HackerPapers

arXiv:2308.12466cs.CL

Are ChatGPT and GPT-4 Good Poker Players? -- A Pre-Flop Analysis

Akshat Gupta

Early discovery. Linked by one identifiable commenter. This paper is outside the main ranking; a mention is not an endorsement.

Abstract

Since the introduction of ChatGPT and GPT-4, these models have been tested across a large number of tasks. Their adeptness across domains is evident, but their aptitude in playing games, and specifically their aptitude in the realm of poker has remained unexplored. Poker is a game that requires decision making under uncertainty and incomplete information. In this paper, we put ChatGPT and GPT-4 through the poker test and evaluate their poker skills. Our findings reveal that while both models display an advanced understanding of poker, encompassing concepts like the valuation of starting hands, playing positions and other intricacies of game theory optimal (GTO) poker, both ChatGPT and GPT-4 are NOT game theory optimal poker players. Profitable strategies in poker are evaluated in expectations over large samples. Through a series of experiments, we first discover the characteristics of optimal prompts and model parameters for playing poker with these models. Our observations then unveil the distinct playing personas of the two models. We first conclude that GPT-4 is a more advanced poker player than ChatGPT. This exploration then sheds light on the divergent poker tactics of the two models: ChatGPT's conservativeness juxtaposed against GPT-4's aggression. In poker vernacular, when tasked to play GTO poker, ChatGPT plays like a nit, which means that it has a propensity to only engage with premium hands and folds a majority of hands. When subjected to the same directive, GPT-4 plays like a maniac, showcasing a loose and aggressive style of play. Both strategies, although relatively advanced, are not game theory optimal.

arXiv comments
Journal reference
DOI
Subjects
cs.CLComputation and Language cs.AIArtificial Intelligence cs.GTComputer Science and Game Theory

On Hacker News

Linked by 1 identifiable commenter in 1 comment across 1 thread, from Sep 2023 to Sep 2023. Found in 3 HN submissions from Aug 2023 to Sep 2023. Open submission discussions.

Comments linking this paper, per year.

Discussed in comments1 thread

    • >Unless you think that there is some fundamental reason why LLMs will never be able to play chess competently, and I doubt there is, then it seems that we could with the right prompts implement some sort of chess AI using an LLM. You can play a good game of chess (or poker for…

      famouswafflesView on HNParent context

Submitted to Hacker News

Connected through shared HN threads, not inferred similarity or a recommendation.