On: CMU's Libratus builds substantial lead in Brains v...

[smohnot]

http://motherboard.vice.com/read/a-poker-playing-supercomput... Lost by $732,713, with $170 million bet... pretty close. But you're right, a victory by a chip will be declared a win

[dgacmu → smohnot]

That's both an unfair slight to the ethics of the researchers involved, as well as inaccurate. They've published in advance their criteria for declaring a victory vs a tie: http://www.cardplayer.com/poker-news/21215-poker-bot-doubles...

which is: "If after 120,000 hands either Libratus or the humans are one standard deviation above break-even, they will have won the competition with “statistical significance.”"

(I'm a professor at CMU, but I have nothing to do with this research or competition.)

[oculusthrift → dgacmu]

we mostly mean by the media. Story if they barely lose "Poker bot statistically ties pros". Story if they are one chip up: "Poker bot leads/beats pros"

[andrewprock → dgacmu]

One standard deviation is not enough to declare that one strategy is better than another.

[oculusthrift → smohnot]

also important to note they made the players play thousands of hands over weeks and many said how they played in a way to shorten the time they had to play. thereby not necessarily showing their "true" skill.

[patrick_haply → oculusthrift]

> also important to note they made the players play thousands of hands over weeks

To your point, I wonder how they account for mental and physical fatigue. To a computer it makes no difference to play thousands of hands over such a long period of time or hundreds of hands over the course of a single day. Humans on the other hand don't have the same attention span as a computer.

[oculusthrift → patrick_haply]

not to mention that people play differently with fake money than real money.

[thefalcon → oculusthrift]

On the Twitch Stream, Jason Les "promises" that "even though this is not real money" it really matters to him.