chin formation
NIT|Rider

Yeah, I thought he was super fit? Weird. Hope everything is ok with him.

It is called running a business guys, it happens! Doug is doing a lot of good work and crushing the YouTube now~

I lol'd so hard at this video

I think even the bot can't beat these players, this is meaningless. it shows that the bot can already beat 99% human players, it can cause enough threats to online poker.

When Deep Blue faced Kasparov in 1996 and 1997 they took on the world champion, and not, for instance, the #8 ranked player Boris Gelfand.

There is no question that this bot can beat many human players. But to make the claim that AI is better than humans, it needs to beat the best humans. And not just some mi(d)stake regs.

They can't afford the likes of jungle and sauce. Polk said it himself the lack of money was the reason he did not play.

They can't afford the likes of jungle and sauce. Polk said it himself the lack of money was the reason he did not play.

If you pay peanuts, you get monkeys. IBM didn't pay peanuts for Kasparov.

But come on, these are still good high stakes regs. 15bb/100 is such a large difference I am not sure whether jungle would be able to beat it.

Also it could be good news for us. Maybe they will call poker 'solved' and move onto another project.

40and7 spotted.

Pff... All I see is a statistical tie.

hah you might be right on that one ^^