[drcode]

> My guess would be that this new version relies more heavily on pro games.

Unlikely, since AlphaGo can now generate large numbers of "pro quality" games from scratch. I think it's far more likely it is an autodidact at this point.

[EGreg]

They solved heads up poker in this manner recently. They claim that the chances anyone can beat this computer in the long run are now infinitesimal.

http://poker.srv.ualberta.ca/about

[spurgu]

Still a good way to go to beat no limit holdem I'd assume.

[xapata]

A group from CMU appears to have solved no-limit heads-up hold-em. It's only a matter of time (and compute power) for a full ring game.

No-limit is far more difficult than limit due to the risk of catastrophic failure. A Nash equilibrium robot won't make any money. A robot must identify a weakness in you, then deviate from equilibrium to exploit your weakness. So long as you're playing deep stack, you could simply play the Bertrand Russel chicken story (echoing David Hume): The farmer feeds it every day, so the chicken assumes that this will continue indefinitely. One day, though, the chicken has its neck wrung and is killed. It's the "maniac" style. Pretend to be an idiot that plays too many hands. Don't lose your shirt. The robot will learn that you're always bluffing. Eventually you have the nuts and you take everything.

[zkhalique]

If you have a deep stack you can bluff, but your chances of winning aren't high if you don't have the nuts after all. You can only lose so many times before it becomes the martingale strategy.

This especially doesn't work against multiple opponents.

[xapata]

Well, I said you should be careful :-)

That's a good strategy against a bad robot, not the latest batch.