Comments on: Final Table

By: soma.sbn.bz

soma.sbn.bz — Fri, 02 Mar 2007 04:21:34 +0000

High! Interesting site you have here… Thanks for it!
http://thecasinodirectory.sbn.bz/ – casino online

By: Stephen Gordon

Stephen Gordon — Fri, 25 Aug 2006 05:28:18 +0000

Stephen’s entry talked about some evolutionary adaptations that didn’t work out so well for the neanderthals. Did we get better cards than they did? Are we the pinnacle of evolution, or are we like one of Taleb’s lucky traders?

Well, I’d say we got better cards for the given conditions.

A modern human wouldn’t have faired well in up close hand to hand combat with one of these guys. Fortunately – for us – that wasn’t the battlefield we “fought” on.

We reached the pinnacle by having the dumb luck to be smart.

By: Will Brown

Will Brown — Thu, 24 Aug 2006 20:59:14 +0000

Phil, as regards your strategy speculations (in either application) I think you’re facing a bit of an “apples and oranges” problem. You can measure the effectiveness of a particular strategy in a given situation, either truely individual or as a group adhering to a defined strategy, or you can measure the staistical average performance of differing strategies in varying situations. These are not the same things. The “poker strategy” you offer for the AI question is a good example of the inherent conflict (which is different from competition) that is an inescapable component of development of AI. Such an entity must defeat you if only to ensure it’s own continued independence of existence, unless you deliberately set out to develop a willing slave to your interests over it’s own. It’s not clear that is the intent of present AI development efforts, never mind the outcome. This inescapable conflict basicly sums up my present objection to existing AI development efforts. No one has demonstrated why an inherently superior entity wouldn’t exercise it’s superior qualities to it’s own benefit over that of it’s creators and competitors, or how such a thing could be unwillingly constrained to do so.

As regards your on-line poker strategy, here’s a tip; every hand is a separate battle requiring a unique assessment of the field. Statistical analysis doesn’t measure individual performance except as a component of the average. Average players always ultimately lose. Every hand is a statistical universe of it’s own for the players. Most people think about winning the game; the successful strategy is confined to winning the immediate hand under the conditions existing at the time of the deal. The level of concentration and dispassionate examination that requires is quite difficult to maintain for any period of time. I get bored after a few dozen hands at best, but best of luck* to you.

*Luck: the ability of your opponents to maintain a successful strategy themselves.

By: Phil Bowermaster

Phil Bowermaster — Thu, 24 Aug 2006 09:32:43 +0000

Well, if and when I ever figure out how to consistently win online poker via probability theory, you can rest assured that I won’t be writing any blog entries explaining my methods!

This post was supposed to have a lot more Singularity and a lot less poker than it ended up having. I will admit to having a certain fascination with the game. It seems to explain a lot about life.

By: Michael Anissimov

Michael Anissimov — Thu, 24 Aug 2006 07:04:42 +0000

I thought this post was just going to be you talking about how you can use probability theory to get the leg-up on people in online poker, but you actually tied it into Friendly AI at the end. Pleasantly surprising.