All of Aleksei_Riikonen's Comments + Replies

On saving the world

Regardless, I wish to not take over (a part of) this comment thread by discussing this thing in detail.

If further comments from me on the matter are in demand, contacting me through some other means is a better option.

On saving the world

I believe this comment thread is not the proper place to discuss the details of my proposal.

(Also I believe the page linked earlier answers those specific questions.)

-2TheAncientGeek8yI've read it, and I believe it doesn't..
On saving the world

As a Brit, you already have a king/queen in your country.

Details are important as well as examples, and I'm not in the business of simply bringing back empowered kings. In the system I discussed the role mostly is about being a cool figurehead, not so terribly different from what you have now (though the king would be elected from among the re-invented Aristocracy in a meritocratic way, and therefore be better at the role than what you have now -- and it is of course true that the discussed system would be about bringing back the nobility in a genuinely empowered way).

0TheAncientGeek8yAnd it's not paradise on Earth. How does that work? If an aristocrat's offpsring are crap, do they get thrown out of the aristocracy? If so, how does that differ from meritocracy?
-4V_V8yA bunch of self-righteous inbreeds running everything. With horses. That's totally going to work...
On saving the world

Thank you. I can relate to much of what you said, as isn't terribly rare here.

And the most enjoyable of the feelings evoked in me (as has happened on several occasions already), is seeing a young one being better and more promising than me.

(Though my enjoyment at being superseded is dangerous in the sense that such may be associated with laziness, so you are very welcome to not enjoy yours -- or enjoy, however you wish.)

The actual reason why I started to comment at all, however, is that it's amusing to note how I'm in a sense in the reverse of your situati... (read more)

7ChristianKl8yI think a lot of thinks that look like bright political ideas are in part a misunderstanding of the problem.
8TheAncientGeek8yBut it doesn't include bringing back Kings. This is why examples are important. You can't coclude "the world just doesn't want to listen to ideas, however, good" if the ideas , are in fact, terrible.
What is moral foundation theory good for?

In response to your final questions:

Liberals (myself included) tend to very much like the idea of using regulation to transfer some wealth from the strongest players to the weakest in society. We like to try to set up the rules of the game so that nobody would be economically very poor, and so that things in general were fair and equitable.

In the case of sex and relationships, the argument could also be made for regulation that would transfer "sexual wealth" and "relationship wealth" from the strongest players to those who are not so we... (read more)

-5novalis9y
[Applications Closed] The Singularity Institute is hiring remote LaTeX editors

I have offered in the past to volunteer some time to this sort of thing, but I get that coordinating volunteers is harder than hiring people.

Sounds like something that happened during earlier years, when the SI people that one ran into when volunteering were different than currently.

0[anonymous]9yThis January/February.
Article about LW: Faith, Hope, and Singularity: Entering the Matrix with New York’s Futurist Set

Actually, I feel that I have sufficient experience of being reported on (including in an unpleasant way), and it is precisely that which (along with my independent knowledge of many of the people getting reported on here) gave me the confidence to suspect that I would have managed to separate from the distortions an amount of information that described reality.

That said, there is a bit of fail with regard to whether I managed to communicate what precisely impacted me. Much of it is subtle, necessarily, since it had to be picked up through the distortion fi... (read more)

Article about LW: Faith, Hope, and Singularity: Entering the Matrix with New York’s Futurist Set

As someone who had read Eliezer's OkCupid profile sometime not very recently, I was actually gonna reply to this with something like "well, scientism goes maybe a bit too far, but he does actually have a point"

...but then I just went and reread the OkCupid profile, and no, actually it's wonderfully funny and I have no worries similar to scientism's, unlike earlier when the profile didn't explicitly mention sadism.

Obviously Eliezer is a very unusual and "weird" person, but the openness about it that we observe here is a winning move, unl... (read more)

5aelephant9yI was going to post: "What makes it evangelical polyamory as opposed to just plain old polyamory?" It seems to me the "evangelical" part was just added to make it seem worse without actually giving any valid reasons.
Article about LW: Faith, Hope, and Singularity: Entering the Matrix with New York’s Futurist Set

That position is "antisingularity" only in the Kurzweilian sense of the word. I wouldn't be surprised if e.g. essentially everyone at the Singularity Institute were "antisingularity" in this sense.

Article about LW: Faith, Hope, and Singularity: Entering the Matrix with New York’s Futurist Set

The starting point for my attitude was people doing things like intervening in front of a reporter to stop discussion of a topic that looks scandalous, or talking about Singularity/AI topics in a way that doesn't communicate much wisdom at all.

