casino poker chips

Poker Craze Fuels Demand For poker Chips

2005-06-09T02:02:00.000-07:00

Poker Craze Fuels Demand For poker Chips December 3, 2004
It may be a gamble, but retailers bet poker chips will win big this holiday season as the nation’s craze for Texas Hold ‘Em continues to surge.
In 1999, Poker Chips USA in Northridge raked in $60,000 in sales over the holiday season. The online store tripled that amount over the same time frame last year, said owner Gus Fanfassian.
“This is the hottest trend in games right now,” said Ellen Heaney Mizer, game buyer for Barnes & Noble, which will set up displays of poker products in all its stores for the holiday season.
Feeding the frenzy for multicolored chips, cards, tables and all things poker-related are shows such as ESPN’s “World Series of Poker” and Bravo’s “Celebrity Poker Showdown.”
“They’re showing a whole bunch of young people how to play,” said Will Hunt, who started a retail line of poker products called All N’ Poker this summer.
“College kids love the game because it allows them to sit around a dorm room and play for several hours with just a few bucks,” he said.
Even Restoration Hardware, a high-end furniture store based out of San Francisco, is carrying everything from Ace shot glasses to mechanical card shufflers. Wal-Mart, Target and various other retailers are offering an array of poker goods as well.
Poker Chips USA’s most popular item is a 1,500-chip Texas Tournament set that ranges in value from $449 to $649.
“We sell anything you see in the casinos except the dealers,” Fanfassian said.
Aahs! carries everything from dice to poker sets that range from $60 to $200. There is even a sign next to the store’s prominent display of poker products suggesting how many chips are needed for games of varying size.
Since Hunt started All N’ Poker in Davis, Calif., this summer, he said orders for T-shirts and visors bearing the company’s trademark logo — “Dominate the Table,” have swelled to the hundreds on a weekly basis.
“Surfers have Quiksilver and basketball players have Nike — we want to be that brand for poker players,” Hunt said.

Steps For Shuffling Poker Chips

2005-05-25T23:37:00.000-07:00

Steps For Shuffling Poker Chips

Shuffling chips can be frustrating at first but in time it becomes easy. Starting out, it is easier to learn on a soft surface like a pillow or a couch. Note that on a soft surface the thumb can stay on the right side of the right stack the entire time because the initial lift can occur by simply pushing the two stacks together. Once the first few chips fall into place on the bottom, the rest of the chips seem to follow easier as your hand moves up the pile. One fun exercise is to start with 2 stacks of different color chips. If you shuffle them consistently you can notice certain patterns. Always put the right stack on top of the left stack such that the bottom left chip is at the bottom of the combined stack while the top right chip is at the top of the combined stack. Once you shuffle the chips together take the top half and put them on the right, leaving the bottom stack on the left.
The shuffle is repeated until the chips are back to the same colors. If you have eight chips in each stack then you get all the same color chips back in the same stacks after 4 shuffles. The list below shows the number of shuffles necessary for stacks of other sizes.8==>47==>126==>105==>6 4==>3 3==>4 2==>2 1==>1 Another interesting exercise is to follow the same guidelines until the chips are combined into one stack. At that point the top half can be put in the left pile while the bottom half stay in the right pile. When the exercise is done in this way the list showing the necessary shuffles for different size stacks is as follows:
8==>47==>46==>65==>54==>33==>32==>21==>1The main thing to remember is that the more you practice shuffling the chips the easier it gets.

500 piece and 300 piece Casino Poker Chips

2005-05-13T12:30:00.000-07:00

These casino poker chips are the most affordable, highest quality poker chip sets available anywhere. This is a great selection, pricing and quality. All of these chips are composite clay poker chips. We recommend one 500 piece set per 8 to 10 person table. Based on our experience and customer feedback, the 300 piece set should be used for 4 to 6 people.

Paulson Casino Poker Chip Review

2005-05-12T12:03:00.000-07:00

These are the real deal ... genuine Paulson Top Hat & Cane casino poker chips! The chips that I used for this review came from a local casino, Casino Windsor. Molds vary from casino to casino but the Paulson feel and quality are consistent and world famous. The sound and feel of these chips far surpass any other home poker chip. Riffling a stack of these babies is a thing of beauty. The solid or multi-color edge spots vary from casino to casino and from denomination to denomination within each casino.

I have numerous samples of these chips. Sample diameters were 39.14, 39.13, 39.39, and 39.11mm. The thickness of 3 chips stacked together was 9.76mm.
The Paulson inlay feels a little slick at first but softens with age. Everything about this chip gets better with age. The inlay could not be peeled off in any way. They hid scratches well and I had to gouge deep to reveal the base chip color. There are denominations printed on almost all Paulson chips. There are no edge ridges on these chips.

Las Vegas Custome Casino Poker Chips.

2005-05-11T07:22:00.000-07:00

This is a 11.5 gram composite chip with a metal insert that is available with customized inlays. These "Las vegas" custome casino poker chips are much more chiseled than a typical 11.5 gram composite and the mold contains a series of hearts, diamonds, spades and clubs that are recessed into the rim.
There was a series of almost imperceptible injection mold pimples on the rolling edge of this chip. They were impossible to feel and almost impossible to see even with a magnifying glass. There are no edge ridges on this chip. The edges were slightly sharp and seemed to wear somewhat easily. There are no markings of any kind on the rolling edge. These chips are available in all the correct colors.
The sound of this chip is more of a thud than your typical metal insert composite chip and the weight and although still 11.5g, seems better balanced. There is also a bit less of a porcelain ring to these chips.
I was sent one sample of this chip. It had a diameter of 39.00mm and a thickness of 3.35mm.
The inlays are sunken into the chip, feature full-color photo-quality resolution graphics, and are comprised of a waterproof film (not paper, and not ink). Unfortunately, the inlays can be peeled off with your fingernail. The label can also be torn and punctured. The obvious appeal of these chips is to offer a metal insert composite style of chip with a customizable and colorful center.

