An Experimental Approach to Online Opponent Modeling in Texas Hold’em Poker

  • Dinis Felix
  • Luís Paulo Reis
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5249)

Abstract

The game of Poker is an excellent test bed for studying opponent modeling methodologies applied to non-deterministic games with incomplete information. The most known Poker variant, Texas Hold’em Poker, combines simple rules with a huge amount of possible playing strategies. This paper is focused on developing algorithms for performing simple online opponent modeling in Texas Hold’em. The opponent modeling approach developed enables to select the best strategy to play against each given opponent. Several autonomous agents were developed in order to simulate typical Poker player’s behavior and one other agent, was developed capable of using simple opponent modeling techniques in order to select the best playing strategy against each of the other opponents. Results achieved in realistic experiments using eight distinct poker playing agents showed the usefulness of the approach. The observer agent developed is clearly capable of outperforming all its counterparts in all the experiments performed.

Keywords

Opponent Modeling Texas Hold’em Poker Autonomous Agents 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Billings, D., Papp, D., Schaeffer, J., Szafron, D.: Opponent modeling in poker. In: American Association of AI National Conference, AAAI 1998, pp. 493–499 (1998)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Davidson, A.: Opponent modeling in poker. Master’s thesis, Department of Computing Science, University of Alberta (2002)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Schaeffer, J., Culberson, J.C., Treloar, N., Knight, B., Lu, P., Szafron, D.: A world championship caliber checkers program. Artificial Intelligence 53(2-3), 273–289 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Buro, M.: The Othello match of the year: Takeshi Murakami vs. Logistello. International Computer Chess Association Journal 20(3), 189–193 (1997)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Newborn, M.: Kasparov versus deep blue: computer chess comes of age. Springer, New York (1996)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Donninger, C., Lorenz, U.: Hydra chess webpage (consulted) (March 2008), http://hydrachess.com
  7. 7.
    Tesauro, G.: Temporal difference learning and TD-gammon. Communications of the ACM 38(3), 58–68 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sheppard, B.: World-championship-caliber scrabble. Artificial Intelligence 134(1-2), 241–275 (2002)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kan, M.: Post-game analysis of poker decisions. Master’s thesis, Department of Computing Science, University of Alberta (2006)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Wikipedia. Game theory. Wikipedia: The Free Online Encyclopedia (consulted) (February 2008), http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_theory
  11. 11.
    von Neumann, J., Morgenstern, O.: The Theory of Games and Economic Behavior. Princeton University Press, Princeton (1944)MATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    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, AI 1998, pp. 228–238. Springer, Heidelberg (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Davidson, A., Billings, D., Schaeffer, J., Szafron, D.: Improved opponent modeling in poker. In: International Conference on Artificial Intelligence, ICAI 2000, pp. 1467–1473 (2000)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sturtevant, N.: A comparison of algorithms for multi-player games. In: Schaeffer, J., Müller, M., Björnsson, Y. (eds.) CG 2002. LNCS, vol. 2883, pp. 108–122. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    UA GAMES Group. The University of Alberta GAMES Group (consulted) (March 2008), http://www.cs.ualberta.ca/~games
  16. 16.
    Billings, D., Davidson, A., Schaeffer, J., Szafron, D.: The challenge of poker. Artificial Intelligence 134(1-2), 201–240 (2002)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Billings, D., Burch, N., Davidson, A., Holte, R.C., Schaeffer, J., Schauenberg, T., Szafron, D.: Approximating Game-Theoretic Optimal Strategies for Full-scale Poker. In: IJCAI 2003, pp. 661–668 (2003)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Billings, D.: Ph.D. dissertation. Algorithms and Assessment in Computer Poker. Department of Computing Science, University of Alberta, Canada (2006)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Afonso, D., Silva, H.: Aplicação para jogar Texas Hold’em Poker (2007)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Southey, F., Bowling, M., Larson, B., Piccione, C., Burch, N., Billings, D., Rayner, C.: Bayes’ bluff: Opponent modelling in poker. In: 21st Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, UAI 2005, pp. 550–558 (July 2005)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Carmel, D., Markovitch, S.: Incorporating opponent models into adversary search. In: American Association of AI National Conference, AAAI 1996, pp. 120–125 (1996)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sklansky, D., Malmuth, M.: Hold’em Poker for Advanced Players, 2nd edn. Two Plus Two Publishing (1994)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Sklansky, D.: The Theory of Poker. Two Plus Two Publishing (1992)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dinis Felix
    • 1
  • Luís Paulo Reis
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.FEUP - Faculty of Engineering of the University of PortoPortugal
  2. 2.LIACC – Artificial Intelligence and Computer Science Lab.University of PortoPortugal

Personalised recommendations