Editorial Note
The following comparison utilizes published poker benchmarks and existing product features. The previous poker comparisons utilized earlier model versions and therefore could not provide a basis for determining which October 2026 release is superior.
Short Answer
I recommend using ChatGPT as the primary tool for reviewing poker decisions, however the lead is small and currently uncertain whether it holds true for today’s most recent models. ChatGPT demonstrated the largest margin of success in a controlled heads-up game compared to the other models evaluated. In addition, ChatGPT demonstrated the largest margin of success in a second test (a test utilizing a structured poker framework).
However, ChatGPT is not a poker solution. In contrast, Claude performed best in a third test (multiplayer). Although all models reviewed incorrectly utilized cards, ranges, bet sizing and/or failed to utilize hidden information appropriately, they may be useful for reviewing a hand after completion versus utilizing them as reliable means of providing profitable poker decisions.
What the Poker Tests Actually Reveal
General Reasoning Scores Are Not Enough
General reasoning scores will not provide you with the information necessary to determine which model makes the best poker decision.
Poker decisions involve the ability to accurately track the poker environment (the “poker state”), the ability to create estimated ranges of potential hands of an opponent(s), and the ability to generate strategic selections that continue to yield profitable results over multiple rounds of poker. Therefore, the useful evidence regarding a model’s performance in poker comes from poker specific tests.
Test 1: The GTO Wizard Benchmark
The gto Wizard Benchmark is such a test. The benchmark involved models being forced to compete in heads-up no-limit hold’em versus GTO Wizard AI.
| Model | Performance (bb/100) |
| GPT-5.3 (high reasoning) | -16.0 |
| GPT-5.4 | -17.8 |
| Claude Opus 4.6 | -20.4 |
| Gemini 3.1 Pro | -30.8 |
Results:
- GPT-5.3 with high reasoning performed best among all models tested, resulting in a loss of approximately 16 big blinds per 100 hands
- Claude Opus 4.6 resulted in losses of 20.4 bb/100
- Gemini 3.1 pro resulted in losses of 30.8 bb/100
- Additionally, gpt-5.4 also came very close to achieving similar performance, with a loss of approximately 17.8 bb/100
All models tested lost to the benchmark opponent. Arxiv.org
Test 2: PokerArena Multiplayer Tournament
A second poker test was conducted by the authors of a paper titled “pokerarena” via pokerarena.com. The authors conducted 7 player texas hold’em tournaments over 50 sessions, with each session consisting of 1,000 hands.
Results reported in the paper:
- Claude Opus 4.6 led all models tested in terms of final chip totals
- Gpt-5.4 concluded the series nearly at break even
Due to differences in both game type (heads-up vs multi-way) and opponents (gto wizard vs random opponents), neither test provides definitive proof as to which model performs best in every possible poker variant. Arxiv.org
Test 3: PokerSkill Structured Framework
A third test was conducted by the authors of a paper titled “poker skill”, via PokerSkill.com, and provided models with a pre-defined library of expert rules and methods to interpret each decision.
Key findings:
- In this test, gpt-5.5 with high reasoning performed best against GTO Wizard AI
- The difference between gpt-5.5 and Claude Opus 4.6 was found to be not statistically significant
- As illustrated in figure 2, both models greatly benefited from the structured approach
Regardless of how you frame a question, it may affect the response as much as which model you select.
Important Limitation
While these studies provided useful insights into the behaviors exhibited by models, they did not evaluate either the current releases of ChatGPT, claude or gemini in a live poker environment under identical conditions.
ChatGPT vs Claude vs Gemini vs Perplexity
Chatbot Purpose in Poker Insights from Studies
| Model | Strength | Evidence Basis |
| ChatGPT | Review hand history | Strongest result in both heads-up test and PokerSkill test |
| Claude | Long hand histories & session analysis | Best in multi-way Poker Arena test; close to GPT in structured PokerSkill test |
| Gemini | Screenshots | Both Gemini models were part of heads-up test. However, Gemini 3.1 pro ranked last. No comparable poker data for Gemini 4 Argon |
| Perplexity | Fact-based research / verify claims / find current rules | Best as a research tool. Pro Search allows users to select models and link to references; it is not another poker strategy advisor |
Note: The current version of ChatGPT was not evaluated in those tests. Perplexity help center
Which One Should I Use?
For Beginners
Beginners who need assistance with individual hand evaluations should begin by utilizing ChatGPT Thinking or its higher reasoning options. Give it access to the entire action history prior to requesting recommendations including showing pot odds and assumptions.
This is a practical selection based upon poker specific testing and evaluation evidence previously described and does not prove that the new version of ChatGPT outperforms new versions of claude and gemini in head-to-head competition.
For Session Analysis
Use Claude when evaluating a longer session or identifying consistent areas within your game. Claude’s victory in multi-player testing provides further support for inclusion particularly if you play multi-way or six-max formats. It does not prove that claude will produce more successful decisions than other models for each individual hand.
For Visual Elements
Use Gemini when images represent key elements of your query or when you have already adopted Google’s products/tools. Ensure that gemini can identify suits, board layouts, positions, etc., prior to relying upon analysis.
For Research & Verification
Use Perplexity when fact-based research is required: room rules, tournament schedules, app functionality or claims requiring verification. Citation linking allows you to examine sources. Select the underlying model you desire for poker-related answers and view their responses similarly to any other chat-bot.
Prompt Designed to Get Better Hand Evaluation Review
Paste hand history into model request and ask:
As a coach evaluate my hand. First restating my position, effective stack size, pot size, board & action sequence so i may detect incorrect input values.
Next compare fold, call & raise where legal.
Provide pot odds and assumptions behind your range estimate separately indicating what is known & what is guesswork about opponent.
State practical recommendation followed by main reason why such recommendation may be incorrect.
Do not make up missing details.
If chat-bot makes an error with card, actions or stacks correct it prior to discussion strategy.
Ask chat-bot to analyze each decision independently.
For serious study compare their response against solver or trusted coach; polished language is not proof of successful play.
Important Reminder
For players who prefer real tables over practice – there is a list of private online poker games, where AI is forbidden to use.
In those places, security teams observe for non-human gameplay patterns to combat bots, RTA and other prohibited practices.
