Successful Performance via Decision Generalisation in No Limit Texas Hold’em

  • Jonathan Rubin
  • Ian Watson
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6880)

Abstract

Given a set of data, recorded by observing the decisions of an expert player, we present a case-based framework that allows the successful generalisation of those decisions in the game of no limit Texas Hold’em. The transition from a limit betting structure to a no limit betting structure offers challenging problems that are not faced in the limit domain. In particular, we address the problems of determining a suitable action abstraction and the resulting state translation that is required to map real-value bet amounts into a discrete set of abstract actions. We also detail the similarity metrics used in order to identify similar scenarios, without which no generalisation of playing decisions would be possible. We show that we were able to successfully generalise no limit betting decisions from recorded data via our agent, SartreNL, which achieved a 2nd place finish at the 2010 Annual Computer Poker Competition.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Bowling, M., Risk, N.A., Bard, N., Billings, D., Burch, N., Davidson, J., Hawkin, J., Holte, R., Johanson, M., Kan, M., Paradis, B., Schaeffer, J., Schnizlein, D., Szafron, D., Waugh, K., Zinkevich, M.: A demonstration of the Polaris poker system. In: AAMAS 2009: Proceedings of The 8th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, Richland, SC, pp. 1391–1392. International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (2009)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Sandholm, T.: The State of Solving Large Incomplete-Information Games, and Application to Poker. AI Magazine (Winter 2010)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Rubin, J., Watson, I.: Computer poker: A review. Artificial Intelligence 145(5-6), 958–987 (2011)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Schnizlein, D., Bowling, M.H., Szafron, D.: Probabilistic State Translation in Extensive Games with Large Action Sets. In: Proceedings of the 21st International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI 2009, pp. 278–284 (2009)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Van den Broeck, G., Driessens, K., Ramon, J.: Monte-Carlo Tree Search in Poker Using Expected Reward Distributions. In: Zhou, Z.-H., Washio, T. (eds.) ACML 2009. LNCS, vol. 5828, pp. 367–381. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gilpin, A., Sandholm, T., Sørensen, T.B.: A heads-up no-limit Texas Hold’em poker player: discretized betting models and automatically generated equilibrium-finding programs. In: 7th International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS 2008), pp. 911–918 (2008)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Rubin, J., Watson, I.: Similarity-Based Retrieval and Solution Re-use Policies in the Game of Texas Hold’em. In: Bichindaritz, I., Montani, S. (eds.) ICCBR 2010. LNCS, vol. 6176, pp. 465–479. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    ACPC. The Annual Computer Poker Competition (2011), http://www.computerpokercompetition.org/
  9. 9.
    Andersson, R.: Pseudo-Optimal Strategies in No-Limit Poker. Master’s thesis, Umea University (2006)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    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, Proceedings of the Eighteenth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 661–668 (2003)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

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

Personalised recommendations