Jackpot Casino Poker Chips

2005-05-07T14:11:00.000-07:00

These poker chips feature the Jackpot Casino logo on a metal inlay. Even with the metal inlay, they only weigh 13 grams. They have a definite metallic ring to them but feel nice overall.
It was almost impossible to scratch the metal with a knife. The inlay is one solid piece that is embedded into the plastic molding and cannot be removed without intentionally ruining the chip. The plastic on the chip was similar to that of a typical Real Clay composite chip. The white and coloring was very deep, even on the suits.
There are four edge spots on each chip. There is a diamond and two small bars on the rolling edge of each edge spot. This looks better than it does on most chips with this feature. The overall effect of the edge spots with suits on them is nice. There are no edge ridges on this chip. There is no injection mold spot that I could see. The chip does have the same small edge seam as the chip described above but it is even smaller and nearly impossible to detect. I could not feel the seam with my fingers. These chips are fairly slippery, as are all metal inlay chips.
I was sent 7 sample chips. Sample diameters were 39.89, 39.87, and 39.64mm. Seven chips stacked together were 22.96mm thick.
This is a very nice chip. The metal inlay gives it a bit of that old-time western slug appearance and the composite helps to muffle the sound of a metal chip.

13 Gram Casino Poker Chip

2005-05-06T10:17:00.000-07:00

When you use "13 gram casino poker chips" you definitely noticed the difference in weight. Lifting one chip was noticeable but lifting a stack was much more noticeable. Keep in mind that I am also the type of player who notices a big difference from the 9-10 gram casino weight to the 11.5 gram composite chip weight.
The feel of this chip is a little less 'plasticy' than a typical 11.5 gram composite chip. There is a bit of a 'chalky' feeling to them. If you press hard, you can scrape your fingernail across the chip and leave a skid mark. The sound does have a bit of that same metallic clink as a composite but these chips definitely have a heftier 'thud'. The extra weight seems to help deaden some of the metallic sound. Please note that these chips may be slightly thicker than regular chips and may not fit in all chip trays or racks.
These chips have three solid edge spots with two diamonds between each spot. The edge spots are fine but somewhat unspectacular. The chips have a bit of a chiseled brickish look to them and stack nicely. They are not as slippery as your typical 11.5g composite. Color quality is good, not too dull but not too bright. There are no edge ridges.
Each chip has a 1 mm injection mold pimple located on one side of the chip, just under the rim. Once you know it's there, you can spot it from a foot away. Again, some people who already own these chips might not have ever noticed this.
I'm not sure why anyone would want to play with a 13 gram chip. Standard casino chips weigh about 9.5 grams each and I don't want to play with 11.5 gram chips, let alone 13 grams! But if you don't mind the heavier weight and hate the slickness of most 11.5 gram composite chips, this might be the chip for you. You can also 'trade up' these chips and receive up to $100 towards higher quality chips from BPC.

Casino poker chips color coding.

2005-05-05T09:36:00.000-07:00

Is there any generally accepted system for poker chip color coding in casinos? For instance, $1 is blue, black is $100, gray is $500, etc.?

The usuall colors are:

- Yellow: $0.50
- White: $1
- red: $5
- blue: $10
- green: $25
- black: $100
- purple: $500
- orange: $1000
- grey: $5000

This is a standard accounting of the poker chips; particularly the white, red, blue, green, black, and purple. There also are yellow at a higher denomination than .50. There are probably plenty of exceptions. Especially whith indian casinos and private card rooms. Also there is many casinos that use cheques for the higher limits.

How many Casino Poker Chips for an evening!

2005-04-29T10:26:00.000-07:00

The following is rough guidance on how many casino poker chips you may need for your own poker evenings, followed by general advice on splits. You also need to take into account the variation of poker you will be playing and the betting tendencies of your mates (are they aggressive bettors or Yorkshiremen with scorpions in their pockets?):

Number Playing Number of chips
3-4 300 chips

5-6 400 chips

7-8 500 chips

9 or more 1000 chips

Most people go for a 3:2:1 split on anything up to 400 chips. That is to say a 300 chip set would contain 150 of one colour (lowest denomination), 100 of a second colour and just 50 of the third colour (highest denomination). For example:
150 Blue (3)
100 Red (2)
50 Black (1)

Please see which denominations usually go with which colours.

Once you increase the number of chips over 400, you could add in a fourth or fifth colour. Any more than five colours and you may find it difficult to keep track of bets unless the chips are printed with a denomination. Generally, you want to keep 60% to 70% of your chips in the lower and middle denominations. A typical choice would be:
150 White
150 Red
50 Blue
50 Black

where to buy las vegas casino poker chips

2005-04-28T10:24:00.000-07:00

casino poker chips 819 701 casino style poker chips 106 91 casino quality poker chips 43 37 'used casino poker chips 14 12 real casino poker chips 12 10 casino supplies poker chips 11 9 used casino poker chips 11 9 harvard casino style poker chips 9 8 old casino poker chips 9 8 casino ace poker chips 7 6 clay casino poker chips 7 6 calgary casino poker chips 6 5 casino clay poker chips 5 4 poker sets chips clay casino chess 5 4 casino clay poker chips sets 4 3 antique casino poker chips 3 3 casino chips poker table 3 3 clay casino style poker chips 3 3 world poker tour casino chips 3 3 13.5g casino poker chips 2 2 casino clay 10.5 poker chips sets 2 2 free poker chips casino 2 2 high quality casino poker chips 2 2 nevada casino poker chips sets 2 2 old binions horseshoe casino poker chips 2 2 sahara casino poker chips 2 2 where to buy las vegas casino poker chips 2 2

More on Casino Poker Chips!

