I don't understand Poker.
There is an article on MSNBC about an upcomming game between a World Champion Poker Player and a Computer. It discusses, in part, the mathematics involved in teaching a computer to play poker. So, it's interesting to people who find that sort of thing interesting.
But what I don't understand is how someone can be good at poker. Because I don't "get" it. I don't know what my opponent has, so how can I know if I have something better than what my opponent has?
It's something to discuss.
15 comments:
I have to assume that a computer is playing purely along statistical lines. Which begs the question if a computer can bluff, or more importantly if a computer can be bluffed out of a hand.
You don't have to know what your opponent has so much as what they could have. For most professionals most of the game is actually played in the betting rather than the probabilities, which would make a poker playing computer nearly impossible to match to a human's style of play.
They address that problem by saying, "game theory" in the article.
Apparently "game theory" is to scientists who teach robots poker as "plasma" is to scientists who talk about how realistic Star Wars is.
"begs the quesion"
I don't think it means what you think it means.
That may be true, but I am neither a trained logician nor am I an academic philosopher, which means that I can use said phrase as I have done, with neither remorse nor breaking some unwritten linguistic code.
Tread carefully, Caleb. Kyle has just intuited that he can back up his linguistics with disaffectation. That's step two on the Kyle Threat Scale. Three is sarcasm. Four is a cold stare that makes you question your own position. Five? Strength of Arms. No man has ever come back from a Stage Five argument.
Just sayin.
I'm not claiming disaffection as much as common use. It's relatively well known that "begs the question" means circular logic in scholarly circles, but to the layman, it simply means raises the question, which is the use I intended.
There are laymen on this blog?
Everyone is a layman in one way or another. No one person can possibly be an expert in every given field to be otherwise.
You've apparently never read Aristotle.
He was an expert in everything.
His cooking? Superb.
times have changed since aristotle, and information has increased at an exponential rate. In his day, yes he was an expert in everything, but today's world it is a near impossibility. And don't compare yourself to Aristotle, it would only serve to humiliate you.
One of my philosophy professors talked about that problem. Back in "the day" people really could be experts at everything. But now things have become so specialized that people can only be experts in very narrow fields, like one ancient philosopher or one type of snake or one school of cooking.
It's sort of problematic.
It is problematic. There are so many things I want to be able to experience and know, but unfortunately, I am not immortal and therefore only have a finite amount of time to do so. I would love to be a Rennaissance man, and strive to be so, but I just don't think it is feasible :(
Aristotle knew no potato! I call his chef-technique into question!
Point of order! Point of order!
We had a Rennaissance man as the AD for one of the halls in Crowe.
He was a ninja who played violin.
Post a Comment