[leaponthis]

[ QUOTE ]
using Game Theory to balance an overall strategy, practically guarantees a long term win

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
The whole point of a game theoretic strategy is that it can't be a losing one, can't be exploited.

[/ QUOTE ]

I definitely understand that a game theoretical approach can't be exploited. The problem is that there is no game theoretical approach. Nor can any of these math guys come up with one that is workable. And that goes for heads up play also. If there existed a workable (winning) game theoretical strategy, guys like Sklansky and Fergusen and Weideman, etc.. would win all of the heads up championships. But they don't.

Sklansky has now stated that the strategy he (and Malmuth) have sold to the public is not a winning strategy. To beat high limits you must adjust that strategy with game theroy. He says that but where is the game theory adjustments of which he speaks? I'll tell you where they are. They are under development. Sure they are. My point about the social aspects of poker that Sklansky doesn't give much credence to are basic skills like reading your opponent, and understanding position. In poker there is such a thing as talent. Talent that allows a player to rise above his opponents and out play them. Out play - not out calculate. Sklansky disregards this in his theories because talent does not lend itself to logical analysis.

leaponthis.