2005-04-27T08:28:00.000-07:00

There are more styles of poker and gaming chips than there are poker games or casinos. Fortunately, you can find the best poker chips at the best prices all over the Internet as casino Poker chips come in many different styles and colors.

Looking for Casino Poker Chips on the net!

2005-04-26T18:28:00.000-07:00

If you are looking for casino Poker chips, you'll find on the net everything you need to set up your own casino; from gambling chips to roulette wheels and from dealing shoes to blackjack mats. You can buy poker chips in tubes of 25 chips. Also, Cases, trays, bags and boxes for your chips cases are available in different prices.

Playing With Casino Poker Chips casino poker chips

2005-04-22T18:50:00.000-07:00

casino poker chips is an interesting test-bed for artificial intelligence research. It is a game of imperfect knowledge, where multiple competing agents must deal with risk management, opponent modeling, unreliable information, and deception, much like decision-making applications in the real world. Opponent modeling is one of the most difficult problems in decision-making applications and in casino poker chips it is essential to achieving high performance. This paper describes and evaluates the implicit and explicit learning in the casino poker chips program Loki. Loki implicitly "learns" sophisticated strategies by selectively sampling likely cards for the opponents and then simulating the remainder of the game. The program has explicit learning for observing its opponents, constructing opponent models and dynamically adapting its play to exploit patterns in the opponents’ play. The result is a program capable of playing reasonably strong casino poker chips, but there remains considerable research to be done to play at a world-class level. 

1. INTRODUCTION

The artificial intelligence community has recently benefited from the tremendous publicity generated by the development of chess, checkers and Othello programs that are capable of defeating the best human players. However, there is an important difference between these board games and popular card games like bridge and casino poker chips. In the board games, players always have complete knowledge of the entire game state since it is visible to both participants. This property allows high performance to be achieved by a brute-force search of the game tree. In contrast, bridge and casino poker chips involve imperfect information since the other players’ cards are not known, and search alone is insufficient to play these games well. Dealing with imperfect information is the main reason why progress on developing strong bridge and casino poker chips programs has lagged behind the advances in other games. However, it is also the reason why these games promise higher potential research benefits.

casino poker chips has a rich history of scientific investigation. Economists and mathematicians have applied a variety of analytical techniques to certain casino poker chips-related problems. However, since "real" casino poker chips is too complex for this approach, they have studied simplified variants ([15] for example). Other individuals, including expert players with a penchant for mathematics, have gained considerable insight about "real" casino poker chips by using partial mathematical analyses, simulation, and ad-hoc expert experience ([18] is a popular example).

Until recently, the computing science community has largely ignored casino poker chips. However, casino poker chips has a number of attributes that make it an interesting domain for artificial intelligence (AI) research. These attributes include imperfect knowledge, multiple competing agents, risk management, opponent modeling, deception, and dealing with unreliable information. All of these are challenging dimensions to a difficult problem.

There are two ways that casino poker chips can be used as an interesting testbed for artificial intelligence research. One approach is to use simplified variants that are easier to analyze. For example, Findler worked on and off for 20 years on a casino poker chips-playing program for simplified 5-card draw casino poker chips [7]. He modeled human cognitive processes and built a program that could learn. The danger with this approach is that simplification can remove the challenging components of the problem that are of interest to AI researchers. A variant of this approach is to look at a subset of the game, and try to address each component in isolation. Several attempts have been made to apply machine learning techniques to individual aspects of casino poker chips (some examples include [19,21,6]).

The second approach, and the one that we advocate, is to tackle the entire problem: choose a real variant of casino poker chips and address all the considerations necessary to build a program that performs at a level comparable to that of the best human players. Clearly this is the most ambitious approach, but also the one that promises the most exciting research opportunities.

Recently, Koller and Pfeffer have been investigating casino poker chips from a theoretical point of view [13]. They present a new algorithm for finding optimal randomized strategies in two-player imperfect information competitive games. This is done in their Gala system, a tool for specifying and solving problems of imperfect information. Their system builds decision trees to find the optimal game-theoretic strategy. However the tree sizes prompted the authors to state that "...we are nowhere close to being able to solve huge games such as full-scale casino poker chips, and it is unlikely that we will ever be able to do so." In theory, their approach could be used to build an optimal casino poker chips player for a real variant of casino poker chips. In practice, it will require too many computational resources unless further improvements are discovered.

We are attempting to build a program that is capable of playing world-class casino poker chips. We have chosen to study the game of Texas Hold'em, the casino poker chips variation used to determine the world champion in the annual World Series of casino poker chips. Hold’em is considered to be the most strategically complex casino poker chips variant that is widely played.

Our experiences with our first casino poker chips program, called Loki, were positive [1,14]. However, we quickly discovered two limitations to further performance gains:

1 The betting strategy—whether to fold, call, or raise in a given situation—was defined using expert knowledge. This became cumbersome, since it was awkward to define rules to cover all the possible scenarios. Furthermore, any static strategy is suspect. A successful strategy must depend on changing game conditions.

2 Initially, in games played over the Internet, Loki performed quite well. However, some opponents detected patterns and weaknesses in Loki’s play, and they altered their strategy to exploit them. An opponent can exploit any predictable strategy, both in theory and in practice. To be a strong casino poker chips player, one must model the opponent’s play and adjust to it.

