With 36 Festival wins under his belt Nicky Henderson knows how to train one for Cheltenham, so which of his current yard can do the business at this year’s Festival? Mike Vince asked him

Related posts:

1. Cheltenham Trainer Interview: Paul Nicholls Mike Vince travelled to Ditcheat to talk with the…
2. Timeform Trainer Form: Bryan Smart, Ron Hodges and Nicky Henderson Timeform has picked out three trainers who have had…
3. Why Dan Henderson left the UFC to sign with Strikeforce Easy. He hates Vitor Belfort. …

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

The Russian chess grandmaster Garry Kasparov has an interesting new piece in the February 11, 2010 issue of The New York Review of Books, a review of Spanish writer Diego Rasskin-Gutman’s Chess Metaphors: Artificial Intelligence of the Human Mind. Much of the article concerns the book, but toward the end Kasparov makes a couple of interesting references to poker — comparing it to chess and talking about both games in the context of advancing research in the field of artificial intelligence — that I thought I’d share here.

Kasparov begins by recounting how back in 1985 — after he had defeated Anatoly Karpov and become World Chess Champion at age 22 — he took on 32 chess-playing computers in a much publicized event in Hamburg and beat them all. Then he talks about the later 1997 match that he lost to IBM’s Deep Blue and some of the reactions that event caused, both within the chess world and in the culture at large.

While many outside of chess took Deep Blue’s triumph as “as a symbol of mankind’s submission before the almighty computer,” Kasparov explains how the top chess players mostly took it in stride, and were in fact surprised it had taken that long for computers to catch up. And, in fact, among the artificial intelligence community — “the AI crowd,” as Kasparov calls them — there was some dismay that Deep Blue, while able to defeat a human at chess, still didn’t really seem to demonstrate human “intelligence.”

“Instead of a computer that thought and played chess like a human, with human creativity and intuition,” writes Kasparov, “they got one that played like a machine, systematically evaluating 200 million possible moves on the chess board per second and winning with brute number-crunching force.” In other words, for some Deep Blue’s win represented more of a programming triumph than a particularly significant advance in the development of AI.

Today pretty much any home PC has the computing capacity to run a chess program “that will crush most grandmasters.” Even so, chess remains much too complex of a game to be “solved” once and for all argues Kasparov, citing Rasskin-Gutman’s book in a couple of places to support his point. He then moves into a longer discussion of the book, which sounds appealing for those interested in chess and/or discussions of how the human mind works.

I’m not going to summarize that entire discussion here (check it out yourself, if you’re interested), but I did want to share what Kasparov says at the end of the review when he goes back to this issue of chess perhaps not being the best game for “the AI crowd” to focus their efforts.

“Poker is now everywhere,” writes Kasparov, “as amateurs dream of winning millions and being on television for playing a card game whose complexities can be detailed on a single piece of paper.” Indeed, there was a time — around the early 1970s — when it looked like chess would experience a “boom” not unlike the one poker has enjoyed this past decade, although it didn’t quite pan out. I wrote a little about that a couple of years ago in a post called “The Failed Ambassador” that was occasioned by the death of Bobby Fischer.

Getting back to the subject of artificial intelligence, Kasparov continues: “But while chess is a 100 percent information game — both players are aware of all the data all the time — and therefore directly susceptible to computing power, poker has hidden cards and variable stakes, creating critical roles for chance, bluffing, and risk management.”

As such, suggests Kasparov, poker is perhaps a much better game on which to focus AI research. He refers to the efforts of Jonathan Schaeffer, leader of the University of Alberta’s Computer Poker Research Group (CPRG) that has been developing poker-playing programs “Polaris” and “Polaris 2.0” that have taken on top pros like Phil Laak, Ali Eslami, and the Stoxpoker guys over the last couple of years. I actually had the chance a while back to interview Schaeffer (following that first match with Laak and Eslami), who told me he believed “one of these days — within 5 to 10 years — two-person, limit Hold’em will be solved.”

My sense is that Kasparov isn’t quite as confident as Schaeffer regarding the possibility of “solving” even this relatively less complex variation of poker, though he does recognize how Schaeffer’s “digital players are performing better and better against strong humans — with obvious implications for online gambling sites.”

