Interviews
Artificial Intelligence and online poker: will technologies change the future of the game?
Today we sat down to talk with Igor Terebinov, Deputy CEO of PokerMatch International, about whether artificial intelligence could kill the future of online poker
AI can launch a new era of poker
The world’s coding geniuses have always considered poker to be the most complex game. Whereas, for example, all pieces are clearly visible on a chessboard, and the strategy itself is calculated for many moves ahead, in poker, the cards of all opponents are closed, so the winning options were selected based on incomplete data. Nevertheless, the machine with a specially launched program managed to master the methodology of using the well-known bluff. Before that, it was believed that machine intelligence was incapable of deliberate provocation and that only a human could bluff in poker.
Speaking about the beginning of a new era of poker, we can say that we are all already in it. Poker is a game that never stands still and is constantly evolving, and we can already see how much it has changed since its creation or over the past few years. However, it’s too early to say that AI will replace human speaking skills. It can be argued that artificial intelligence can make a significant contribution to the development of poker and change its dynamics, but it is a mistake to believe that it will start a new poker era. The game of poker is a challenging task for AI as it requires decision-making based on uncertainty and incomplete information. Thus, AI can help players make more informed decisions and improve their game strategy, but it cannot completely replace a player.
It is expected that the development of artificial intelligence will have an impact on poker as the technology improves over time. Currently, artificial intelligence is not flexible enough in terms of strategies and is very expensive to use. Therefore, it is not yet used in real online games.
How artificial intelligence is used in poker
I have to admit that artificial intelligence can be a useful tool for poker players, helping them to make more informed decisions and improve their game strategy. However, it is important to understand that the use of AI in poker does not guarantee victory at all, as the game of poker depends primarily on random factors and the intellectual and psychological skills of players.
AI in poker can perform the following functions:
- Game strategy development: AI can be used to develop optimal poker strategies that can help players make more informed decisions during the game.
- Data analysis: artificial intelligence can analyze large amounts of data that can help determine optimal strategies and predict game outcomes.
- Probability analysis: AI is able to analyze the probability of a particular combination of cards appearing on the table.
- Predicting opponents’ actions: analyzing the behavior of opponents and predicting their actions during the game.
- Determining the opponent’s level: analyzing the opponent’s gaming style and determining their level. This can help players adapt to the opponent’s playing style.
Ethical and legal implications of using AI in poker
First of all, it should be remembered that the use of artificial intelligence in online poker is illegal in many countries and can lead to serious legal consequences. As I have already mentioned, the game of poker is based largely on human skills, such as reading facial expressions, making strategic decisions, and understanding the game and behavioral characteristics of other players. Using AI to influence the outcome of the game contradicts the ethical principles of the game and may harm the experience of other players. If you personally want to improve your poker skills, artificial intelligence will not help you in this, but will only harm you. After all, over time, you may lose your intuitive abilities and skills of behavioral characteristics of your opponents.
Moreover, the use of AI can lead to a threat to player privacy, as some of them can access poker players’ personal data and use it for their own purposes.
Can AI “kill” the future of online poker?
I would say no, it is almost impossible. Yes, artificial intelligence can harm gaming in its classic sense – users will play for money, not pleasure, using AI algorithms and tactics. Players may stop improving their skills by trusting artificial intelligence. Some argue that AI may kill the original spirit of the poker game, as the winner may no longer be the one who can read opponents and calculate everything in advance, but the one who can memorize the most patterns and apply them in the game.
That is, AI can harm online poker, but it does not mean that it will completely replace human intelligence in this game. After all, poker is a game that requires not only computational abilities but also intuition, experience, and the ability to read other players.
In general, the prospects for the development of artificial intelligence in the field of gambling can be useful if they are used to create fairer and safer conditions for the game.