This paper describes and evaluates two types of learning in Loki. First, its knowledge-based betting strategy can be viewed as a static evaluation function. In two-player games, such as chess, the quality of the evaluation can be improved through search. In casino poker chips, imperfect information makes a search of the full game tree impractical. Instead, a simulation that samples from the set of likely scenarios can be used to enhance an evaluation. We found that a simple evaluation function augmented by search can uncover sophisticated strategies, as has been observed in perfect-information games. In other words, search compensates for a lack of knowledge. In effect, Loki uses simulations to implicitly learn advanced strategies.

Second, Loki observes and records the actions of each opponent and uses this information to build a simple model of their play. This model is used to predict each opponent’s hidden cards. The program adapts to the style of each opponent and exploits any predictable actions.

We have experimentally assessed each of these styles of learning, both in the laboratory and in play with human opponents. To the best of our knowledge, Loki is the first successful demonstration of using real-time learning to improve performance in a high-performance game-playing program.

This paper describes our previous work on Loki [1,2,3,4,14] and outlines some of the future directions we are pursuing. Section 2 provides an overview of Texas Hold’em. Section 3 identifies the minimal set of requirements necessary to achieve world-class play. Loki’s architecture is described in Section 4. Section 5 discusses the implicit learning used in the betting strategy, while Section 6 addresses the explicit opponent modeling. The performance of the program is assessed in Section 7. Section 8 identifies future work, and Section 9 provides some conclusions.

2. Texas Hold’em

A hand of Texas Hold’em begins with the pre-flop, where each player is dealt two hole cards face down, followed by the first round of betting. Three community cards are then dealt face up on the table, called the flop, and the second round of betting occurs. On the turn, a fourth community card is dealt face up and another round of betting ensues. Finally, on the river, a fifth community card is dealt face up and the final round of betting occurs. All players still in the game reveal their two hole cards for the showdown. The best five-card casino poker chips hand formed from the two hole cards and the five community cards wins the pot. If a tie occurs, the pot is split. Texas Hold’em is typically played with 8 to 10 players.

Limit Texas Hold’em uses a structured betting system, where the order and amount of betting is strictly controlled on each betting round. There are two denominations of bets, called the small bet and the big bet ($2 and $4 in this paper). In the first two betting rounds, all bets and raises are $2, while in the last two rounds, they are $4. In general, when it is a player’s turn to act, one of five betting options is available: fold, call/check, or raise/bet. There is normally a maximum of three raises allowed per betting round. The betting option rotates clockwise until each player has matched the current bet or folded. If there is only one player remaining (all others having folded) that player is the winner and is awarded the pot without having to reveal their cards.

3. Requirements for a World-Class casino poker chips Player

We have identified several key components that address some of the required activities of a strong casino poker chips player. However, these components are not independent. They must be continually refined as new capabilities are added to the program.

Hand strength assesses the strength of a hand in relation to the other hands. The simplest hand strength computation is a function of the cards in the hand and the current community cards. A better hand strength computation takes into account the number of players still in the game, the position of the player at the table, and the history of betting for the current game. An even more accurate calculation considers the probabilities for each possible opponent hand, based on the likelihood of each hand being played to the current point in the game.

Hand potential computes the probability that a hand will improve to win, or that a leading hand will lose, as additional community cards appear. For example, a hand that contains four cards in the same suit may have a low hand strength, but has good potential to win with a flush as more community cards are dealt. Conversely, a hand with a high pair could decrease in strength and lose to a flush as many cards of a common suit appear on the board. At a minimum, hand potential is a function of the cards in the hand and the current community cards. However, a better calculation could use all of the additional factors described in the hand strength computation.

Betting strategy determines whether to fold, call/check, or bet/raise in any given situation. A minimum strategy is based on hand strength. Refinements consider hand potential, pot odds (your winning chances compared to the expected return from the pot), bluffing, opponent modeling and trying to play unpredictably.

Bluffing allows you to make a profit from weak hands, and can be used to create a false impression about your play to improve the profitability of subsequent hands. Bluffing is essential for successful play. Game theory can be used to compute a theoretically optimal bluffing frequency in certain situations. A minimal bluffing system merely bluffs this percentage of hands indiscriminately. In practice, you should also consider other factors (such as hand potential) and be able to predict the probability that your opponent will fold in order to identify profitable bluffing opportunities.

Unpredictability makes it difficult for opponents to form an accurate model of your strategy. By varying your playing strategy over time, opponents may be induced to make mistakes based on an incorrect model. 

Opponent modeling allows you to determine a likely probability distribution for your opponent’s hidden cards. A minimal opponent model might use a single model for all opponents in a given hand. Opponent modeling may be improved by modifying those probabilities based on the collected statistics and betting history of each opponent.

There are several other identifiable characteristics that may not be necessary to play reasonably strong casino poker chips, but may eventually be required for world-class play.

Opponent modeling is integral to successful casino poker chips play. Koller and Pfeffer have proposed a system for constructing a game-theoretic optimal player [13]. However, it is important to differentiate an optimal strategy from a maximizing strategy. The optimal player makes its decisions based on game-theoretic probabilities, without regard to specific context. The maximizing player takes into account the opponent’s sub-optimal tendencies and adjusts its play to exploit these weaknesses.

In casino poker chips, a player that detects and adjusts to opponent weaknesses will win more than a player who does not. For example, against a strong conservative player, it would be correct to fold the probable second-best hand. However, against a weaker player who bluffs too much, it would be an error to fold that same hand. In real casino poker chips it is very common for opponents to play sub-optimally. A player who fails to detect and exploit these weaknesses will not win as much as a better player who does. Thus, a maximizing program will out-perform an optimal program against sub-optimal players.