Being silly with regard to physical intimacy and in general having a wild party is all well and good by itself, if you're into that sort of thing, but I react negatively when that silliness seems to spill over into affecting the way serious things are handled.

(I'll partly excuse being light on the constructiveness by... (read more)

Article about LW: Faith, Hope, and Singularity: Entering the Matrix with New York’s Futurist Set

Though it's possible the reporter has twisted your words more than I manage to suspect, I'll say:

Wow, some of the people involved really suck at thinking (or caring to think) about how they make the scene look. I think I'm able to pretty well correct for the discrepancy between what's reported and what's the reality behind it, but even after the correction, this window into what the scene has become has further lowered my interest in flying over there to the States to hang out with you, since it seems I might end up banging my head against the wall in frus... (read more)

Though it's possible the reporter has twisted your words more than I manage to suspect

D'you think? You'll understand better after being reported-on yourself; and then you'll look back and laugh about how very, very naive that comment was. It's the average person's incomprehension of reporter-distorting that gives reporters their power. If you read something and ask, "Hm, I wonder what the truth was that generated this piece?" without having personal, direct experience of how very bad it is, they win.

I think the winning move is to read blogs by smart people, who usually don't lie, rather than anything in newspapers.

This was a private party announced via a semi-public list. A reporter showed up and she talked to people without telling them she was a reporter. This is not a report, it is a tabloid piece. Intentional gossip.

Wow, some of the people involved really suck at thinking (or caring to think) about how they make the scene look.

Or, contrariwise, scandal-sheet reporters are good at making people look scandalous?

(Don't think of a beautiful blue beetle.)

My experience with the NY Less Wrong group, of which I had been a part, is that we are, indeed, a bunch of silly people who like to do things that are silly, such as cuddle-piling, because they're fun to do and we don't care that much about appearing dignified in front of each other. If silliness bothers you, then you might very well be right in concluding that you wouldn't enjoy hanging out with them in person.

(I'm assuming that your complaint is about the interview quality on LW topics, rather than the physical intimacy, which we can assume is present but was amplified in the writing process. Honestly there are several things I think your comment could be about, so fortunately my problems with it are general)

I think this comment is uncharitable. Which you kind of knew already. And which, by itself, isn't so bad.

But unfortunately, you fall into the fundamental attribution error here, and explain other peoples' failings as if they were inherent properties of t... (read more)

CFAR website launched

Quite a good website, though I expect that when one first glances at it, it looks suspicious how much there is talk of "perfect reasoning", "knowing exactly how to weigh the relevant evidence" etc.

Gives the impression that you think your methods produce perfection. One might have to delve surprisingly deep into the website before one realizes that that's not actually among the claims made.

New Singularity.org

I don't understand.

The same thing as I described in my previous comment as the situation for http://singularity.org/about/ (except that the destination page is different).

New Singularity.org

My guess is that it's currently broken for some browsers but not others.

I'm using Firefox (Windows), and currently ALL the links on http://singularity.org/about/ take me to http://singularity.org/visiting-fellows/

Was working fine earlier, though.

(And actually, the six links in the Donate-WhatWeDo-etc bar are exceptions in that they work on that page also. But all the others take me to see the Visiting Fellows, including the link to the blog, to Facebook, to Less Wrong...)

1lukeprog10yHow 'bout now? (May need to load then refresh once.)
New Singularity.org

To me, when I first saw them, they definitely looked like clip art, except that in some cases the SI logo had been edited in.

I wish I could upvote what Raemon said several times: "the whole reason clip-art is bad is not because it actually is clip-art, but because it looks like something you got off the shelf."

New Singularity.org

Btw, am I hallucinating, or did you already change the colors slightly?

Anyway, I'd like to say that I currently like how the colors look. (Though doesn't have much to do with the points that I was critical on.)

New Singularity.org

Yes, I have to say that the unprofessional vibe given off feels absolutely horrible to me. I'm surprised that the designers of the site appear to be the same as previously, since the previous style and vibe felt very good to me, and this feels so much like the opposite.

The current crop of clip-art would really need to go, I'd say. Nothing looks as hasty and unprofessional as stereotypical clip-art. You especially shouldn't with your clip-art choices communicate that you're a very formal, ordinary and uncreative men-in-suits organisation, since you're reall... (read more)

0Aleksei_Riikonen10yBtw, am I hallucinating, or did you already change the colors slightly? Anyway, I'd like to say that I currently like how the colors look. (Though doesn't have much to do with the points that I was critical on.)
Help! Name suggestions needed for Rationality-Inst!

