Poker-playing AI ‘bot’ carries long-range impact |

Poker-playing AI ‘bot’ carries long-range impact

Tami Weingartner
Sam Ganzfried

For Sam Ganzfried, No Limit Hold ‘Em means more than big pots, timely bluffs and the thrill of an all-in bet.

He also sees the game as a path to using science to solve an array of complex issues, such as figuring out the best blend of treatments for an HIV patient or identifying the most effective methods for protecting airports.

Ganzfried, who just moved from Pittsburgh to Miami, where he is beginning a stint as assistant professor of computer science at Florida International University, approaches poker as both a player and scientist. He finished in the money at a 2010 World Series of Poker event and cashed last year in the main events of the Pittsburgh Poker Open and the Three Rivers Poker Challenge, both at Rivers Casino.

In addition, he was one of three Carnegie Mellon University researchers who developed Claudico, which used artificial intelligence to play 80,000 hands of No Limit Hold ‘Em against four of the world’s best heads-up players in 2015.

Hold ‘Em is a good research tool because it requires players, whether human or AI, to make decisions based on incomplete information. Each player has two cards that others at the table don’t see. Processes that help AI pick the best strategy in Hold ‘Em can be adapted to solve complex problems fraught with what scientists call “imperfect information.”

“The computer poker research area is just a little over a decade old,” says Ganzfried, who has a doctorate in computer science from CMU and a bachelor’s degree in math from Harvard. “The ideas are starting to have applications in medicine, security. It’s exciting to see these applications develop.”

The trick is to view an issue, say medical treatment, as a zero-sum game, like heads-up poker: If the patient wins, the disease loses, or vice versa. AI’s goal is to devise a strategy that will do as well as possible in the long run.

Gaznfried says a Heads-up No Limit Hold ‘Em player can face an almost incomprehensible number of situations: 10 to the 161st power. According to, that’s far greater than the number of atoms in the universe.

“There are a lot of (nonpoker) situations where multiple agents have private info only they know,” Ganzfried says. “(AI) agents have to act strategically. It’s only matter of time before agents make an impact in other areas.” For example, Ganzfried says a process developed at Alberta University, which used AI in No Limit Hold ‘Em, helped compute individualized diabetes treatments.

On a pure poker note, Ganzfried worries about the potential effect of computer “bots” in online games. Pennsylvania may soon join Nevada, New Jersey and Delaware in regulating online poker. Millions of Americans still play online poker through offshore websites, and complaints about bots giving their creators an unfair advantage are common. Bots are illegal on authorized U.S. poker sites, according to

“Even though I’ve worked on the computer program for poker, I also play poker,” Ganzfried says. “I certainly don’t want these bots to have any adverse impact on a game. Certainly none of the academic researchers are making their bot code available or using it online.”

Still, some people have developed computer programs to play online poker better than many human opponents. Ganzfried says that puts the host websites in a tough spot. If bots play lots of hands, the sites make more money from the rake taken on each hand. But if human players leave because of bots, the sites lose money.

One approach might be to have sites open only to bots or to identify which players are bots and which are human. “That could lead to some interesting data to be used for research,” Ganzfried says.

Whatever happens with online poker, he aims to keep studying the game as a player and as a scientist.

“The goal for me is not to just to build a poker program,” Ganzfried says. “The goal is to study fundamental scientific questions that have broader applicability.”

Mark Gruetze is the Tribune-Review’s gambling columnist. Reach him at [email protected]

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.