The future of the poker industry in general
The poker sector has long been one of the most popular and profitable gambling industries. In recent years, the online poker market has expanded significantly thanks to innovative technologies that continue to be constantly introduced into the game. Therefore, all indicators and favorable development conditions point to an increasing demand for online poker among users.
Gamification will become a separate development vector. Gambling will increasingly move towards gamification, become faster and more interesting. We can already see trends when users choose a platform to play not because it has the best conditions, but because it has some unique feature, you can boost your level, character, get achievements, etc. To some extent, our niche competes with games, video hosting, and other entertainment platforms where users come to get their own kind of dopamine.
Let’s not forget about artificial intelligence. In the future, AI will definitely be used to create interesting and dynamic gaming situations that will adapt to the player’s level and style of play. Also, AI can be used to create more realistic virtual opponents using VR technologies that will take into account all possible game development options.
The use of blockchain technologies in poker will also grow rapidly. Blockchain will be used to store and exchange information between players, such as game history and results. This will help to increase the transparency of the game and reduce the possibility of disputes.
Powered by WPeMatico
apuestas deportivas
¿Son las casas de apuestas las culpables o la arquitectura económica construida por Brasil en los últimos 35 años?
Esta es la pregunta central planteada por Carlos Akira Sato en su análisis sobre el creciente endeudamiento de los hogares en Brasil.
En lugar de atribuir el sobreendeudamiento a las plataformas de apuestas deportivas, sostiene que el problema tiene sus raíces en décadas de transformación económica marcadas por la expansión del crédito, la financiarización y sistemas cada vez más sofisticados de estimulación del consumo en múltiples sectores.
El debate sobre el endeudamiento de las familias brasileñas ha ganado un nuevo objetivo preferente: las plataformas de apuestas deportivas.
Las llamadas “bets” han pasado a ocupar un lugar central en los medios, el discurso político y las discusiones regulatorias, frecuentemente asociadas al aumento de la morosidad y la compulsividad financiera.
Pero quizá la pregunta correcta sea otra: ¿el sobreendeudamiento de las familias brasileñas realmente nació con las bets?
La respuesta, desde un análisis histórico riguroso, es negativa.
El fenómeno es mucho anterior a la regulación de las apuestas deportivas y está vinculado a una profunda transformación económica, cultural y tecnológica iniciada en los años 90, cuando Brasil abandonó gradualmente una economía cerrada e inflacionaria para entrar en una lógica moderna de consumo, crédito y financiarización de la vida cotidiana.
La apertura económica promovida durante el gobierno de Collor cambió el patrón de consumo del país.
Pocos años después, el Plan Real trajo estabilidad monetaria y transformó la propia psicología económica de la población.
Por primera vez, millones de brasileños comenzaron a financiar bienes, usar tarjetas de crédito, pagar en cuotas e incorporar el endeudamiento como parte normal de la vida económica.
Este proceso representó un avance y una inclusión financiera.
Pero también consolidó un nuevo modelo económico basado en la anticipación del ingreso futuro de los hogares. El crédito dejó de ser una excepción y se convirtió en infraestructura permanente de sostén del consumo nacional.
Bancos, minoristas y entidades financieras comprendieron rápidamente este cambio. Grandes cadenas dejaron de actuar únicamente como distribuidoras de productos para convertirse en plataformas financieras.
Las tarjetas private label, los sistemas de financiación sofisticados y los mecanismos permanentes de crédito pasaron a integrar la vida cotidiana del consumidor. En muchos casos, el margen financiero se volvió tan relevante como la propia venta del producto.
A lo largo de los años 2000, el modelo se profundizó.
La expansión de la bancarización, de los medios electrónicos de pago y de las fintech aceleró la financiarización de la vida cotidiana.
A partir de 2013, con la apertura regulatoria impulsada por la Ley nº 12.865, el celular pasó a funcionar simultáneamente como banco, billetera digital, plataforma de crédito, marketplace y entorno permanente de monetización del comportamiento.
