No, Really, I Got My PhD. For Playing Poker Online
from the uh,-yeah,-it's-my-thesis... dept
We've noted in the past the popularity of online poker among college students, a trend that is a bit worrisome. We've also written about the growing popularity of poker bots -- programs that try to play better hands of poker (even to the point where the real "challenge" in online poker is in tweaking your bot, not in playing your hand). So, it really should come as no surprise to see college researchers starting to look at "academic" projects to build better poker bots. As the article notes, it can be seen as a challenge even more difficult than creating chess playing computer systems, since there's a lot of unknown information that needs to be processed as well. Still, if new legislation makes it a felony to play online poker, will this research become illegal as well?
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Raise the ante
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Easy if
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Easy if
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Easy if
You should figure out why you should sponsor me in the WSOP every year for the rest of your life, starting now.
We have a week.
Crunch those numbers friend.
Now that make sense.
Cast Out Your Old Tired Expectations.
Poker is art not math. My pet coyote knows that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Easy if
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
bots?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But I know what you're thinking.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Music to my ears...
Still, to build a bot of my own, I'd stick to:
1: playing a lot of online poker
2: discreet probabilities
3: artificial intell (if the bot can decide it's strategy has been found out and develop a new one, that would be pretty nice)
A mathematical mind and poker experience are really the most important for this task, and imho the only thing worth a PHD would be developing the AI.
Now look what you've done, I feel like grabbing a math book now...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: collegpokerassn
That depends on how many kids you're putting through college.
Jokes aside, I really don't see anyone worried about it and who tf cares about PhD's these days anyway -- most of the rich folk I know dropped out of whatever they were into to go get rich.
Show me results, not degrees (and cash me out).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: collegpokerassn
Or do we need more PhD's to investigate the phenomenon of addictive behaviors and reduce the damage of addictive behaviors to society? Do we want to live in a neanderthalic society where a lucky few make billions, while everyone else is left in the dust? Or can we create a more fair society where people are rewarded in direct proportion to their work?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: collegpokerassn
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: collegpokerassn
You would leach off the success of the hard work of others, for a more "fair" soceity "rewarded in direct proportion" -- Marxist words if ever there were any.
There are no "lucky few" who make billions -- Luck is your crutch, your excuse for not succeeding where others have.
And yes, I have an education, more degrees than I need. Your PhDs who need to study addictive behaviors don't do it for the "betterment of society" they do it for a f*ing paycheck, and then make an argument for another study (to keep their job).
Get off your altruistic horse and see what really makes the world turn -- hard work and money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: collegpokerassn
You would leach off the success of the hard work of others, for a more "fair" soceity "rewarded in direct proportion" -- Marxist words if ever there were any.
So do you oppose working hard to make more money? Should businessmen just be forked over a welfare check from the government for starting a worthless company? I hold you responsible for your own words -- after all, you oppose education.
There are no "lucky few" who make billions -- Luck is your crutch, your excuse for not succeeding where others have.
You mean CEOs of companies who make billions are not clubby little affairs in which friends give each other jobs, for the honor of doing nothing?
And yes, I have an education, more degrees than I need. Your PhDs who need to study addictive behaviors don't do it for the "betterment of society" they do it for a f*ing paycheck, and then make an argument for another study (to keep their job).
Funny, if you knew public health, you would know that a paycheck mentality wouldn't last long in this field. People who want more money can go work for pharmaceuticals or insurance companies whenever they want to. Grants are very hard to get in public health, and only the most dedicated researchers survive. Research into addiction disorders are to help people, including businessmen, from their self-destructive behaviors. Do we want to live in a society where CEOs plunder billions from the government to feed their cocaine habits, or a society where people who do honest work make more?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
poker
PS, leave dorphus alone he was just trying to point out that sometimes things sound "stupid" when in fact they are highly complicated, and require much dedication and skill from the academic sector, which these days rarely gets the respect that it deserves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
correction
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In response to Adrien, it just so happens that youre magical "artificial intell," as you casually refer to it, is based largely on math and computer science concepts that you can't begin to comprehend.
If having a goal, a holy grail, for struggling to understand, AND APPLY, ideas that 99% of the world's population has never even heard of is worrisome, let's shut down the world's collection of facilities for higher education.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No, it wont
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Of course it won't. The new legislation won't outlaw playing poker online. What it will outlaw is gambling online(poker or otherwise). In states that don't allow gambling, poker isn't illegal now. The thing that is illegal is gambling using poker. Now most of those states don't enforce gambling laws against individual citizens having a poker night at their house. They usually only go after organized commercial gambling. But just because they don't enforce a law under certain conditions doesn't invalidate the law.
The point is, poker isn't illegal anywhere in the US. Gambling is illegal in most states.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response of sorts
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
1/ you are uneducated, and/or
2/ your parents ignore(d) you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
dorphus you are stupid and you missed the point
So what you are saying is that I am the one percent? Hell no, I am the person that believed, tried, and succeeded. Get a job, walk the earth, do something then read fact sheets.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dorpus' defense
Case in point:
"you are uneducated (followed by) your parents ingnored you"
How does this detract credibility from the argument? It only substantiates it because the commenter here is incapable of engaging in real substancial discourse.
"It is book worm moronic fools that lack common sense.."