I like this. Or more generally, I like having "Advanced Sanity" in the name.

3orthonormal10yOf course, I then wondered if anyone else was using the phrase "Advanced Sanity" (and if I'd taken it from somewhere). The first few hits were all Eliezer on LW, and other people only seem to put together those words accidentally.
The Singularity Institute's Arrogance Problem

Curse me for presenting myself as someone having interesting secret knowledge. Now I get several PMs asking for details.

In short, this "incident" was about one or two SIAI folks making a couple of obvious errors of judgment, and in the case of the error that sparked the whole thing, getting heatedly defensive about it for a moment. Other SIAI folks however recognized the obvious mistakes as such, so the issue was resolved, even though unprofessional conduct was observed for a moment.

The actual mistakes were rather minor, nothing dramatic. The sur... (read more)

POSITION: Design and Write Rationality Curriculum

No, not unusual. I had the same reaction, and assumed it's probably partly a deliberate joke to have such a placeholder name (or alternatively it's actually so that the Scientology connotation didn't occur to folks at SIAI).

I btw commented on this a couple of days ago in a comment to the SIAI blog, and note now that comments there seem to take a rather long time to be moderated for spam, as apparently no comments have appeared for many months. (Ok, sorry for the joke. More likely you've forgotten about the blog comments or something, than it really being a... (read more)

The Singularity Institute's Arrogance Problem

So, I have a few questions:

  1. What are the most egregious examples of SI's arrogance?

Since you explicitly ask a question phrased thus, I feel obligated to mention that last April I witnessed a certain email incident that I thought was somewhat extremely bad in some ways.

I do believe that lessons have been learned since then, though. Probably there's no need to bring the matter up again, and I only mention it since according to my ethics it's the required thing to do when asked such an explicit question as above.

(Some readers may wonder why I'm not provi... (read more)

6Aleksei_Riikonen10yCurse me for presenting myself as someone having interesting secret knowledge. Now I get several PMs asking for details. In short, this "incident" was about one or two SIAI folks making a couple of obvious errors of judgment, and in the case of the error that sparked the whole thing, getting heatedly defensive about it for a moment. Other SIAI folks however recognized the obvious mistakes as such, so the issue was resolved, even though unprofessional conduct was observed for a moment. The actual mistakes were rather minor, nothing dramatic. The surprising thing was that heated defensiveness took place on the way to those mistakes getting corrected. (And since Eliezer is the SIAI guy most often accused of arrogance, I'll additionally state that here that is not the case. Eliezer was very professional in the email exchange in question.)
Leveling Up in Rationality: A Personal Journey

Hmm, I for one don't share the negative reactions that several other commenters seem to feel now. I felt very glad upon reading this "leveling up" post.

I was especially thinking that this is a very cool first LW article for people to bump into (and therefore shared this on some social networks). In this vein, I very much like the criticized-by-some feature that every other word is a link to a previous article. It's useful for those new people who might be inspired to check this stuff out in more detail.

3Technoguyrob10yWhat were the reactions of your friends?
7Dustin10yI, too, like this post for it's value in pointing others to when trying to explain the value of rationality. This has been discussed before, but linking to the Sequences and saying "read that" always feels like a dodge to me, so I find real value in this post. It seems like part of what that lukeprog has to do is balance between the regular readers of this site and new(ish) readers of this site.
Ritual Report: NYC Less Wrong Solstice Celebration

Yeah, I just thought I'd improve on your riff a bit, and add the part that pokes fun at me :)

Ritual Report: NYC Less Wrong Solstice Celebration

Damn, my plan is backfiring. I will be remembered as an arrogant schmuck who was slightly funny in an unintended way.

Serves me right.

6Raemon10yI actually assumed I was riffing off the joke exactly the way you intended. Didn't mean to poke fun.
Ritual Report: NYC Less Wrong Solstice Celebration

Yeah, I had similar thoughts actually. But I did end up thinking that this was good enough to link in a somewhat off-handed manner.

Though of course, mostly I just wanted to get myself on the public record, calling this a great success in the making at such a somewhat early stage, so that I look good when future generations look back a few thousand years from now :D

9Raemon10yLong ago, far away, ever so long ago... Aleksei_Riikonen said that this was a pretty awesome idea.
Ritual Report: NYC Less Wrong Solstice Celebration

Also, I felt the need to post a link to this post on some social networks and describe it thus:

"And so it begins. The NYC folks have taken a significant step in bringing the LW community to a whole new level of real-world Awesomeness and Win. Expect great things to grow out of such developments."

