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 probably make more off of other professionals, though there are some very bad players even at the highest stakes (e.g. billionaires who just like poker).
Is any of the money counted as their earnings prize money contributed
by sponsors, or advertising sponsorships?
There isn’t good public data on sponsorship deals. When one hears how much a particular professional makes, they are seldom included.
What are the arguments that a human can outplay a computer at poker?
The fact that you don’t see computers beating the best humans (except in some somewhat marginal forms of poker, and even there it’s debatable), and in most forms of poker, not even the semi-good players.
This isn’t a matter of “argument”, but a matter of observing the facts.
How is poker more useful than practicing multiplying large numbers together?
You don’t usually get money for simple multiplication.
You obviously have very little knowledge of the topic you’re presenting yourself as an expert on.
If I thought I were an expert, I would be answering questions instead of asking questions.
What are the arguments that a human can outplay a computer at poker?
The fact that you don’t see computers beating the best humans (except in some somewhat marginal forms of poker, and even there it’s debatable), and in most forms of poker, not even the semi-good players.
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.)
You obviously have very little knowledge of the topic you’re presenting yourself as an expert on.
As is a logical necessity, most make their money off of non-professionals. The very best probably make more off of other professionals, though there are some very bad players even at the highest stakes (e.g. billionaires who just like poker).
There isn’t good public data on sponsorship deals. When one hears how much a particular professional makes, they are seldom included.
The fact that you don’t see computers beating the best humans (except in some somewhat marginal forms of poker, and even there it’s debatable), and in most forms of poker, not even the semi-good players.
This isn’t a matter of “argument”, but a matter of observing the facts.
You don’t usually get money for simple multiplication.
If 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.)
“Well-programmed computer” sounds like “sufficiently smart compiler” to me :).