Although a game-theoretic optimal solution for Hold’em would be interesting and provide a good baseline for comparing program (and human) performance, it would in no way "solve the game." To produce a world-class casino poker chips program, strong opponent modeling is essential.

4. Loki’s Architecture

This section gives a brief overview of the important components of Loki’s architecture [4]. Figure 1 illustrates how these components interact. In the diagram, rectangles are major components, rounded rectangles are major data structures, and ovals are actions. The data follows the arrows between components. An annotated arrow indicates how many times data moves between the components for each of our betting actions.

The architecture revolves around generating and using probability triples. It is an ordered triple of values, PT = [f,c,r], such that f + c + r = 1.0, representing the probability distribution that the next betting action in a given context should be a fold, call, or raise, respectively. The Triple Generator contains our casino poker chips knowledge, and is analogous to an evaluation function in two-player games. The Triple Generator calls the Hand Evaluator to evaluate any two-card hand in the current context. It uses the resulting hand value, the current game state, and expert-defined betting rules to compute the triple. To evaluate a hand, the Hand Evaluator enumerates over all possible opponent hands and counts how many of them would win, lose or tie the given hand.

Each time it is Loki’s turn to bet, the Action Selector uses a single probability triple to decide what action to take. For example, if the triple [0.0,0.8,0.2] were generated, then the Action Selector would never fold, call 80% of the time and raise 20% of the time. A random number is generated to select one of these actions so that the program varies its play, even in identical situations. Although this is analogous to a mixed strategy in game theory, the probability triple implicitly contains contextual information.

After the flop, the probability for each possible opponent hand is different. For example, the probability that Ace-Ace hole cards are held is much higher than the cards 7-2, since most players will fold 7-2 before the flop. There is a weight table for each opponent. Each weight table contains one value for each possible two-card hand that the opponent could hold. The value is the probability that the hand would be played exactly as that opponent has played so far. For example, assume that an opponent called before the flop. The updated probability value for the hand 7-2 might be 2% since it normally should be folded. Similarly the probability of Ace-King might be 60% since it would seldom be folded before the flop, but is often raised. After an opponent action, the Opponent Modeler updates the Weight Table for that opponent in a process called re-weighting. The value for each hand is increased or decreased to be consistent with the opponent's action. The Hand Evaluator uses the Weight Table in assessing the strength of each possible hand, and these values are in turn used to update the Weight Table after each opponent action. The absolute values of these probabilities are of little consequence, since only the relative weights affect the later calculations. The details are discussed in Section 6.

 

 

Figure 1. The architecture of Loki.

Probability triples are used in three places in Loki. The Action Selector uses a probability triple to decide on a course of action (fold, call, raise) as previously described. The Simulator uses probability triples to choose actions for simulated opponent hands (see Section 5). The Opponent Modeler uses an array of probability triples to update the model of each opponent (see Section 6).

An important advantage of the probability triple representation is that imperfect information is restricted to the Triple Generator and does not affect the rest of the program. This is similar to the way that alpha-beta search restricts knowledge to the evaluation function. The probability triple framework allows the "messy" elements of the program to be amalgamated into one component, which can then be treated as a "black box" by the rest of the system. Thus, aspects like game-specific information, complex expert-defined rule systems, and knowledge of human behavior are all isolated from the engine that uses this input.

5. Implicit Learning

Loki's original Action Selector component consisted of expert-defined rules that used hand strength, hand potential, game conditions, and probabilities to decide on an action. A professional casino poker chips player defined the system as a first approximation of the return on investment for each betting decision. As other aspects of Loki improved, this simplistic betting strategy became the limiting factor to the playing strength of the program. Unfortunately, any rule-based system is inherently rigid, and even simple changes were difficult to implement and verify for correctness. A more flexible, computation-based approach was needed.

In effect, a knowledge-based betting strategy is equivalent to a static evaluation function. Given the current state of the game and the hole cards, it attempts to determine the action that yields the best result. If we use deterministic perfect information games as a model, the obvious extension is to add search to the evaluation function. While this is easy to achieve in a perfect-information game such as chess (consider all possible moves as deeply as resources permit), the same approach is not feasible for real imperfect information games because there are too many possibilities to consider [13].

Having an expert identify all the betting rules necessary to play world-class casino poker chips is time consuming and difficult. Decisions must be based on context, within a game and between games. Covering all eventualities is not practical. In such a system, the expert does the learning, transferring his knowledge into new or modified rules. We prefer a dynamic computation-based approach, where the program does the learning as it plays.

Loki’s improved betting strategy consists of playing out many likely scenarios to determine how much money each decision will win or lose. Every time it faces a decision, Loki invokes the Simulator to get an estimate of the expected value (EV) of each betting action (see the dashed box in Figure 1 with the Simulator replacing the Action Selector). A simulation consists of playing out the hand a specified number of times, from the current state of the game through to the end. Folding is considered to have a zero EV, because we do not make any future profit or loss. Each trial is played out twice—once to consider the consequences of a check/call and once to consider a bet/raise. In each trial, cards are dealt to each opponent (based on the probabilities maintained in the Weight Table), the resulting game is simulated to the end, and the amount of money won or lost is determined. Probability triples are used to simulate the actions of the opponents based on the two cards they are assigned for that trial. The average over all of the trials is taken as the EV of each action. In the current implementation we simply choose the action with the greatest expectation, folding if both expectations are negative. If two actions have the same expectation, we opt for the most aggressive one (call over fold and raise over call). To increase the programs unpredictability, we can randomize the selection of betting actions whose EVs are close in value.