One thing I am slightly concerned about is having this be someone's first introduction to Less Wrong. I did spend a while trying to write this in such a way that it wouldn't be too ridiculous sounding to a newcomer. I actually set a pretty high bar for myself - I wanted my mother to be able to read this.

But I don't think I succeeded at that quite yet. At first I tried to explain why the things we believe aren't so ridiculous, and then I realized there's a good reason Eliezer took 2 years and a quarter-million pages to do so. So I went ahead and left that ... (read more)

3Aleksei_Riikonen10yAlso, I felt the need to post a link to this post on some social networks and describe it thus: "And so it begins. The NYC folks have taken a significant step in bringing the LW community to a whole new level of real-world Awesomeness and Win. Expect great things to grow out of such developments."
The curse of identity

Typical mind fallacy, perhaps?

Generalizing from one example, rather. Mostly I was going by what I've heard from an acquaintance that worked as a stripper.

The curse of identity

Who considers strippers to be high status?

(Certainly not the actual audience. They just see meat to eat with their eyes, not a person. Even prostitutes are probably respected a lot more on average than strippers, since it's more common that people at least talk to prostitutes, and become more aware that there's a person there.)

3[anonymous]10yI don't know about "high status", but Roissy discusses here [https://heartiste.wordpress.com/2011/10/27/is-it-better-to-insinuate-youve-dated-strippers-or-lawyers] whether it is better to insinuate, for the purposes of attracting another woman, that you've dated strippers or lawyers in the past (his conclusion: it depends), and he recounts a failed attempt to pick up an attractive stripper here [http://heartiste.wordpress.com/2009/05/27/stripper-pickup-attempt]. Quotes: I would eat my own eyes if I ever see Roissy or anyone else say the same about prostitutes (dating them when they aren't on the job). So although strippers are low class in general, the men who watch them put them in a high status position relative to themselves. The same cannot be said of prostitutes, who are lower status than just about anyone in society including the men who use them. Prostitution is by far the most degrading occupation for a woman.

They just see meat to eat with their eyes, not a person.

Typical mind fallacy, perhaps?

I don't know about you, but if I happen to be watching someone stripping it's much more about the meeting of the eyes than the eyeing of the meat.

Even prostitutes are probably respected a lot more on average than strippers, since it's more common that people at least talk to prostitutes

Well, if you go by the HBO specials they did about both groups, it's actually the other way around. Though really, people formed long-term relationships with their service providers in both groups.

The curse of identity

so you decide to only do the least prestigeful work available, in order to prove that you are the kind of person who doesn't care about the prestige of the task!

Another variant is to minimize how much you directly inform your comrades of the work you're doing. You tend to get more prestige when people find out about your work through accidental-seeming ways instead of through you telling them. Also, you have aces up your sleeve with which you can play the martyr ("Well, I have been doing such and such and you didn't even know about it!").

Q&A with new Executive Director of Singularity Institute

I'm glad to hear I'm not the only fan of Eliezer who isn't reading HPMOR.

In general, like you I also don't tend to get any fiction read (unlike earlier). For years, I haven't progressed on several books I've got started that I enjoy reading and consider very smart also in a semi-useful way. It's rather weird really, since simultaneously I do with great enthusiasm watch some fictional movies and tv series, even repeatedly. (And I do read a considerable amount of non-fiction.)

And I follow the news. A lot. The number one fun thing for me, it seems.

Pascal's wager re-examined

Everyone voting down shminux, please also note that they did say:

You clearly want Christianity to have a chance in hell

it is pointless to argue about it with you, since you have already written your bottom line and will not budge

I'll downvote for those. While I don't claim Goetz' treatment of the topic to have been perfect, I don't see evidence of it necessarily having been motivated by anything else than an honest curious interest in the topic. Claims that he clearly wants Christianity to have a chance or that he wouldn't be able to change his mind on the topic seem to me to be just as uncalled for as claims that he would be a Christian.

4JoshuaZ10yThere was definite evidence of this. As I pointed out in my reply the specific numbers picked looked a lot like what one would expect if one had a conscious or unconscious desire for the argument to just barely go through.
2shminux10yYou are probably correct that, taken out of the poster's profile context, one might not I have my doubts, but in retrospect it looks like my emotions got the better of me, and I concede that my original reply was less neutral than called for. Hey, I'm still new to this rationality thing.
Rationality Lessons Learned from Irrational Adventures in Romance

Wow! A 20 page essay on "why I'm breaking up with you"? That's just... brutal!

