Online Poker's Remaining Durability and the Authenticity of Risks Posed by Solvers, Hints, and Artificial Intelligence
The Myth of Poker's Demise
Poker ain't goin' nowhere, cowboy. Let's dive into the reasons this classic card game has got a long road ahead.
The question of poker's demise frequently pops up around the concept of a mathematical solution, which means that in poker, especially online, we could theoretically have unbeatable players who can't be bested. If too many players opt for GTO-solutions, this might make it impossible to earn a steady living from poker.
So, do real-time assistance tools (RTAs) put the kibosh on making bank from poker?
Well, the idea of real-time assistance isn't novelties, folks. It predates the commercial days of solvers. Even before Black Friday 2011, there were players declaring poker was cooked cuz everybody was playin' better. But after Black Friday, when conditions worsened, it became a catch-phrase, and a series of subsequent events led many to believe the opportunity to turn a profit in poker was over.
One of these notable events was the news that, in 2015, the AI-bot Cepheus supposedly "solved" poker (but only limit hold'em head-up). Players who were already questioning the profitability of poker at that time saw it as the final nail in the coffin: "We all knew this was coming - poker has finally been cracked. No more chances to make money playing it."
But did the appearance of Cepheus actually mean we were done for? This bot was designed solely for limit hold'em head-up, but even then, it didn't concern the majority of players. Yeap, there were some old-school LHE grinders in online poker, but most of 'em didn't play head-up. They sticked to 9-max or 6-max.
From Strong Solutions to the bot Cepheus
Another interesting fact 'bout Cepheus is that it didn't actually crack HU LHE, either. It was a so-called weak (generalized) solution. There are several levels of solution in game theory - ultrastrong, weak, and strong. Cepheus' strategy for HU LHE was a weak solution. It knew how to play perfect-like poker when the situation was part of the GTO tree. But against an opponent who played terribly and made lots of mistakes, Cepheus didn't necessarily know the best move (though it usually still won against such opponents).
Now, let's jump to the realm of no-limit hold'em. We've got access not only to solvers but also to pre-calculated solutions. If we want an approximation of GTO for any spot, it can be done in a jiffy. The question is, what kind of solution are we talkin' about here? It's clear that a solver's solution ain't complete and lies somewhere between strong and ultra-weak.
Simply put, solvers' calculations are ultra-weak. Even the most-advanced solvers today can't even comp' what Cepheus achieved in 2015. Cepheus' solutions were weak, not ultra-weak, because they only considered an ideal GTO tree if both players hadn't made mistakes. They didn't consider situations where opponents played non-GTO moves.
Why having solvers doesn't mean the game is cracked
Analyzing further, it can be concluded that solvers' calculations are ultra-weak. Even the most-advanced solvers today can't compare to the brilliance of Cepheus back in '15. Cepheus' solutions were weak, not ultra-weak, because they only considered all possible actions as part of the ideal GTO tree for head-up limit hold'em. It even considered all possible sizings for bets and raises.
The decision tree for limit hold'em head-up is fairly small, but it's only small in comparison to others. Even in this discipline, the tree is massive: there are countless action development scenarios, possible flops, turns, and rivers. To paint a picture, Cepheus was a supercomputer with 48 processors, and it took a whopping 68 days of continuous work to "crack" limit hold'em heads-up.
The decision tree for no-limit hold'em is orders of magnitude more complex. Technically, a full solution should consider all possible sizings from checking to all-in, all possible stack depths, and so on. Even if we limit calculations to a stack depth of 100 BB, the most powerful computers today might struggle to crack it in a human lifetime (and we're talking about a weak solution, not a full one like Cepheus). And that's just for 100 BB, let alone 150 BB, 200 BB...
What are solvers and will they kill online poker?As you can see, there's no chance of finding even a weak solution for no-limit hold'em 6-max in our lifetime. On the flip side, a ultra-weak solver solution is still a pretty strong strategy that most people can't beat. Plus, GTO solutions are already quite common among players, as solvers or pre-calculated GTO solutions are now available to everyone, including cheaters.
So, does online poker need a full solution to stop being profitable? Here's the scoop...
Do Real-Time Assistance (RTA) tools win in the long run?
First off, using RTA is against the poker room rules, and rooms have their security services watchin'. If you're not sneaky, you'll eventually get booted. Most players don't even know how to hide from the security net. The main point is, there's only so much cheating that can exist in a room without even the most inept security service sniffin' something strange and startin' to ban suspicious players.