Enumerating all possible opponent hands and future community cards is analogous to exhaustive game tree search and is impractical for casino poker chips. However, simulation is analogous to a selective expansion of some branches of a game tree. To get a good approximation of the expected value of each betting action, one must have a preference for expanding and evaluating the nodes that are most likely to occur. To obtain a correctly weighted average, all of the possibilities must be considered in proportion to the underlying probability distribution of the opponent hands and future community cards. The distribution of future community cards is uniform across unseen cards, but the probable opponent hands are not! We use selective sampling to select the most probable hands for each opponent. 

When simulating a hand, we have specific information that can be used to bias the selection of cards. For example, a player who has been raising is more likely to have a strong hand than a player who has just called every bet. For each opponent, Loki maintains a probability distribution over the entire set of possible hands (the Weight Table), and the random generation of each opponent’s hole cards is based on those probabilities. Thus, we are biasing our selection of hole cards for the opponent to the ones that are most likely to occur.

At each node in the decision tree, a player must choose between one of three alternatives. Since the choice is strongly correlated to the quality of the cards that they have, we can use the Triple Generator to compute the likelihood that the player will fold, check/call, or bet/raise in each instance. The player’s action is then randomly selected based on the probability distribution, and the simulation proceeds. As shown in Figure 1, the Simulator calls the TripleGenerator to obtain each of our betting actions and each of our opponent actions. Where two actions are equally viable, the resulting EVs should be nearly equal, so there is little consequence if the "wrong" action is chosen.

It should be obvious that the simulation approach must be better than the static approach, since it essentially uses a selective search to augment and refine a static evaluation function. Barring a serious misconception (or bad luck on a limited sample size), playing out relevant scenarios will improve the default values obtained by heuristics, resulting in a more accurate estimate.

As seen inother search domains, the search itself contains implicit knowledge. A simulation contains inherent information that improves the basic evaluation. For example, a simulation contains implicit knowledge such as:

• hand strength (fraction of trials where our hand is better than the one assigned to the opponent),

• hand potential (fraction of trials where our hand improves to the best, or is overtaken), and

• subtle implications not addressed in the simplistic betting strategy (e.g. "implied odds"—extra bets won after a successful draw).

It also allows complex strategies to be uncovered without providing additional expert knowledge. For example, simulations can result in the emergence of advanced betting tactics like a check-raise, even if the basic strategy without simulation is incapable of this play.

At the heart of the simulation is an evaluation function. The better the quality of the evaluation function, the better the simulation results will be. One of the interesting results of work on alpha-beta has been that even a simple evaluation function can result in a powerful program. We see a similar situation in casino poker chips. The implicit knowledge contained in the search improves the basic evaluation, magnifying the quality of the search. As with alpha-beta, there are tradeoffs to be made. A more sophisticated evaluation function can reduce the size of the tree, at the cost of more time spent on each node. In simulation analysis, we can improve the accuracy of each trial, but at the expense of the total number of trials performed in real-time.

Variations of selective sampling have been used in other games, including Scrabble [17], backgammon [20], and bridge [9]. Selective sampling is similar to the idea of likelihood weighting in stochastic simulation [8,16]. In our case, the goal is different because we need to differentiate between EVs (for call/check, bet/raise) instead of counting events. Also, casino poker chips complicates matters by imposing tight real-time constraints (typically a maximum of two seconds). This forces us to maximize the information gained from a limited number of samples. Further, the problem of handling unlikely events (which is a concern for any sampling-based result) is smoothly handled by our re-weighting system (Section 6), allowing Loki to dynamically adjust the likelihood of an event based on observed actions. An unlikely event with a big payoff figures naturally into the EV calculations.

6. Explicit Learning

In strategic games like chess, the performance loss by ignoring opponent modeling is small, and hence it is usually ignored (although it has been studied [5,11,12]). In contrast, not only does opponent modeling have tremendous value in casino poker chips, it can be the distinguishing feature between players at different skill levels. If a set of players all have a comparable knowledge of casino poker chips fundamentals, the ability to alter decisions based on an accurate model of the opponent may have a greater impact on success than any other strategic principle.

To assess a hand, the Hand Evaluator compares those cards against all possible opponent holdings. Naively, one could treat all opponent hands as equally likely, however this skews the hand evaluations compared to more realistic assumptions. Many weak hands are likely to have been folded before the flop, making them less likely to be held later in the hand. Similarly, a hand made strong by the turn and river cards may have been folded on the flop. Therefore, for each starting hand, we need to define a probability that our opponent would have played that hand in the observed manner. We call the probabilities for each of these (52 choose 2) = 1,326 subcases weights since they act as multipliers in the enumeration computations.

The use of these weights is the first step toward opponent modeling since we are changing our computations based on the relative probabilities our opponent’s possible hole cards. The simplest approach to determining these weights is to treat all opponents the same, calculating a single set of weights to reflect "reasonable" behavior, and use them for all opponents. An initial set of weights was determined by ranking the starting hands (as determined by off-line simulations) and assigning a probability commensurate with the average return on investment of each hand. These results closely approximate the ranking of hands by strong players [18]. 

In Loki, the Opponent Modeler uses probability triples to update the Weight Table after each opponent action. To accomplish this, the Triple Generator is called for each possible two-card hand. It then multiplies each weight in the Weight Table by the entry in the probability triple that corresponds to the opponent’s action. For example, suppose the previous weight for Ace-Ace is 0.7 (meaning that if it has been dealt, there is a 70% chance the opponent would have played it in exactly the manner observed so far), and the opponent now calls. If the probability triple for the current context is [0.0, 0.2, 0.8], then the updated weight for this case would be 0.7 x 0.2 = 0.14. The relative likelihood of the opponent holding Ace-Ace has decreased to 14% because they did not raise. The call value of 0.2 reflects the possibility that this particular opponent might deliberately try to mislead us by calling instead of raising. Using a probability distribution allows us to account for uncertainty in our beliefs. This process of updating the weight table is repeated for each entry.

