[JaredL]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't really understand your comments about "different games" - the turn and the river are part of "in every sequence" from my comments above. To specify a strategy for the game, you must specify an action in every possible sequence, from preflop through all possible flops, turns, and rivers, and all betting sequences with nonzero realization weight (ie, any sequences you allow to happen.)

jerrod

[/ QUOTE ]

Jerrod:

Surely you recognize by now when you are dealing with people that do not understand the difference between "[theoretically] solveable" (if every atom in the universe were harnessed for computing power) and "has been solved." Similarly, you have retards on this forum that confuse "optimal" with "best" (although Daniel Negreanu made the same mistake on the Circuit internet show where Bill C. was interviewed).

In my opinion, every poker player should be very interested in optimal strategy under every circumstance. And should almost never employ it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Referring to best-response strategies as optimal is not a mistake, it is standard. Referring to equilibrium strategies as optimal is bizarre and an overwhelming majority of researchers that do work game theory do not do this. Your last two sentences give the reason for that.

Jared