IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jgames/v14y2023i6p73-d1290608.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Factors in Learning Dynamics Influencing Relative Strengths of Strategies in Poker Simulation

Author

Listed:
  • Aaron Foote

    (Hazel Quantitative Analysis Center, Wesleyan University, Middletown, NJ 06459, USA)

  • Maryam Gooyabadi

    (Hazel Quantitative Analysis Center, Wesleyan University, Middletown, NJ 06459, USA)

  • Nikhil Addleman

    (Independent Researcher, Middletown, CT 06457, USA)

Abstract

Poker is a game of skill, much like chess or go, but distinct as an incomplete information game. Substantial work has been done to understand human play in poker, as well as the optimal strategies in poker. Evolutionary game theory provides another avenue to study poker by considering overarching strategies, namely rational and random play. In this work, a population of poker playing agents is instantiated to play the preflop portion of Texas Hold’em poker, with learning and strategy revision occurring over the course of the simulation. This paper aims to investigate the influence of learning dynamics on dominant strategies in poker, an area that has yet to be investigated. Our findings show that rational play emerges as the dominant strategy when loss aversion is included in the learning model, not when winning and magnitude of win are of the only considerations. The implications of our findings extend to the modeling of sub-optimal human poker play and the development of optimal poker agents.

Suggested Citation

  • Aaron Foote & Maryam Gooyabadi & Nikhil Addleman, 2023. "Factors in Learning Dynamics Influencing Relative Strengths of Strategies in Poker Simulation," Games, MDPI, vol. 14(6), pages 1-16, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jgames:v:14:y:2023:i:6:p:73-:d:1290608
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4336/14/6/73/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4336/14/6/73/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Sarin, Rajiv & Vahid, Farshid, 2001. "Predicting How People Play Games: A Simple Dynamic Model of Choice," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 34(1), pages 104-122, January.
    2. Fudenberg, Drew & Levine, David, 1998. "Learning in games," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 42(3-5), pages 631-639, May.
    3. Robert J. Leonard, 1995. "From Parlor Games to Social Science: Von Neumann, Morgenstern, and the Creation of Game Theory, 1928-1994," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 33(2), pages 730-761, June.
    4. Kalai, Ehud & Lehrer, Ehud, 1993. "Rational Learning Leads to Nash Equilibrium," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 61(5), pages 1019-1045, September.
    5. Marco Alberto Javarone, 2016. "Modeling Poker Challenges by Evolutionary Game Theory," Games, MDPI, vol. 7(4), pages 1-10, December.
    6. Roth, Alvin E. & Erev, Ido, 1995. "Learning in extensive-form games: Experimental data and simple dynamic models in the intermediate term," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 8(1), pages 164-212.
    7. Arthur, W Brian, 1991. "Designing Economic Agents that Act Like Human Agents: A Behavioral Approach to Bounded Rationality," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 81(2), pages 353-359, May.
    8. Rapoport, Amnon & Erev, Ido & Abraham, Elizabeth V. & Olson, David E., 1997. "Randomization and Adaptive Learning in a Simplified Poker Game," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 69(1), pages 31-49, January.
    9. Laurent Keller & Kenneth G. Ross, 1998. "Selfish genes: a green beard in the red fire ant," Nature, Nature, vol. 394(6693), pages 573-575, August.
    10. Friedman, Daniel, 1991. "Evolutionary Games in Economics," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 59(3), pages 637-666, May.
    11. Weber, Roberto A., 2003. "'Learning' with no feedback in a competitive guessing game," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 44(1), pages 134-144, July.
    12. Sarin, Rajiv & Vahid, Farshid, 1999. "Payoff Assessments without Probabilities: A Simple Dynamic Model of Choice," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 28(2), pages 294-309, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Duffy, John, 2006. "Agent-Based Models and Human Subject Experiments," Handbook of Computational Economics, in: Leigh Tesfatsion & Kenneth L. Judd (ed.), Handbook of Computational Economics, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 19, pages 949-1011, Elsevier.
    2. Ho, Teck H. & Camerer, Colin F. & Chong, Juin-Kuan, 2007. "Self-tuning experience weighted attraction learning in games," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 133(1), pages 177-198, March.
    3. Waltman, Ludo & Kaymak, Uzay, 2008. "Q-learning agents in a Cournot oligopoly model," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 32(10), pages 3275-3293, October.
    4. Weibull, Jörgen W., 1997. "What have we learned from Evolutionary Game Theory so far?," Working Paper Series 487, Research Institute of Industrial Economics, revised 26 Oct 1998.
    5. Xie, Erhao, 2021. "Empirical properties and identification of adaptive learning models in behavioral game theory," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 191(C), pages 798-821.
    6. Hopkins, Ed, 1999. "Learning, Matching, and Aggregation," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 26(1), pages 79-110, January.
    7. Terracol, Antoine & Vaksmann, Jonathan, 2009. "Dumbing down rational players: Learning and teaching in an experimental game," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 70(1-2), pages 54-71, May.
    8. Sobel, Joel, 2000. "Economists' Models of Learning," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 94(2), pages 241-261, October.
    9. Naoki Funai, 2019. "Convergence results on stochastic adaptive learning," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 68(4), pages 907-934, November.
    10. Nick Feltovich, 2000. "Reinforcement-Based vs. Belief-Based Learning Models in Experimental Asymmetric-Information," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 68(3), pages 605-642, May.
    11. Ying-Fang Kao & Ragupathy Venkatachalam, 2021. "Human and Machine Learning," Computational Economics, Springer;Society for Computational Economics, vol. 57(3), pages 889-909, March.
    12. Stahl, Dale O., 2000. "Rule Learning in Symmetric Normal-Form Games: Theory and Evidence," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 105-138, July.
    13. Schuster, Stephan, 2012. "Applications in Agent-Based Computational Economics," MPRA Paper 47201, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    14. Ed Hopkins, 2002. "Two Competing Models of How People Learn in Games," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 70(6), pages 2141-2166, November.
    15. David Cooper & Nick Feltovich & Alvin Roth & Rami Zwick, 2003. "Relative versus Absolute Speed of Adjustment in Strategic Environments: Responder Behavior in Ultimatum Games," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 6(2), pages 181-207, October.
    16. Erev, Ido & Bereby-Meyer, Yoella & Roth, Alvin E., 1999. "The effect of adding a constant to all payoffs: experimental investigation, and implications for reinforcement learning models," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 111-128, May.
    17. Chernov, G. & Susin, I., 2019. "Models of learning in games: An overview," Journal of the New Economic Association, New Economic Association, vol. 44(4), pages 77-125.
    18. Haruvy, Ernan & Stahl, Dale O., 2012. "Between-game rule learning in dissimilar symmetric normal-form games," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 74(1), pages 208-221.
    19. Naoki Funai, 2013. "An Adaptive Learning Model in Coordination Games," Games, MDPI, vol. 4(4), pages 1-22, November.
    20. Gunnthorsdottir, Anna & Rapoport, Amnon, 2006. "Embedding social dilemmas in intergroup competition reduces free-riding," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 101(2), pages 184-199, November.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jgames:v:14:y:2023:i:6:p:73-:d:1290608. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.