<story><title>The Steely, Headless King of Texas Hold ’Em</title><url>http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/08/magazine/poker-computer.html?hp&amp;_r=0&amp;pagewanted=all</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>scotch_drinker</author><text>In his book Super System, Doyle Brunson wrote that a computer would never be able to play elite poker because you played the man, not the cards or the game.  He greatly underestimated the power of modern computing it appears.&lt;p&gt;Personally, I&amp;#x27;d rather see resources go into a robot that can cook for me but development follows the money I suppose.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>wallawe</author><text>I was worried this type of misinformation would be extrapolated from the article. The game the computer plays, is &lt;i&gt;limit&lt;/i&gt; hold-em. This game is much more mathematical since bluffs are limited to a big blind.&lt;p&gt;Although Super System was written for all different types of poker, he is referring to no-limit holdem which still involves playing the player, with heavy math elements as well, but still much more psychology involved. Hence the name, you can bet any amount at any time changing the dynamic entirely. There is still no computer that is efficient at winning no-limit hold-em.</text></comment>
<story><title>The Steely, Headless King of Texas Hold ’Em</title><url>http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/08/magazine/poker-computer.html?hp&amp;_r=0&amp;pagewanted=all</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>scotch_drinker</author><text>In his book Super System, Doyle Brunson wrote that a computer would never be able to play elite poker because you played the man, not the cards or the game.  He greatly underestimated the power of modern computing it appears.&lt;p&gt;Personally, I&amp;#x27;d rather see resources go into a robot that can cook for me but development follows the money I suppose.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>TomGullen</author><text>&amp;quot;Playing the man&amp;quot; is merely an abstract reference to maths in Poker that a lot of old timers in these (slightly out of date) books couldn&amp;#x27;t quite put their finger on.  Super System was a good book for its time, but I think there&amp;#x27;s a lot of better books out there now (Harrington on Holdem for example).&lt;p&gt;A simple example, common stats software for poker will record what % of hands an opponent raises on the button if it&amp;#x27;s folded to him.  If this figure is 80% you know his hand range is extremely wide.  &amp;quot;Playing the man&amp;quot; simply is recognising that in this situation your opponents hand range is very wide so you can often raise the bet and take the pot without further resistance.</text></comment>