And obviously the title should have been:

"In Which I Explain How Natural Selection Has Built Me To Be Attracted To Certain Features That You Lack"

:D

Rationality Lessons Learned from Irrational Adventures in Romance

So I broke up with Alice over a long conversation that included an hour-long primer on evolutionary psychology in which I explained how natural selection had built me to be attracted to certain features that she lacked.

LOL

(Just couldn't resist posting my reaction, even though there's already an essentially identical comment.)

It seems that this was made a lot more amusing by you apparently having great social skills these days.

(And makes me all the more glad I've never broken up with anyone, even though this requirement made it kinda hard to get into a relationship in the first place.)

Polyhacking

Since moving back to the Bay Area I've been out with four other people too, one of whom he's also seeing; I've been in my primary's presence while he kissed one girl, and when he asked another for her phone number; I've gossiped with a secondary about other persons of romantic interest and accepted his offer to hint to a guy I like that this is the case; I hit on someone at a party right in front of my primary. I haven't suffered a hiccup of drama or a twinge of jealousy to speak of and all evidence (including verbal confirmation) indicates that I've bee

... (read more)

Though when people are immortal superbeings, I also expect it to become common that they'll spend a very long time if necessary searching for an instance of fairytale monogamy to be their first relationship.

I volunteer to be the evil villain who goes about poisoning damsels and locking them up in towers so that they role play rescues by knights in shining armor. I'll turn a few guys into beasts too in case they are feeling left out.

3ChrisPine10yAnd yet, the vast majority of poly people are well under 200 years old... I doubt they would agree with you on what is optimal for them. I suppose you could counter that the vast majority of people under 200 years old are monogamous, but that seems more due to monogamy's enormous head-start in modern western culture than due to what is optimal for the young.
4Pavitra10yI'd expect it to go in cycles.

I note that this treads close to a well-established poly fail: the notion that poly is More Highly Evolved.

Please do not downvote every comment or post someone has ever made as a retaliation tactic.

I think you're probably right if we count more stuff as "high-quality thinking" than I was meaning to do. But if we're rather strict about what counts as high-quality, I think I'm right.

(Also I'll emphasize that I wasn't talking about insecurity in general, but being insecure to such an extent that one refrains from posting high-quality stuff to an anonymity-enabling website because of a fear of getting downvoted.)

Please do not downvote every comment or post someone has ever made as a retaliation tactic.

Another problem is that a reputation system might drive away people with valuable insights about certain agreed upon topics.

Relax, I doubt anyone with the ability to produce high-quality thinking is so insecure that (s)he'd be scared of getting a few downvotes on a website. (Myself, I once got an article submission voted to oblivion, but it just felt good in a feeling-of-superiority kind of way since I thought the LW community was the party being more wrong there -- though I think that to have found myself to be more wrong than I think I was would have ... (read more)

4Kaj_Sotala10yI wouldn't be surprised to hear that the ability to produce high-quality thinking actually correlated with insecurity. People who spend time developing intellectual skills often neglect developing social skills, and a lack of friends/real social contact then makes them feel insecure.
People neglect small probability events

I enjoyed reading this comment rather a lot, since it allowed me to find myself in the not-too-common circumstance of noticing that I disagree with Eliezer to a significant (for me) degree.

Insofar as I'm able to put a number on my estimation of existential risks from AI, I also think that they're not under 5%. But I'm not really in the habit of getting into debates on this matter with anyone. The case that I make for myself (or others) for supporting SIAI is rather of the following kind:

  1. If there are any noticeable existential risks, it's extremely import

... (read more)
Suffering as attention-allocational conflict

Also, how similar is the present Patri-hysteria in Finland to the Beatles-hysteria in the 60's?

One difference is that I'm aware that the former happened, but not that the latter would have.

(edit: by "former" and "latter" I mean the chronological order of events, not the order in which they were mentioned in the quoted comment :)

Group of Latter Day Roleplayers

I expected this to be about how many Mormons one runs into these days don't really seem to be serious about their religious beliefs, but are instead just going along for the social benefits of belonging to a community that in some ways seems to work. (I.e. how many Mormons actually seem to be pretty similar to typical secularized somewhat-sensible-and-moderate Christians, despite stereotypes of them being more serious regarding their religion.)

Verifying Rationality via RationalPoker.com

Sounds like a strange comment to me. The threads I'm reading tend to stay very well on topic, be good treatments of that topic, and are about just as good as can be expected when the topic is poker, instead of something intellectually perhaps more refined.