El crédito se volvió instantáneo, invisible e integrado a la experiencia digital.
El consumidor pasó a contratar financiación en pocos clics, muchas veces dentro del propio flujo de compra. Brasil entró definitivamente en la era de la hiperestimulación conductual del consumo.
Y aquí es donde el debate contemporáneo comienza a revelar una contradicción importante.
Mientras el país construyó durante décadas una sofisticada arquitectura económica basada en expansión del crédito, publicidad emocional, gamificación, captura de la atención y monetización del ingreso futuro, la inversión estructural en educación financiera siguió siendo insuficiente.
Brasil enseñó a su población a consumir antes de enseñarle a construir patrimonio.
Hoy, prácticamente todos los sectores relevantes de la economía operan mecanismos avanzados de estímulo conductual: retail digital, aplicaciones, streaming, delivery, marketplaces, bancos, fintechs y redes sociales.
La publicidad dejó de ser meramente informativa y pasó a ser algorítmica, personalizada y emocional.
El consumidor moderno compite por su atención y autocontrol contra sistemas diseñados para maximizar el engagement y el consumo continuo.
Este fenómeno aparece incluso en sectores raramente asociados al debate regulatorio.
El comercio alimentario, por ejemplo, utiliza técnicas sofisticadas de neuromarketing para impulsar el consumo de productos ultraprocesados, bebidas alcohólicas e ítems de compra impulsiva. Sin embargo, pocos segmentos han enfrentado un nivel de monitoreo similar al impuesto a las apuestas deportivas.
El sector regulado de las bets surgió en Brasil bajo uno de los marcos más estrictos de la economía digital.
Las plataformas deben identificar usuarios biométricamente, monitorear el comportamiento, rastrear operaciones, comunicar movimientos sospechosos al COAF, implementar políticas de juego responsable e impedir apuestas financiadas con crédito.
Es decir: el regulador entendió correctamente que la combinación entre compulsividad y crédito podía ser socialmente explosiva.
Pero aquí surge una pregunta inevitable: ¿por qué sectores históricamente asociados al sobreendeudamiento de las familias brasileñas operaron durante décadas bajo niveles significativamente menores de monitoreo conductual?
Datos de la CNC muestran que el porcentaje de familias endeudadas alcanzó el 80,2% en febrero de 2026 — el nivel más alto de la serie histórica.
Este escenario no nació con las bets. Es el resultado de décadas de expansión agresiva del crédito, financiarización de la vida cotidiana, hiperestimulación del consumo y ausencia estructural de educación económica de la población.
Marco comparativo : obligaciones regulatorias y conductuales
| Tema / Obligación | Bets | Bancos | Retail / Alimentos |
|---|---|---|---|
| Identificación formal del cliente (KYC) | Obligatoria, robusta, con biometría | Obligatoria | Limitada |
| Validación de titularidad de cuenta | Obligatoria | Generalmente obligatoria | Normalmente inexistente |
| Monitoreo conductual | Alto | Enfocado en fraude y crédito | Bajo |
| Prohibición del uso de crédito | Sí | No | No |
| Publicidad emocional | Con restricciones crecientes | Permitida con límites | Ampliamente utilizada |
| Protección contra compulsividad | Obligatoria | Muy limitada | Prácticamente inexistente |
| Herramientas de autoexclusión | Obligatorias | Inexistentes | Inexistentes |
| Obligación de reporte al COAF | Sí | Sí | Limitada |
| Control del origen de fondos | Obligatorio | Obligatorio | Generalmente inexistente |
| Fiscalización conductual | Intensa | Moderada | Baja |
| Políticas de consumo responsable | Obligatorias | Parciales | Generalmente inexistentes |
El punto más provocador quizá sea justamente la asimetría regulatoria que este debate revela.
Varios sectores históricamente asociados a la compulsividad, el hiperconsumo y la dependencia han operado durante décadas bajo una lógica regulatoria menos intervencionista que la actualmente aplicada a las apuestas deportivas.
