Running solvers live. They aren't that fast yet. Far as i know they are in the same spot chess computers were say in the 90s. They could flawlessly solve end game situations fast and you could analyze specific midgame situations with decent confidence in the matter of days. Speaking of computers that were available to public.
Not trolling. Phil has ZERO leverage here.
He Probably should have negotiated this before the challenge if he wanted cameras. Its too late now. Guy doesnt have to agree to anything new.
If the guy was using nothing and Phil asked him to go on camera and the guy still kicked his ass Phil would look like a paranoid fool.
On the flip side the guy could be using “legal” software and have good methods and doesn’t want to give secrets away.
Imagine being the guy who owns a poker site/ training site getting his ass kicked and then asking for the guy to play on camera. Such a terrible look.
In the end whatever site they are playing on should be scanning to make sure nothing shadys going on. If they can’t detect anything then thats it.
Its online poker. Anything goes nowadays. Expect the worst or do not challenge the world to zillion dollar matches
Last edited by chinamaniac; 02-18-2020 at 04:02 AM.
He's saying that solvers aren't fast enough yet. The decision tree is too large. It would take a lot longer than 10 seconds for the solver to give the decision. It's only on rivers where the solver would be useful, as the decision tree is much smaller and can be computed much faster.
Yup. It's like icm push/fold models 10 years ago. At some point no one cared if someone ran those live. It was expected and anyone decent had good idea without cheating.
Rivers are more than 10k times faster than flops to solve. At this point at certain level you should expect people have done their homework or they are cheating. Either way that's not where your edge is.
im not going to bother crunching numbers but rainbow table implementations would likely solve any efficiency concerns regarding decision trees here, just like they did for 30 years of now obsolete encryption standards.
actually i want to roll this back for two reasons;
1) this might hold true for limit games but for pot/no limit its likely just not true
2) neural networks address these sorts of weaknesses far better than the solution i proposed
Last edited by sonatine; 02-18-2020 at 05:04 AM.
"Birds born in a cage think flying is an illness." - Alejandro Jodorowsky
"America is not so much a nightmare as a non-dream. The American non-dream is precisely a move to wipe the dream out of existence. The dream is a spontaneous happening and therefore dangerous to a control system set up by the non-dreamers." -- William S. Burroughs
If you could harness one of those Icelandic warehouses full of GPUs just for this challenge, maybe you could achieve real time results with a small team of operators using publicly available software. It's just not cost efficient. At this rate though it's not that many years.
ps. It's not completely outlandish that there is private software out there that can achieve this with much less power. Still it's far more likely that Galfond was just outmatched by someone that had been using the state of the art analytic tools for the last five years and for unknown reasons Galfond offered 2-1 odds with nothing to back that.
What if in the interim of days off that Galfond is taking that he decides that VeniVidi was possibly cheating and has his poker site manager lock the suspect’s account from being able to withdraw any winnings? While I think this is unlikely, it sure would generate some ridic fireworks in the poker community.
Given that it's Galfond's own site, he would never accuse VeniVidi of cheating, as this would cause more than $1m of reputation damage to his site, even if he saved the $1m in not paying VeniVidi. Also many would accuse him of being a welcher or a sore loser. Furthermore, it is very unlikely VeniVidi is cheating, as he would need an inside man to pull this off.
Highly unlikely scenario, and I doubt Phil is even considering it.
Only watched a little of this so far, but Joey told me he asked two of my questions (the one about Chance Kornuth and the one about ActionFreak):
phil for some reason agreed to some conditions that favor solvers
like resetting to 200bb stacks for example
it's like veni was phil ivey & the chinese chick playing baccarat and the casino (galfond) agreed to all his conditions
Hi Lew!!!
PokerFraudAlert...will never censor your claims, even if they're against one of our sponsors. In addition to providing you an open forum report fraud within the poker community, we will also analyze your claims with a clear head an unbiased point of view. And, of course, the accused will always have the floor to defend themselves.-Dan Druff
Challenge to resume at 8am PST on Wednesday.
He won! Up 183k. Down 716 overall.
1000000000000%...
think I said this earlier in the thread...thought he would be working with sauce or some of his RIO PLO teachers to get his game up to speed...obviously that didn't look like it happened in the first 10K hands, but I would have to think he had guys like that pouring over the first 10K hands trying to figure out a plan of attack...
even if he only manages to hack off 100-200K off of the loss that 20K he spent in penalty days would be money well spent if he used that time to really break down veni's game...
-20K today?
Not bad, and if he can win 50+K the next session that would be great momentum!
There are currently 3 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 3 guests)