The above corresponds to what we call Generic Opponent Modeling (GOM). Each hand is viewed in isolation and all opponents are treated as the same player. Each player’s Weight Table is initially identical, and gets modified based on their betting action. Although rather simplistic, this model is quite powerful in that it does a good job of skewing the hand evaluations to take into account the most likely opponent holdings.

Obviously, treating all opponents the same is clearly wrong. Each player has a different style, ranging from loose (plays most hands beyond the flop) to tight (usually plays the few hands that have a very high probability of winning), and from aggressive to conservative. Knowing the style of the opponents allows a player to adjust their betting decisions. For example, if a perceived tight player is betting aggressively, there is a good chance that they have a strong hand. A loose player will play many marginal hands or may bluff a lot. This is useful information and may allow you to fold a strong hand or call with a weak one when it is correct to do so. In general, a bet made by a loose or aggressive player should not be taken as seriously as one made by a tight or conservative player.

Specific Opponent Modeling (SOM) customizes the probability triple function to represent the playing style of each opponent. For a given game, the reweighting factor applied to the entries of the Weight table is adjusted by betting frequency statistics gathered on that opponent from previous hands. This results in a shift of the assumed call and raise thresholds for each player. In the case of a tight player, the call and raise thresholds will increase, indicating fewer hands that are likely to be played. Conversely, a loose player’s thresholds will be lowered. During each round of a game, the history of previous actions by the opponent is used to influence the probability triple generated for that opponent.

In competitive casino poker chips, opponent modeling is much more complex than portrayed here. For example, players can act to mislead their opponents into constructing an erroneous model. Early in a session a strong casino poker chips player may try to create the impression of being very conservative, only to exploit that image later in that session when the opponents are using an incorrect opponent model. A strong player has to adapt their model to the opponents varying their playing style.

7. Experiments

Self-play experiments offer a convenient method for the comparison of two or more versions of the program. Our experiments use a duplicate tournament system, based on the same principle as duplicate bridge. Since each hand can be played with no memory of preceding hands, it is possible to replay the same deal, but with the participants holding a different set of hole cards each time. Our tournament system simulates a ten-player game, where each deal is replayed ten times, shuffling the seating arrangement so that every participant has the opportunity to play each set of hole cards once. This arrangement greatly reduces the "luck element" of the game, since each player will have the same number of good and bad hands. The differences in the performance of players will therefore be based more strongly on the quality of the decisions made in each situation. This reduction in natural variance allows meaningful results to be obtained with a smaller number of trials than in a typical game setting. Nevertheless, it is important to not over-interpret the results of one experiment.

Experiments have been performed with Loki to measure the performance of generic opponent modeling (GOM), simulation (S), and both combined (GOM+S). The results were obtained by playing a self-play tournament containing two enhanced versions of Loki against 8 unenhanced versions. A tournament consisted of 2,500 different deals (i.e. 25,000 games). Each simulation consisted of 500 trials, since the results obtained after 500 trials were reasonably stable. 

The metric used to measure program performance is the average number of small bets won per hand (sb/hand), a metric that is sometimes used by human players. For example, in a game of $10/$20 Hold’em, an improvement of +0.10 sb/hand translates into an extra $30 per hour (based on 30 hands per hour). Anything above +0.05 small bets per hand is considered a large improvement. In play on an Internet casino poker chips server against human opponents, Loki has consistently performed at or above the +0.05 sb/hand level.

The experiments showed that GOM improved performance by 0.031 ± 0.019 sb/hand, simulations improved by 0.093 ± 0.04 sb/hand, and the combination was worth 0.095 ± 0.045 sb/hand (note that these are newer numbers than those appearing in [2,3,4]). The results reported here may be slightly misleading since each experiment used two similar programs. As has been shown in chess, one has to be careful about interpreting the results of these types of experiments.

GOM is a significant gain as expected. Given that all players in the tournaments were variants of Loki, the wide variety of play that is seen in human play is missing. Hence, GOM may be of greater benefit against typical human opponents. Simulations, on the other hand, are a huge win in self-play experiments against non-simulation opponents. As expected, they have a naturally occurring higher variance. The use of simulations represents a large improvement in the quality and variety of the betting strategies employed by Loki (or, possibly, overcome a serious weakness in the older version of the program). Whereas our initial knowledge-based betting strategy routine [1,14] was limited by the amount of knowledge we could code and tune, the simulation-based approach has no such restrictions. The simulations implicitly enable advanced betting strategies, with a degree of unpredictability that makes it harder for the opponents to model Loki.

Note that although each feature is a win by itself, the combination is not necessarily additive because there may be some interdependence between GOM and simulations (i.e. both ideas may exploit the same weaknesses). As well, the magnitude of the simulation improvement is such that it hides the effects of combining it with GOM. The larger the winning margin, the smaller the opportunity there is for demonstrating further improvement against the same opposition.

Each set of improvements reported over the past two years were measured against the previous strongest versions of Loki. As a result, the magnitude of the change may be dampened over time, simply because it is being tested against generally stronger opposition. For example, if you have three generations of casino poker chips-playing programs (A, B, and C) with B defeating A by 0.1 sb/hand and C is better than B by 0.1 sb/hand, it does not follow that C will be .2 sb/hand better than A.