Al final, el verdadero debate tal vez no sea solo “cómo regular las apuestas”, sino cómo preparar a la sociedad para vivir en una economía digital, hiperinanciarizada y permanentemente orientada a la captura de la atención, el consumo y la monetización conductual.
Carlos Akira Sato
Co-Founder de Fenynx Digital Assets y especialista en Mercados Regulados, Infraestructura Financiera, Gobernanza e Innovación. Vicepresidente de Relaciones Institucionales de PAGOS (Asociación de Gestión de Medios de Pagos Electrónicos).
The post ¿Son las casas de apuestas las culpables o la arquitectura económica construida por Brasil en los últimos 35 años? appeared first on Americas iGaming & Sports Betting News.
Betting Companies
Are betting operators to blame, or is it Brazil’s economic framework of the last 35 years?
Are betting companies to blame or is it Brazil’s economic framework of the last 35 years?
This is the central question raised by Carlos Akira Sato in his analysis of Brazil’s rising household debt.
Rather than attributing over-indebtedness to sports betting platforms, he argues that the issue is rooted in decades of economic transformation shaped by credit expansion, financialization, and increasingly sophisticated systems of consumer stimulation across multiple sectors.
The debate surrounding Brazilian household debt has gained a new preferred target: sports betting platforms.
The so-called “bets” have taken center stage in the news, political discourse, and regulatory discussions, often associated with rising default rates and financial compulsiveness.
But perhaps the correct question is another one: did the over-indebtedness of Brazilian families really begin with bets?
The answer, under a serious historical analysis, is no.
The phenomenon predates the regulation of sports betting by decades and is linked to a profound economic, cultural, and technological transformation that began in the 1990s, when Brazil gradually abandoned a closed and inflationary economy to enter a modern logic of consumption, credit, and the financialization of everyday life.
The economic opening promoted during the Collor administration changed the country’s consumption patterns.
A few years later, the Real Plan brought monetary stability and transformed the population’s economic psychology itself.
For the first time, millions of Brazilians began financing goods, using credit cards, paying in installments, and incorporating debt as a normal part of economic life.
This process represented progress and financial inclusion.
But it also consolidated a new economic model based on the anticipation of families’ future income. Credit ceased to be an exception and became permanent infrastructure supporting national consumption.
Banks, retailers, and financial institutions quickly understood this change. Large retail chains stopped acting solely as product distributors and became financial platforms.
Private-label cards, sophisticated installment plans, and permanent financing mechanisms became part of consumers’ daily lives. In many cases, financial margins became just as relevant as the sale of the products themselves.
Throughout the 2000s, the model deepened.
The expansion of banking access, electronic payment methods, and fintechs accelerated the financialization of everyday life.
From 2013 onward, with the regulatory opening promoted by Law No. 12,865, mobile phones simultaneously became banks, digital wallets, credit platforms, marketplaces, and permanent environments for behavioral monetization.
Credit became instant, invisible, and integrated into the digital experience. Consumers started obtaining financing in just a few clicks, often within the purchasing flow itself. Brazil definitively entered the era of behavioral hyperstimulation of consumption.
And this is where the contemporary debate begins to reveal an important contradiction.
While the country spent decades building a sophisticated economic architecture based on credit expansion, emotional advertising, gamification, attention capture, and monetization of future income, structural investment in financial education remained insufficient.
Brazil taught its population how to consume before teaching them how to build wealth.
Today, virtually every relevant sector of the economy operates advanced behavioral stimulation mechanisms: digital retail, apps, streaming platforms, delivery services, marketplaces, banks, fintechs, and social networks.
Advertising is no longer merely informative; it has become algorithmic, personalized, and emotional. The modern consumer competes for attention and self-control against systems designed to maximize engagement and continuous consumption.
This phenomenon appears even in sectors rarely associated with regulatory debates.
