Hey Jenny: I’m interested to hear what my “cousin-in-law” Dave has to say about this poker-playing robot. I almost think it’s a flawed experiment to begin with, because the whole point of being a good poker player (as I understand it) is to read your opponent. The cards you get shouldn’t matter at all. But a computer just can’t (as far as I know) interpret the millions of subtle bits of body language that humans are capable of. And conversely, there’s no way for the human to get a read on his opponent’s game other than by the card’s he’s shown. It just seems like more of a stunt than anything.
2 responses
Dave: Really there are two schools of thought on the subject. One is strictly math-based, i.e. playing the cards/odds & calculating all the statistics against any opponent or opponents. In this type, the computer has the obvious edge like chess or checkers. The second is a game of human interaction. There are many pros who can (and do) beat opponents pretty handily with absolutely no regard to the cards they are dealt. They are strictly playing the player. The best players have a great marriage of both, giving them the ability to take advantage of a great deal, or their opponent’s weekness. Phil Laak is regarded as one of the best minds (mathmatically speaking) in poker today. His uncanny ability to know the odds in any given situation is a big advavntage, but chance plays a part too.
The double blind structure of it is pretty cool. I think Phil Laak has already conceded he may not win, which shows less confidence in his own game. Going into any contest with that attitude is going to effect the outcome. The computer won’t have that worry. Point: computer. Phil Laak is dating Jennifer Tilly. Point: Phil Laak.
It’s a toss up.
Hahahaha… I love the conclusion. 🙂