Book worm is a term loosely used to describe an education gap. In fact, "student" could easily be substituted here. While at the end we see a play here on one of the greatest misconceptions of the uneducated. The commenter believes that because a man posses what he would call "book smarts" that he is incapable of possessing "street smarts" ie. common sense. You are sorrily mistaken my friend, there are those of us who can be in both schools of thought at once, doesn't that send chills down the back of your spine?
"Walk the Earth"
I really don't know what this hoping to accomplish.
"It was because of my successful business and my passion for computer science, not the education"
Well if that isn't a contradiction I don't know what is. Your education has nothing to do with your claimed success? What good is a passion without the tool to address it (education)?
People, this is not a hard concept to grasp. We live in a merit-based society. Education, diligence and intuition pave the way to success. To clarify, the trully successful do not measure their worth in monetary value.
If you want my opinions on the ACTUAL article, you an read up and find Jason.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hehehe, the rhetorical eloquence of businessmen, oh. In truth, I have had plenty of good jobs before. If there is any such thing as a "hardworking businessman" in this world, let me know -- during my 10 years in the "real world", including 5 in Silicon Valley, every businessman I ever met was someone who postured about "80 hour work weeks", but in reality spent 20 hours a week in the office, yakking to their friends on the cell phone, going to the gym for "executive meetings", and made employees go to stupid pop psychology seminars which passed for "management".
Business people, when threatened, will brag about million dollar homes they don't own, the Mercedes they leased. A waikiki condo?? Waikiki is for people with no class who want to show off money, usually gangsters or athletes who have no idea how to hold a fork properly. What you don't hear the business crowd talk about is how their contribution to the world made it better. They will spout nonsense about how "greed is good" and "free markets".
So what you are saying is that I am the one percent? Hell no, I am the person that believed, tried, and succeeded. Get a job, walk the earth, do something then read fact sheets.
With an attitude like that toward statistics, it is unlikely you will stay in the 1% for long. You will join the long graveyard of other failed businessmen spouting their cliches about "lies, damned lies, and statistics". Statistics, when used properly, is far more powerful than human intuition. The bigger a business gets, the more it will need to depend on sophisticated analyses to survive.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Prime Statement
This discussion has gone so far off-topic that the only line in it that makes sense anymore is the one Jason made :
"we can now thank for knowing that we are all now less intelligent for having read their insights."
I have been tracking quite a few discussion threads here for a while now though I haven't actually contributed much. This has got to be one of the most pointless discussions yet. Having said that though, I have to say also that the initial topic of discussion about the PhD. in Poker seemed like a very interesting topic, and I expected some really good back and forth on this issue.
What a waste. :(
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hacking
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
what
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Semi-random comment inspired by the comments..
Have you ever read "The Hacker Ethic" by Pekka Himanen?
If not, I think it would interest you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That was how I paid for grad school.
It could have been worse, I might have been a business major.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
B) Just because someone knows about something you don't (or can't) understand is a pretty lame reason to denigrate higher education. In fact, Ph.D.s gave us things that you might agree are pretty nifty, such as Google, plastic, space flight, and many vaccines.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So the hell what?
but in consolation, i would think that PhD's would get the better prison jobs and not have to slow dance with Bruno near as often.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
NoMorePoints.com
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
some personal insight
Now back to the topic at hand. The question of legality for the research shouldn't even be a question. Take nuclear research for example. The manufacturing of nuclear devices that aren't sanctioned by a government is illegal, yet the research that goes into it is legal as long as it stays away from the distructive propertys. Therefore using that example I can conclude that as long as the research for these bots isn't going towards anything that directly breaks what ever law, the legality shouldn't be questioned.
Now as far as online poker is concerened when there is an exchange of monitary funds, I really can't say because I haven't read up on interent gambling laws, but I would assume that it would fall into what ever district or state you were located in when you are gambling as was said earlier on.
Unfortuantly the only catch to this that I can see is that to truly test a bot one would have to put it up against a large number of variations and forms of play and the only way that I can see of doing this is to have it play online against multiple people in multiple seasions, and that's where you run into legal problems.
Finally on the topic of PHD's in creating these bots, to be frank I think its a great idea, this coming from a programmer. The thought process that goes into creating any bot especially one that deals directly with other people is something that most people can't even fathom. I've seen a few examples on the subject and may I just say "HOLY CRAP!!" I wouldn't even know where to begin. Any bot created for the study of other people's reactions to certian events and then to counter with its own reaction, can be tweaked for many differnet uses, so if this is a good way to get started I'm all for it.
That's just my uneducated two cents on the matter.
(sorry for any bad spelling, can't spell to save my life)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
mstygeba efia
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
until then a few bright sparks will make a fortune, as a reward for comming up with models for scamming the sites.
a few others will be paid ok for fighting the other side of the line.
buyer beware?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In most states, playing poker is not against the law. The key to the law is "does the house make money".
Host a poker game in your basement, provide beer, food, whatever, and you generally are not breaking any laws, no matter how high the stakes can get. Take any cut of the pot or charge admission, no matter how small, even if its to cover expenses, and the rules change.
If the house takes money, then it generally needs to be approved by the state.
Training computers to play poker is a pretty interesting topic, and would be effective against the lesser players, but would probably not do too well against a seasoned player that would shift strategies, go against their normal play, etc. That being said, poker is mostly about the cards, so a computerized program would only improve its odds by a few percentage points. Course, Vegas gladly accepts 2 to 3 percent advantage, so anything that works.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]