Less than I would, as I see no point in learning the rules of this overly complicated chink game, as it can be considered a solved problem. In fact, I see no point in playing any other game than Go.
>>7
Poker has been theoretically solved for decades, it's just nobody had the computational power to put it into practice until a while ago. Anybody on here that has read a book on combinatorics and played enough games of poker to know basic strategy could easily create a perfect playing poker AI. What is more interesting and is a current area of interest is when two bots are playing at the same table and are able to communicate their knowledge privately, or creating a more general algorithm that accepts any amount of bots playing at the same table.
Name:
Anonymous2009-04-25 4:15
>>8
You completely neglect bluffing. A theoretically perfect poker AI is worth little if it's completely predictable. A skilled human player can get a lot more money out of a table of fools than a computer could. The same goes for two skilled players collaborating.
You'd probably get the most bang for your buck with a computer assisted human player (or a collaboration of such).
Name:
Anonymous2009-04-25 4:30
>>9
A skilled human player can also lose a lot of money to a table of fools. Over a short period of time the human may rack up more winnings but in the long run he can and will lose everything if he plays off emotion.
Name:
Anonymous2009-04-25 4:49
>>8
It's only within the past year that Polaris was able to win vs humans. There's a lot more to it than just "basic strategy," poker isn't blackjack.
Name:
Anonymous2009-04-25 5:54
>>10
So I guess it's kind of like rain on your wedding day, huh?
Name:
Anonymous2009-04-25 19:23
But rain on your wedding day does not affect in any measurable way the performance of the marriage.