Frontiers of Computer Science in China

, Volume 3, Issue 1, pp 73–91 | Cite as

Evolving Nash-optimal poker strategies using evolutionary computation

  • Hanyang Quek
  • Chunghoong Woo
  • Kaychen Tan
  • Arthur Tay
Research Article

Abstract

This paper focuses on the development of a competitive computer player for the one versus one Texas Hold’em poker using evolutionary algorithms (EA). A Texas Hold’em game engine is first constructed where an efficient odds calculator is programmed to allow for the abstraction of a player’s cards, which yield important but complex information. Effort is directed to realize an optimal player that will play close to the Nash equilibrium (NE) by proposing a new fitness criterion. Preliminary studies on a simplified version of poker highlighted the intransitivity nature of poker. The evolved player displays strategies that are logical but reveals insights that are hard to comprehend e.g., bluffing. The player is then benchmarked against Poki and PSOpti, which is the best heads-up Texas Hold’em artificial intelligence to date and plays closest to the optimal Nash equilibrium. Despite the much constrained chromosomal strategy representation, simulated results verified that evolutionary algorithms are effective in creating strategies that are comparable to Poki and PSOpti in the absence of expert knowledge.

Keywords

evolutionary algorithm poker game theory Nash equilibrium 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Using artificial neural networks to model opponents in Texas Hold’em. Machine Learning in Games Undergraduate Research Course, CMPUT 499, Computer Poker Research Group, University of Alberta, 1999Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Korb K B, Nicholson A E, Jitnah N. Bayesian poker. In: Proceedings of the Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence (UAI), 1999, 343–350Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Billings D. Computer Poker. M. Sc. research essay, Computer Poker Research Group. Alberta: University of Alberta, 1995Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cosmic Log, MSNBC. Human Beat Poker Bot · · · Barely, 2007, http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/07/25/289607.aspx
  5. 5.
    Holland J H. Genetic Algorithms, 2005, http://www.econ.iastate.edu/tesfatsi/holland.GAIntro.htm
  6. 6.
    Nash J. Equilibrium points in n-person games. In: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 1950, 36(1): 48–49MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Billings D, Davidson A, Schaeffer J, Szafron D. The challenge of poker. Artificial Intelligence Journal, 2002, 134(1–2): 201–240MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Billings D, Papp D, Schaeffer J, Szafron D. Opponent modeling in poker. In: Proceedings of the fifteen AAAI conference, 1998, 493–499Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Billings D, Papp D, Schaeffer J, Szafron D. Poker as a testbed for machine intelligence research. In: Mercer R, Neufeld E, eds. Advances in Artificial Intelligence. Springer-Verlag, 1998, 1–15Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Papp D. Dealing with imperfect information in poker. M.Sc. thesis. Alberta: University of Alberta, 1998Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Billings D, Pena L, Schaeffer J, Szafron D. Using probabilistic knowledge and simulation to play poker. In: Proceedings of the sixteenth AAAI conference, 1999, 697–703Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Davidson A, Billings D, Schaeffer J, Szafron D. Improved opponent modeling in poker. In: Proceedings of the 2000 International Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ICAI’2000), 2000, 1467–1473Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Express News, University of Alberta. U of A researchers win computer poker title, 2006, http://www.expressnews.ualberta.ca/article.cfm?id=7789
  14. 14.
    Billings D, Burch N, Davidson A, Holte R, Schaeffer J, Scauenberg T, Szafron D. Approximating game-theoretic optimal strategies for full-scale Poker. In: Proceedings of the Eighteenth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-03), 2003, 661–668Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Barone L, While L. An adaptive learning model for simplified Poker using evolutionary algorithms. In: Proceedings of the Congress on Evolutionary Computation (GECCO-1999), 1999, 1: 153–160Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Barone L, While L. Adaptive learning for poker. In: Proceedings of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference 2000 (GECCO-2000), 2000, 566–573Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Oliehoek F, Vlassis N, De Jong E. Coevolutionary Nash in poker games. In: Proceedings of the seventeenth Belgian-Dutch Conference on Artificial Intelligence (BNAIC-2005), 2005, 188–193Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    The Early Show, CBS News. Poker’s Popularity Surging, 2004, http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/12/25/earlyshow/living/main663053.shtml
  19. 19.
    Kuhn H W. Extensive games and the problem of information. In: Proceedings of Contributions to the Theory of Games, Annals of Mathematics Studies, 1953, 2(28): 193–216MathSciNetGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Higher Education Press and Springer-Verlag GmbH 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hanyang Quek
    • 1
  • Chunghoong Woo
    • 1
  • Kaychen Tan
    • 1
  • Arthur Tay
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Electrical and Computer EngineeringNational University of SingaporeSingaporeSingapore

Personalised recommendations