Solver-Guided Reasoning for Mixed-Equilibrium Strategies

Poker is a landmark challenge for artificial intelligence. The dominant approach relies on equilibrium solvers built on counterfactual regret minimization, requiring millions of core-hours of training. Large Language Models (LLMs) possess extensive poker knowledge but perform far below solver-based agents when asked to play directly. Traditional rule-based poker agents are interpretable and training-free, but their strategic ceiling remains far below equilibrium play. We introduce \textbf{PokerSkill}, a training-free and solver-free framework that bridges this gap by using detailed rule-based poker skills as a structured action-grounding interface for LLMs. A deterministic context engine analyzes the current state and retrieves only the relevant fragments from a layered skill library, which is entirely designed by human poker experts, constraining the LLM's choice to reasonable actions. Against GTOWizard, a state-of-the-art GTO benchmark, GPT-5.5 XHigh with PokerSkill achieves $-57 \pm 21$ mbb/hand, Claude Opus 4.6 achieves $-80 \pm 29$ mbb/hand and Claude Opus 4.7 achieves $-87\pm 64$ mbb/hand, reducing losses by 49--61% compared to default-prompt baselines and outperforming the strong bot Slumbot. Our key finding is that rule-based skills alone do not constitute a strong strategy, and LLMs alone cannot play well, but their combination yields an agent that requires neither training nor solver access yet competes with systems built on millions of core-hours of computation. To our knowledge, this is the first demonstration of an LLM achieving competitive performance in a complex imperfect-information game without game-specific training or solver queries. Code is available at https://github.com/lbn187/PokerSkill.

Large language models can score well on named game-theory benchmarks while failing on the same strategic computation once semantic cues are removed. We show this gap with procedurally generated zero-sum matrix games: a model that recognizes familiar games drops to 34%, 18%, and 2% success on anonymous $2{\times}2$, $3{\times}3$, and $5{\times}5$ payoff matrices. The benchmark separates semantic recall, learned approximate Nash computation, and an output-interface bottleneck that limits scale. Training only on $2{\times}2$ and $3{\times}3$ games, supervised fine-tuning raises unseen $5{\times}5$--$7{\times}7$ success from 2% to 61%, while exploitability-reward training averages 37% with high seed variance. We prove that the exploitability residual is $2$-Lipschitz in payoff perturbations, unlike discontinuous vertex-returning LP equilibrium selectors, explaining why residual training can transfer under payoff shifts even when formatting instability limits mean performance. A dominated-action padding experiment provides causal evidence: trained models solve $3{\times}3$ games embedded in much larger matrices, while random-padded controls fail and dense $12{\times}12$ games remain near failure. Procedural evaluation is therefore necessary for measuring strategic reasoning, and residual rewards expose a real but format-limited route to approximate equilibrium computation.

The emergence of large language models (LLMs) has spurred economists to study how humans and LLMs behave in strategic settings. We organized a series of round-robin tournaments in the Colonel Blotto game. This game attracts game theorists' attention due to high-dimensional action space and the absence of pure strategy Nash equilibria. In the first tournament, more than 200 human participants competed against one another. In the second tournament, several popular LLMs were invited to submit strategies. In the third tournament, we matched the number of LLM strategies to the number submitted by humans. We find that humans more often employ better-calibrated intermediate-level allocation heuristics and outperform the simpler, more stereotyped strategies submitted by LLMs. Strategic sophistication is key to success if and only if the necessary level of reasoning depth is reached, while lower and higher levels of reasoning offer no clear advantage over the primitive strategies. Among humans, field of study weakly predicts success: participants with STEM backgrounds perform better in the first tournament. Surprisingly, humans almost do not adjust their strategies across tournaments with different sets of opponents. This result suggests that humans base their choices primarily on the game's rules rather than on the identity of their opponents, treating LLMs much like human competitors.