CASPER: A Case-Based Poker-Bot

  • Ian Watson
  • Jonathan Rubin
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5360)

Abstract

This paper investigates the use of the case-based reasoning methodology applied to the game of Texas hold’em poker. The development of a CASe-based Poker playER (CASPER) is described. CASPER uses knowledge of previous poker scenarios to inform its betting decisions. CASPER improves upon previous case-based reasoning approaches to poker and is able to play evenly against the University of Alberta’s Pokibots and Simbots, from which it acquired its case-bases and updates previously published research by showing that CASPER plays profitably against human online competitors for play money. However, against online players for real money CASPER is not profitable. The reasons for this are briefly discussed.

Keywords

Case-Based Reasoning Game AI Poker 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Schaeffer, J., Culberson, J., Treloar, N., Knight, B., Lu, P., Szafron, D.: A world championship caliber checkers program. Artificial Intelligence 53(2-3), 273–289 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Schaeffer, J., Billings, D., Peña, L., Szafron, D.: Learning to play strong poker. In: Proceedings of the ICML 1999 Workshop on Machine Learning in Game Playing (1999)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Billings, D., Davidson, A., Schaeffer, J., Szafron, D.: The challenge of poker. Artificial Intelligence (1-2), 201–240 (2002)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Billings, D., Peña, L., Schaeffer, J., Szafron, D.: Using probabilistic knowledge and simulation to play poker. In: Proceedings of the sixteenth national conference on Artificial intelligence and the eleventh Innovative applications of artificial intelligence, pp. 697–703 (1999)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Davidson, A.: Opponent modeling in poker: Learning and acting in a hostile and uncertain environment. Master’s thesis, University of Alberta (2002)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Billings, D., Burch, N., Davidson, A., Holte, R., Schaeffer, J., Schauenberg, T., Szafron, D.: Approximating game-theoretic optimal strategies for full-scale poker. In: IJCAI (2003)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Sklansky, D.: The Theory of Poker. Two Plus Two Publishing, Las Vegas (1994)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sklansky, D., Malmuth, M.: Hold’em Poker for Advanced Players, 2nd edn. Two Plus Two Publishing, Las Vegas (1994)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Korb, K.B., Nicholson, A.E., Jitnah, N.: Bayesian poker. In: UAI 1999 - Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, Sweden, pp. 343–350 (1999)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dahl, F.A.: A Reinforcement Learning Algorithm Applied to Simplified Two-Player Texas Hold’em Poker. In: Flach, P.A., De Raedt, L. (eds.) ECML 2001. LNCS, vol. 2167, pp. 85–96. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sandven, A., Tessem, B.: A Case-Based Learner for Poker. In: The Ninth Scandinavian Conference on Artificial Intelligence (SCAI 2006), Helsinki, Finland (2006)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Salim, M., Rohwer, P.: Poker Opponent Modeling. Indiana University, Personal communication (2005)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rubin, J., Watson, I.: Investigating the Effectiveness of Applying Case-Based Reasoning to the game of Texas Hold’em. In: Proc. of the 20th. Florida Artificial Intelligence Research Society Conference (FLAIRS), Key West, Florida. AAAI Press, Menlo Park (2007)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ian Watson
    • 1
  • Jonathan Rubin
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of AucklandNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations