that would be miles ahead of what the current top players do. the statistical aid that players get simply recounts what has happened in the past "your opponent has raised X% of the time, called Y%, etc." the human doesnt prune the tree of poor decisions and then have the computer simply tell it what to do, the player needs to make all strategy decisions. Further, that type of hybrid "cyborg" situation is decidedly not optimal, it is simply the best way to make use of limited computing ability. Instead of a computer brute forcing every possible situation, the human tells it what ones are bad and to avoid. With infinite computing power, no human intervention would ever be needed, nor would it help. Obviously we dont have that kind of power, but for chess I believe it is already at the point where humans cannot improve upon a bots strategy by advising it. For poker, the issue is that these games have not been studied anywhere near to the level that chess has, so it is very likely that even a top pro would not be able to pick the "best" starting points for the program to then solve [or what ones to ignore, except for the very obvious which wouldnt be helpful]. For nearly all 2-player fixed-limit games, a pure computer strategy would win. When you add more players, the hybrid solution is needed, however, it is still not the theoretical best.