Specific opponent modeling (SOM) is harder to measure, due in part to the nature of our self-play experiments. In previous work we demonstrated improvements for both GOM and SOM against a static default model [2]. However, since that time Loki has improved significantly (for example, with improved reweighting and simulations). A consequence is that our simplistic SOM model has not yet added significantly to the performance of the stronger version of Loki. Improving SOM is our current focus, and some of the ideas we are pursuing are discussed in the next section.

Loki has been tested in more realistic games against human opposition. For this purpose, the program participates in an on-line casino poker chips game, running on the Internet Relay Chat (IRC). Human players connect to IRC and participate in games conducted by dedicated server programs. No real money is at stake, but bankroll statistics on each player are maintained. The new versions of Loki using GOM and simulations win consistently when playing on the IRC server. Although there is a high level of variance in this environment, there is strong evidence that GOM is a major advance in the program’s playing strength against human opposition (as opposed to the self-play experiments where the advantage was not as significant). The performance of the program depends strongly on which players happen to be playing, and on IRC it ranges from novices to professional players. Consequently, it is dangerous to quantify the results of our recent improvements to Loki.

8. Ongoing Research

The work reported here is our first experience with a betting strategy based on simulations and opponent modeling. Each area has numerous opportunities for improvement, some of which are currently being addressed. Indeed, the casino poker chips project is rich in research opportunities. There is no shortage of good ideas to investigate; only a shortage of time and resources.

For the simulations, the major problem is variance (standard deviation) in the results. We have identified several ways in which the experiments could be conducted with less noise. Nevertheless, even with these enhancements, we expect the variance to still be high. Faster machines and parallel computations might be helpful since this will result in a larger sample of simulation data points. However, this has diminishing returns and our experiments suggest that beyond a critical minimum number of simulation data points (in the 100-500 range) the benefits may be small.

There are tradeoffs in doing the simulations. Currently, each data point contains a small amount of information about the expected value. Given the simplicity of the calculation, one can acquire numerous data points. Alternatively, one could do fewer simulations, but have each return a more accurate value. The quantity versus quality trade-off needs to be explored in more detail.

For the game of bridge, simulations have successfully allowed computers to play hands at a world-class level (GIB [9]). Nevertheless, limitations in the simulation-based approach and the high variance have prompted the author of GIB, Matt Ginsberg, to look at other solutions (including building the entire search tree) [10]. We too may have to look for new approaches to overcome the limits of simulations. 

In the area of opponent modeling, there are numerous avenues that can be explored. One serious limitation of our current work that needs to be address is the resistance to change that is built into our system. Our opponent modeling works well in some cases because most of the opponents have a fixed style that does not vary over time (certainly the computer opponents that we use in our self-play experiments have this property). However, it does not necessarily follow that opponent modeling will be as successful in games against human players as it is in the closed experiments. Humans are also very good at opponent modeling, and can be much less predictable than the players in our experiments. We have not yet investigated making our opponent models quickly responsive to perceived changes in an opponent’s style. For a strong human player, a single data point is often sufficient for them to set or alter their model of an opponent. Our models are far too slow to adapt. This must change!

A sampling of some of the ideas being investigated include:

• Use the simulations to refine the opponent modeling. Having done a simulation, record the expected reaction for each opponent. If their actions frequently differ from what is predicted, then Loki can adjust its opponent model.

• With opponent modeling, it is easy to gather lots of data. The problem is filtering it and attaching the appropriate importance to it. Without this, our modeling will be too slow to react, or base its decisions on irrelevant information. We are investigating condensing the data into simpler metrics that may be better predictors of an opponent’s style and future behavior. For example, measuring the amount of money that a player invests per game may be a good predictor of loose/tight play.

• Previous specific opponent modeling was hampered by the crude method used for collecting and applying observed statistics. Much of the relevant context was ignored for simplicity, such as combinations of actions within the same betting round. A more sophisticated method for observing and utilizing opponent behavior would allow for a more flexible and accurate opponent model. For example, we are currently experimenting with modifying our model based on sequences of opponent’s actions. A check followed by a raise (typically a show of strength) has more meaning than looking at these two actions in isolation. 

• Loki does not currently use showdown information. The cards seen at the showdown reveal clues about how that opponent perceived each decision during the hand. These hindsight observations can be used to adaptively measure important characteristics like aggressiveness, bluffing frequency, predictability, affinity for draws, and so forth.

• We have yet to fully explore the variety of techniques available in the literature for learning in a noisy domain where one must make inferences based on limited data.

9. Conclusions 

To master the game of casino poker chips, one must be adaptive. Any form of deterministic play can and will be exploited by a good opponent. A player must change their style based on the dynamic game conditions observed over a series of hands (looking at each hand in isolation is an artificial limitation). Our work has made some progress towards achieving a casino poker chips-playing program that can learn and adapt. Loki successfully uses opponent modeling to improve its play. However, it is abundantly clear that these are only the first steps, and there is considerable room for improvement.casino poker chips

casino poker chips is a complex game. Strong play requires the player to excel in many different aspects of the game. Developing Loki has been a cyclic process. We improve one aspect of the program until it becomes apparent that another aspect is the performance bottleneck. That problem is then tackled until it is no longer the limiting factor, and new weaknesses in the program’s play are revealed. We made our initial foray into opponent modeling and were pleased with the results. With the success of the new simulation-based betting strategy, opponent modeling is now back on the critical path since it will offer the biggest performance gains. We will now refocus our efforts on that topic, until it too moves off the critical path.casino poker chips

Pending Indiana Gaming Commission, approval logos casino poker chips

2005-04-21T19:25:00.000-07:00

All Harrah's logos, casino poker chips, cards and other items will be removed, Sanfillipo said.

casino poker chips

2005-04-19T10:15:00.000-07:00

casino poker chips