The food retail industry, for example, uses sophisticated neuromarketing techniques to boost the consumption of ultra-processed foods, alcoholic beverages, and impulse-buy products. Yet few segments have faced a level of monitoring similar to that imposed on sports betting.
Brazil’s regulated betting sector emerged under one of the strictest frameworks in the digital economy.
Platforms are required to biometrically identify users, monitor behavior, track transactions, report suspicious activity to COAF, implement responsible gaming policies, and prevent bets financed through credit.
The Brazilian model requires prior deposits and prohibits “uncovered” betting.
In other words, regulators correctly understood that the combination of compulsiveness and credit could become socially explosive.
But here an inevitable question arises: why have sectors historically associated with the over-indebtedness of Brazilian families operated for decades under significantly lower levels of behavioral monitoring?
Data from CNC show that the percentage of indebted families reached 80.2% in February 2026 — the highest level in the historical series.
This scenario did not begin with bets. It is the result of decades of aggressive credit expansion, financialization of daily life, hyperstimulation of consumption, and the structural absence of economic education for the population.
Comparative framework: regulatory and behavioral obligations
| Topic / Obligation | Betting operators | Banks | Retail / Food |
|---|---|---|---|
| Formal customer identification (KYC) | Mandatory, robust, biometric | Mandatory | Limited |
| Account ownership validation | Mandatory | Generally mandatory | Usually nonexistent |
| Behavioral monitoring | High | Focused on fraud and credit | Low |
| Prohibition of credit use | Yes | No | No |
| Emotional advertising | Under increasing restrictions | Permitted with limits | Widely used |
| Protection against compulsiveness | Mandatory | Very limited | Practically nonexistent |
| Self-exclusion tools | Mandatory | Nonexistent | Nonexistent |
| Obligation to report to COAF | Yes | Yes | Limited |
| Source-of-funds control | Mandatory | Mandatory | Generally nonexistent |
| Behavioral oversight | Intense | Moderate | Low |
| Formal responsible consumption policies | Mandatory | Partial | Generally nonexistent |
Perhaps the most provocative point is precisely the regulatory asymmetry revealed by this debate.
Several sectors historically associated with compulsiveness, hyperconsumption, and dependency have operated for decades under a less interventionist regulatory logic than the one currently applied to sports betting.
In the end, the real debate may not simply be “how should betting be regulated?”, but rather how to prepare society to live in a digital, hyper-financialized economy permanently driven by attention capture, consumption, and behavioral monetization.
Carlos Akira Sato
Co-Founder of Fenynx Digital Assets and specialist in Regulated Markets, Financial Infrastructure, Governance, and Innovation. Vice President of Institutional Relations at PAGOS (Association for Electronic Payment Management).
The post Are betting operators to blame, or is it Brazil’s economic framework of the last 35 years? appeared first on Americas iGaming & Sports Betting News.
Following his appointment as CEO of BC.Game in March, Kar Kheng Giam (KK) speaks about the strategic priorities shaping the company’s next phase, from strengthening operational foundations to navigating the evolving role of crypto within regulated gaming markets.
You’ve stepped into the CEO role at a pivotal time for the industry. How do you assess the current position of BC.Game?
BC.Game enters this stage from a position of strength in terms of product, user engagement and global reach.
At the same time, the broader industry is evolving. Expectations around governance, regulatory alignment and operational maturity are increasing, particularly for businesses operating across multiple jurisdictions.
So while the foundation is strong, there is a clear opportunity to further strengthen the structure of the business to support long-term, sustainable growth.
That foundation is reflected in the scale of the business today, with more than 9 million registered users and over 500,000 monthly active players, and in the progress we’ve made across licensed markets such as Anjouan, Kenya, Nigeria and Mexico.
How would you define the strategic focus for BC.Game over the next 12 to 24 months?
It comes down to three interconnected areas. First, reinforcing the operational and governance framework of the business, ensuring we are well aligned with the expectations of more established regulatory environments.