The question remains, of course, as to whether or not these poker-playing computers are actually thinking “like humans” or not — that is, when Polaris 2.0 defeated the Stoxpoker guys back in the summer of 2008, to what extent did that victory represent a real advance in the creation of artificial intelligence as opposed to a mere triumph in “programming” (as Kasparov characterizes his defeat to Deep Blue)?

In any event, much as he reacted to the work of the chess programmers as having exciting implications for his game, Kasparov seems enthused about the work of Schaeffer and his colleagues at the University of Alberta, too. Referring again to poker’s growing popularity, Kasparov notes how there is a “current trend of many chess professionals taking up the more lucrative pastime of poker.”

These chess pros are smart guys. They see there’s more money to be made playing poker than chess these days. But some — like Kasparov — also see poker as offering other benefits, too, such as the opportunity to test ourselves in “partial information” situations in which we much learn to adapt, to weigh risk and reward, and to act accordingly.

In other words, besides being a game ripe for the study of artificial intelligence, poker can help us develop our actual intelligence, too.

Related posts:

1. Howard Lederer: Team Full Tilt Poker Player Profile Known as “The Professor”, Howard Lederer is one of…
2. Talking Online Poker: House Hearing Today In a little under two hours, the House Financial…
3. Poker Strategy Tips On How To Win The Bodog Poker Open IV photo courtesy bodog.com The Bodog Poker Open IV is…

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Wasn’t able to participate in that PokerStars record-breaking tournament yesterday, as I was busy during the mid-afternoon and couldn’t be there for the start. Looks like I was one of the few online poker players who didn’t, as the $1 no-limit hold’em tourney attracted 149,196 runners. I did pick up things later in the day and noted that the population of the event exceeded that of Syracuse, New York.

There was a $300,000 guarantee — didn’t even make it halfway to that total, so a big overlay there. The whole sucker took less than six hours to complete thanks to them five-minute levels and quickly rising blinds and antes. Top 30,000 got paid, though only the top 80 earned more than $100. Winner got $50,000. That’s a decent ROI.

Meanwhile I parked it in front of the crystal receiver to watch some NFL. Was most intrigued to see if the Indianapolis Colts, the league’s sole remaining unbeaten team at 14-0, could keep their streak going versus the up-and-down-though-mostly-down New York Jets. If the Colts could take care of NYJ, they had only the crummy Buffalo Bills — who were getting pounded by Atlanta 31-3 yesterday — to get past in the season’s final game to head into the playoffs without a loss.

Did not get the game locally, so I ended up following the score on the iPhone. Picked up a very cool app a few weeks ago called Wunder Radio that allows you to listen to radio stations around the world. So I dialed into 1070 The Fan to hear the Indianapolis radio network’s broadcast of the game.

As anyone who follows football well knows, the Colts were up 15-10 in the third quarter when the coaching staff decided to pull quarterback Peyton Manning along with some other starters. “Ridiculous!” pronounced the Colts’ play-by-play guy.

I lived in Indiana for a while back in the 90s and used to listen to this same announcer a lot then. That was the pre-Manning days when the Colts were usually horrible, and I remembered how sour the dude would often get after relating yet another bad play. His distaste at the decision to yank the starters yesterday reminded me of those days.

The Jets immediately forced a turnover and scored a go-ahead touchdown. The Colts couldn’t move the ball with the backup QB, and New York ended up winning going away, 29-15.

Despite my spell in Indiana, I’m not really a Colts fan. Still, was disappointing to hear them laying the game down that way, not to mention how doing so affects the rest of the playoff picture. I’m sure there are several teams fighting NYJ for one of those last wildcard spots who weren’t too pleased the Jets got that win yesterday, especially the way they did.

I listened to Peyton Manning in the post-game presser talk about how the decision to pull the starters had been in the works all along. “It was the plan,” said Manning, “the organizational philosophy that we were going with… and, as players, we support that.”

I’m a Manning fan. A hell of a QB, who is obviously smart and eminently likable. He also makes funny commercials. Not surprised at all to hear him support his coach and speak for his teammates this way. Still, that reference to the team’s “organizational philosophy” kind of made me cringe a little.