Verifying Rationality via RationalPoker.com

The first long list is about programs that are allowed, btw.

But I guess I should have been been more specific that I was talking in the context of "bot-like" programs, and what I said is completely accurate in such a context.

Of course additionally e.g. programs that show your cards to your friends are forbidden. And utilizing large centralized databases is forbidden. But programs that do such things are not "bot-like".

EDIT: Ok, actually I am wrong. They go further in banning "bot-like" programs than I described here. I knew th... (read more)

Verifying Rationality via RationalPoker.com

(EDIT: I am mistaken in what I state in this comment. See comments below for correction.)

Essentially the deciding factor whether an assistant program is allowed is whether the program does the mouse-clicking for you.

Quoting from the Terms of Service of the biggest poker site:

5.6. AUTOMATIC PLAYERS (BOTS). The use of artificial intelligence including, without limitation, "robots" is strictly forbidden in connection with the Service. All actions taken in relation to the Service by a User must be executed personally by players through the user interface accessible by use of the Software.

2Perplexed11yThat was a pretty remarkable example of selective quotation. Immediately above the paragraph you quoted was a link to this FAQ [http://www.pokerstars.com/poker/room/prohibited/]. Note the long list of software products which they say you are forbidden to use.
Verifying Rationality via RationalPoker.com

So, what is your analysis of what they would do to a small number of their customers who violate their rules by using real-time machine assistance?

That's not a violation of the rules. Assistant programs such as discussed above are used by essentially all serious players and that's fine by the sites.

People who, if they were allowed to get away with it, would destroy the online poker business.

Actually, online poker business is growing every year.

0Perplexed11yUse of real-time machine assistance to guide your play is not against the rules? Then apparently, I don't understand the rules. What kinds of computer assistance do they forbid?
Verifying Rationality via RationalPoker.com

It is, but there's a lot of competition in that market, and major established players (i.e. very popular very good poker sites, that put a lot of money into R&D and all else required to stay on top).

Verifying Rationality via RationalPoker.com

It seems like, if these are legal, it would be rational to use them, unless they introduce new biases that are counterproductive, or you wish to develop your probability and card counting skills...

Of course, and indeed essentially all serious online poker players do use poker analytics suites. (They are legal. The point where assistant programs become disallowed by the sites is, essentially, if they start doing the mouse-clicking for you.)

EDIT: It turns out that the above description of exactly where the line between allowed and forbidden is drawn is mi... (read more)

Verifying Rationality via RationalPoker.com

I'm dubious of the idea that I should be training mentally in an area that a computer program can already trounce all humans in. Playing optimal poker is computationally solvable and not demanding, except for figuring out the biases of the human players.

You obviously have very little knowledge of the topic you're presenting yourself as an expert on.

Do professional poker players make most of their money playing against rubes, or against other professionals?

As is a logical necessity, most make their money off of non-professionals. The very best probab... (read more)

3PhilGoetz11yIf I thought I were an expert, I would be answering questions instead of asking questions. That isn't an argument unless the best humans frequently play against computers. Do they? A human could be better than a computer at beating another human. In a game with one computer and four humans, I can easily believe that one human might win more than the computer did. In a game with four well-programmed computers and one human, I predict the computers will trounce the human regularly. I'm not an expert at poker; but I am an expert at computation, so I feel pretty confident about this prediction. (A game with 3 well-programmed computers, one human, and one poorly-programmed computer would count as a game with 3 computers and 2 humans.)
Verifying Rationality via RationalPoker.com

They're not very good at analyzing the context, but sure, there are lots of assistant programs. Especially recommended are so-called HUDs (they overimpose real-time updated statistics on your opponents on the screen), that these days tend to be included in more general poker analytics software suites such as Hold'Em Manager.

In general, if you people have questions regarding how to play poker, it's better to ask on a poker forum than here. (TwoPlusTwo is still the biggest and best, I think.)

2curiousepic11yIt seems like, if these are legal, it would be rational to use them, unless they introduce new biases that are counterproductive, or you wish to develop your probability and card counting skills...
Verifying Rationality via RationalPoker.com

this means that he's paying the opportunity cost of hundreds of dollars an hour for the pleasure of wasting time here with me and my friends instead of going gambling. That just makes no sense at all.

Playing high level poker is mentally very taxing and tiring. Even if one can do it for 2-3 hours per day, it's often true that trying to spend too much time on it will result in losses.

Load More