Second, continuing to invest in the product – not just in terms of content, but in the overall user experience and platform reliability.
And third, taking a disciplined approach to market expansion, focusing on jurisdictions where we can build a sustainable and compliant presence.
It’s about evolving the business in a structured and deliberate way.
You’ve highlighted governance and structure. What does that mean in practical terms?
It means putting in place the systems, processes and organisational clarity needed to operate at scale.
As companies grow internationally, complexity increases – across regulation, payments, technology and operations. Strengthening governance is about ensuring those elements are well coordinated and consistently managed.
This is not about changing what BC.Game is, but about building the framework that allows it to grow more effectively.
Why has trust become so important at this stage?
At BC.GAME’s scale, trust is no longer just about brand but increasingly becomes a business issue – it affects retention, partnerships, market entry and long-term growth.
And trust is built in very practical ways. People judge a platform by whether the rules are clear, whether communication is smooth, and whether issues actually get resolved. That’s why growth on its own is no longer enough.
Where is the most immediate trust pressure on BC.GAME showing up today?
The pressure shows up most clearly in user experience and issue handling because that’s where people feel it first.
Some of the feedback does point to response times and cases where issues stay in the same entry point for too long. When that happens often enough, it becomes bigger than a service issue, it starts to shape trust.
What changes is BC.GAME putting in place in response to these issues?
We’ve already started making changes. That includes upgrading how user issues are handled, bringing cross-functional teams in earlier, and improving how issues are identified and coordinated internally.
As the business has grown, relying too heavily on a single customer support entry point is no longer enough. The focus now is to make issue handling clearer, more stable, and better suited to the scale of the platform.
What role does organisational development play in this next phase?
As the business grows, it’s important to ensure that the organisation evolves alongside it. That includes strengthening leadership structures, clarifying roles and responsibilities, and building capabilities in key areas such as compliance and market operations.
Ultimately, strategy is only as effective as the organisation delivering it.
From a leadership perspective, how do you approach guiding a globally distributed business?
In a global organisation, alignment is critical – everyone needs to understand the strategic direction and how their role contributes to it. At the same time, there needs to be flexibility to adapt to local market dynamics.
My role is to create that balance – providing clear direction while enabling teams to execute effectively within their markets.
Finally, what does success look like for BC.Game over the next few years?
Success is about building a more structured, resilient and trusted business.
That means strengthening our position in regulated markets, continuing to evolve the product, and ensuring the organisation is equipped to operate at scale. This current period is a crucial one for us as we introduce multiple product rollouts at BC.GAME, with several key updates scheduled to go live. These include BC Engine, along with a broader upgrade to the bonus system and, of course, the World Cup.
If we can achieve that through consistent, incremental progress, then we will be well positioned for the long term.
The post BC.Game’s new CEO Kar Kheng Giam on strategy, structure and growth appeared first on Eastern European Gaming | Global iGaming & Tech Intelligence Hub.
-
AGCO5 days agoAGCO Takes Enforcement Action Against Two Companies for Allowing Their Games on Unregulated Gaming Websites
-
Caleta Gaming6 days ago
Caleta Gaming launches Cluster Cup high-volatility football-themed slot
-
Apple4 days agoIBJR hails App Store approval as a milestone in the fight against illegal betting in Brazil
-
AB Trav och Galopp5 days ago
Richard Woodbridge Elected to ATG Board of Directors
-
apuestas deportivas4 days ago
¿Por qué Pix es central en la lucha contra el mercado ilegal de apuestas?
-
game release5 days ago
Spinomenal adds Desperado Drifter Hold & Hit 3×3 to slot portfolio
-
Brazil4 days ago
Esportes da Sorte campaign celebrates fans’ resilience in support of Brazil
-
Almir Ribeiro5 days ago
BetMGM Brazil hires veteran journalist to lead government relations