RTAs come in two flavors - automatic (solver-bot) and manual (a human pushin' buttons based on solver advice). The principle of a manual assistant sounds subtle: just do what the solver tells ya. But in practice, even if we know the solution for a certain spot, it's often complex and filled with loads of mixed strategies, which makes it tough to grasp and execute, especially if you're not a super strong player. Plus, it takes a heap of time to implement these strategies, as each new spot needs to be manually inputted into the solver, which knocks down the hands played per hour.
How Real-Time Advisors Work and Their Threat to Online Poker
Another important thing to note is that the implementation of ultra-weak solver solutions in practice isn't highly effective in terms of big win rates. Data from online players shows that those with the highest win rates are the ones who play exploitatively. Furthermore, there are debates over whether ultra-weak solutions can even turn your game profitable in certain gaming environments, given the rake. It's possible that in some games, GTO strategy only yields modest profit.
Playing like this long-term leads to exhaustion due to the constant solver comparisons, little action, and negatively impact on profits. Why stick to it for 12 hours a day, risking being kicked out by the security team? Most folks would rather grab a nine-to-five job.
Automatic advisors might seem better, but do you have the programming skills to create an RTA-bot? Or know how to share information between the solver runnin' on two computers? Or how to make the computer press buttons in the poker client automatically?
The joke's on ya: a player skilled enough to create an RTA-bot is likely also skilled enough to honestly take the online poker world by storm. They probably already whip high-limit games without the aid of a cheat tool.
While it's hard to beat someone who skillfully uses an RTA-advisor, these cheating tools are relatively easy for the security service to detect. Plus, the high barrier to entry keeps these programs from widespread use - the average person lacks both the technical skills and computational resources. Therefore, only a small percentage of players can execute this kind of cheating.
Combating GTO-bots is still possible through game selection.
In poker, the presence of better players isn't much of a problem. We can't all be the best. There'll always be superior players in our pool, but that doesn't mean we can't win. Game selection has always been a key part of poker, so if we suspect someone of cheating, it's best not to play against 'em. We should choose opponents that we have a clear skill advantage over. And as long as we stick to this principle, a small percentage of the field cheating isn't overly concerning - we can still win money.
NLHE ain't the only online poker variation. If players have figured out ways to cheat in NLHE using RTA assistants, these tools only work in NLHE.
In the worst-case scenario, where every player in NLHE uses a decent GTO solution, we can simply move on to another discipline where calculating the perfect strategy is more difficult.
By the way, even if we're up against an RTA bot using a weak solution, we still have a decent chance of beatin' it. Its solution ain't perfect, and if we know its weak points, we can still show a positive win rate against it.
If we think about this a little deeper, we come to the question - does the abundance of GTO information (including pre-calculated solutions) really make players better? So far, the learning curve has been gradually improving, with the average online player learning some new tricks every year. But with the deluge of GTO information in modern poker, I'm not so sure it actually enhances player quality. Certainly, people discuss more complex strategies than before, but does this translate to stronger games? Maybe it's adding confusion or even worsenin' the play of average players. If improvement used to be about simple exploitative strategies, today's progress involves a mix of solver tables and frequencies that's harder to grasp.
Conclusion
So, is modern poker dead? Nah, not by a long shot. If it is, it's only in certain disciplines. The risks of cheating are lower than the risk of major poker rooms establishing a monopoly on online traffic and, for example, jacking up the rake to an unbeatable level at high limits.
Imagine if they cared more about poker as a competitive game, rather than a casino game like roulette or blackjack. They wouldn't worry about players consistently winning in the long run. That's why poker players have got to be cautious about which rooms they play in and not give too much power to operators who act solely in their own interests, ignorein' poker's best interests.
But if a large, greedy operator doesn't take down the poker scene, the worst-case scenario, for the sake of cheating and the use of bots, might involve a shift from no-limit hold'em to other disciplines.
- The AI-bot Cepheus, which supposedly solved poker in 2015, was designed solely for limit hold'em head-up, but it didn't concern the majority of players who stuck to 9-max or 6-max poker games.
- In the realm of no-limit hold'em, although solvers and pre-calculated solutions are available, a full solution is far from being discovered, as it requires orders of magnitude more complex calculations than the one Cepheus achieved.
- While the use of real-time assistance tools (RTAs) might seem like an effective way to win consistently in poker, it's against the poker room rules and often detected by security services, limiting their widespread use among players.
- The abundance of GTO information, including pre-calculated solutions, might not necessarily enhance the quality of players, as it potentially adds confusion or even worsens the play of average players, especially if they struggle to grasp the complex strategies and mixed frequencies.
- As the risks of major poker rooms establishing a monopoly on online traffic and jacking up the rake to an unbeatable level at high limits seem more likely than the abundance of GTO information making players better, poker players should be cautious about which rooms they play in and not give too much power to operators who act solely in their own interests.