We’ve all been in those situations where we are forced to deal with a huge difference between theory and practice. Happens in poker all the time, where we begin a session or tournament or even a single hand with a “plan,” then realize how certain developments make sticking to that plan a less than desirable course to follow.

I’m not going to say it was “ridiculous” to pull Manning et al. and essentially hand the game to the Jets, thereby making the whole quest for 16-0 — genuinely important to many fans (and not just Colts fans) — seem like some sort of vain, immature desire. But I’m not going to say I liked it, either.

I understand the need to prevent injury and the “big picture” and all that. But it seems to me like the willingness to tank this game only increases the pressure for the Colts come playoff time rather than relieves it. And having your star quarterback defending your “organizational philosophy” after a loss — well, that sounds a bit more abstract than I’d like, too. Let’s talk about the game, and the decisions and plays we made to try to win it.

Maybe I’m missing the point. Sometimes it really is best to fold — even if you think you are best — in order to increase the likelihood for future, greater successes. Still, you gotta think Manning hated giving up this pot, even if it were a small one.

Related posts:

1. Colts a Favorite for Monday Night Football Game Bettors are jumping on the Indianapolis Colts in the…
2. Can the Colts and the Saints stay undefeated this week? 13-0, that’s what both teams are gunning for this…
3. Why Bill Belichick Was Wrong I can’t believe there’s even a discussion about this….

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

For online poker sites to give back, that is. Lots of bonus programs and other incentives being doled out here at year’s end, it seems.

Been playing more on Full Tilt Poker than usual, mainly because of that bonus they offered me over there this month. Am still only having limited time to play, so I’ll probably only end up earning about half of the hundy they’re giving me in ten-dollar increments as I slowly accumulate those Full Tilt Points.

I continue to play primarily the $25 buy-in pot-limit Omaha games, usually six-handed, and usually only one or two tables at a time. Meaning I can only earn FTPs at a relatively slow clip.

I generally like the new lobby Full Tilt rolled out a few months back, although sometimes when looking for a game I find all of the little codes a bit headachy. Just a matter of getting used to them, I suppose. I have now and then unintentionally pulled up tables that feature certain variations on my desired game — e.g., the “cap” games, the “ante” games, the “deep stack” games. And every now and then I’ll even sit down at them before realizing my mistake. (It really doesn’t take much to confuse my jingle-brain.)

I have now and then purposely played the “cap” games — at my level, those games are capped at $10, meaning no player can put more than that in the middle on a single hand. Kind of pushes most of the play to the first two streets, as that limit tends to get reached with a raise and reraise on the flop. Basically requires everyone to play a short-stacker’s strategy, and I’ve found one often comes across one or two players at each table who are mainly just looking to gamble it up.

The “deep stack” games are the opposite, requiring at least 50 big blinds ($12.50) for the buy-in. One can also buy in for as much as $50 in these at the $0.10/$0.25 tables, so, really, if I’m a PLO25 player (as I am these days), I should be scooting back down a level rather than play these. Meanwhile, the “ante” games require everyone to kick in an extra nickel on top of the $0.10/$0.25 blinds, sweetening the pot a little more before that first action.

Otherwise, I’m strictly a PokerStars player. I do still have some cabbage over on Bodog, but only call that one up every once in a while as their poker room traffic is usually fairly low. PokerStars, meanwhile, always has a ton of tables going, and the site remains my personal fave for other reasons as well (the interface, support, etc.).

Speaking of bonuses, I got an email yesterday from PokerStars passing along their plans to change and add to their rewards system. Once again they are lowering the requirements to reach Silver Star, making it necessary only to accumulate 750 VPPs in a month to get there. That’s down from the current 1,200, and way down from the 2,000 it was when the VIP program was first introduced back in 2006. (I don’t believe they are lowering the requirements for the other levels: e.g., still 3,000 VPPs to get to Gold, 7,500 for Platinum, etc.)

Another new feature will be something called the “VIP Stellar Rewards” program which essentially gives extra cash for playing.

To clarify, FPPs are “Frequent Player Points,” and one earns those according to how much rake is collected. FPPs can be used to purchase various items or cash, or used to enter tourneys. VPPs, or “VIP Player Points,” are earned the same way, but cannot be redeemed — they are just to gauge where you are status-wise. However, if you move up a level, you can earn FPPs more quickly (e.g., Silver Stars get 1.5 FPP for every 1 VPP). Make sense? If not, you can read more here.

