Planning poker vs AI estimation

Use this comparison when a team is unsure whether AI estimation should replace, supplement, or stay separate from story-point planning.

Product and engineering leaders can use this page when ordinary story-point planning does not capture how much AI-assisted exploration, prompting, generation, and review the work may require.

Vote on story points for delivery effort and vote on token usage for expected AI consumption, then discuss mismatches between the two results.

In Token Poker, ask participants to vote privately before reveal. A private vote reduces anchoring and makes it easier to see whether disagreement is about delivery effort, likely AI usage, or both.

Record the final story-point estimate, final token estimate, and the assumptions that changed during discussion. The assumptions are often more useful than the number because they show what the team needs to learn next.

If token estimates are high, ask whether the ticket needs extra discovery, smaller slices, clearer acceptance criteria, or a deliberate decision to spend more AI budget on the work.

Do not convert story points directly into tokens. They measure different things and are useful precisely because they reveal different risks.

Competitor and tool comparisons should stay specific. Token Poker focuses on AI-aware planning poker; other tools may be a better fit when a team only needs classic story-point voting or has different workflow requirements.