Comments

• M

  MAM4

  August 2017 edited August 2017

  For the ring games against the bots?

  The max buy-ins should definitely be re-sized to 150 to 200 BB. To have every level (1-2, 2-5, 5-10, etc.) be 100 BB max makes them all redundant. You're always playing basically the same game. A 200 BB max (1000 in a 2-5 game) would make small pocket pairs and some suited connectors more playable in position.

  I'd add that a couple of other nice additions would be:

  1. having the bots buy in with variable amount from a table min to a table max so that you have to be more aware of stack depths when choosing your plays

  and

  1. when you fold and "zip to end" having the hand play out in background and the chip stacks readjust between the bots based on who wins the hand.
• 

  SteveBlay

  August 2017

  Thanks for these suggestions, I'll see what we can do to prioritize this. It will not be an easy task because the virtual opponents will need some additional coding to play correctly at 200x deep, which is why it hasn't gotten done yet. But I agree, it is about time. We might go up to 150x but not all the way to 200x just yet.

  To have every level (1-2, 2-5, 5-10, etc.) be 100 BB max makes them all redundant.

  The purpose of that is simply to simulate the blind level at which you are are comfortable playing.

  Steve
• M

  MAM4

  August 2017 edited August 2017

  Steve,

  Thanks for the response and consideration.

  One other question. We established in another thread that the bots (at least at the highest levels) will adjust to how they perceive you to play. But do the bots adjust their play based on their position in a ring game to the other bots?

  To me, part of the skill of "reading a table" is being able to understand how all players at the table are adjusting to all other players at the table, not just to me. If an otherwise "normal" bot (neither overly tight, loose, aggressive, or passive) finds itself to the right of a "loose, aggressive bot" does the "normal" bot tighten up its range to become more "tight" or "tight aggressive"? If it did, I'd have to, for example, account for that in terms of what hands I might choose to play when otherwise "normal" bot puts in a preflop raise.

  I'd also suggest that if the bots are not adjusting to each other, a full ring game becomes a situation where the field of bots is almost subtly colluding against the human player by only focusing on how to adjust and optimize their play again the human player while disregarding what counter-plays those adjustments might leave them open to from the rest of the bots. At the toughest levels, a "you vs. the world" scenario certainly makes the game almost unbeatable.

  Just a thought.
• 

  apt_gs

  August 2017

  @SteveStokely said:
  Thanks for these suggestions, I'll see what we can do to prioritize this. It will not be an easy task because the virtual opponents will need some additional coding to play correctly at 200x deep, which is why it hasn't gotten done yet. But I agree, it is about time. We might go up to 150x but not all the way to 200x just yet.

  Steve

  Thank you for at least considering it. Almost all of the 1-2 games that I play when I am in LV allow for a $300 max which equates to 150x, and the 1-3 games allow for $500 which is a little bit more than 150x. I didn't realize that it would require additional coding because I assumed that the bots were already taking the implied odds into account.
• 

  SteveBlay

  August 2017

  They do take implied odds into account, it's just that deep stack play requires more foresight -- thinking ahead about setting up plays on future streets, etc. And of course different pre-flop hands go up and down in value depending on how deep the stacks are as well, so it requires some adjustments even pre-flop. Anyway, I do hope to work on it soon.