Anyhow, this “VIP Stellar Rewards” thing basically gives players extra cash on top of all the other benefits of the VIP program. Starting on January 1, 2010, everyone begins a new yearly balance of VPPs. Once you reach 750 VPPs total, you can spend just one FPP and pick up ten bucks. Then, when you get to 1,500, you get another $10. And so forth according to the schedule (see the table at left). As a recreational player, I’ve earned a little over 13,000 VPPs this year. If I earn the same number next year, I’ll pick up an additional $150.

I might be encouraged, though, to pick up the pace a little — indeed, there were a couple of months in there during which I earned 2,500-3,000 VPPs or so, so I know I can probably easy pick up more.

Definitely like the way Stars is gearing these programs toward the small-timers, giving them a little bit here and there to keep ’em playing. Seems like a smart strategy. It’s always nice to be constantly getting something back while playing, meaning that even a break even session is technically going to be a small winner.

Related posts:

1. Fortune Lounge Group invigorates its loyalty program Fortune Lounge online casino group has recently implemented a…
2. The Plaza Las Vegas Introduces New Players Club Member Program The Plaza Hotel & Casino recently debuted Las Vegas’…
3. Diamond level at Harrah’s Las Vegas now achievable by playing poker photo by flipchip • lasvegasvegas.com Harrah’s on the Las…

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Stop playing like a teenage girl and start betting like a real woman. That’s the message author Ellen Leikind wants to transmit though her new book PokerWoman: How to win at Love, Life. The author also gives a different perspective of the game, showing women how to apply winning poker strategies to personal relationships, life and business – even if they’ve never played before.

“Poker isn’t just a card game: It’s a metaphor for life “As I often tell women. You’ve been playing poker your whole life whether you know it or not,” Leikind said.

A successful marketing executive who spent 15 years in the corporate world working for several Fortune 500 companies, Leikind decided to take a hiatus from her career and rediscovered poker, a game she had learned as a teenager. It was at that time she first made the connections explored in her book.

“The more I played poker, the more I saw the similarities between the card game and the larger ‘game’ of business and personal fulfillment.” Leikind said.
That experience inspired Leikind to found Poker Prima Divas, a company that provides corporate programs and entertainment to teach women to use the principles acquired at the poker table to enhance their business skills.

PokerWoman is not the usual “how to play” book, instead, the author uses poker to show women how to achieve their personal goals. Regular poker elements and concepts such as reading other players, knowing when to change gears and be aggressive, and how to assess risk are all illustrated using personal stories from successful women.

PokerWoman her message is really about empowerment, Leikind has attracted support from poker players and advice experts alike.

“Poker strategies can enable you to achieve your goals—in your career or in your personal life. Find your strengths and capitalize on them. Recognize your weaknesses and learn from them. This book will furnish you with the tools to do both.”  says Kathy Liebert, a top poker tournament player

For many decades, poker has been traditionally associated with men, however, Leikind encourages women to learn the game and use poker strategies to overcome their fears and doubts, establish plans and claim their rightful seat at the table.

“Forget golf! For women, the new way to the boardroom is Texas Hold ‘Em. The skills you learn at the poker table—strategy, bluffing, risk evaluation and maintaining that good old poker face—make you a better executive” commented Jane Bryant Quinn, author, Smart and Simple Financial Strategies for Busy People.

A 224-page hardcover book, PokerWoman: How to Win at Love, Life, and Business using the Principles of Poker is available for $24.00 US on WDIAV Shopping Section. For more information, please click here.

Related posts:

1. Watch And Learn Online Video Poker Tips For FREE At Bodog! photo courtesy bodog.com Get ready to sharpen your skills…
2. Local business and entrepreneurs get together for fifth Las Vegas’ Largest Mixer business network event Las Vegas ‘ Largest Mixer, the largest business network…
3. Doyle Brunson and Mike Caro announce Power Poker Seminar Series at Rio Hotel in Las Vegas Professional poker players Doyle “Dolly” Brunson and Mike “The…

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.