[Truthiness24]

[ QUOTE ]
Chen & Ankemann actually feel that there are very few situations/hands requiring mixed strategies in poker, and that optimal play uses pure strategies almost exclusively.

[/ QUOTE ]

I haven't read this, but this was exactly my point. Against a table full opponents with a clue (i.e. you), I would use all levels of game theory, and if I were to strike the right chord it would show on the bottom line. I am an inferior player to most of you, and it would take every trick in the book for me to chalk up a W against a table full of you guys.

Fortunately, that never happens. Against OPs without much of a clue (the rest of the world), I think that the "optimal" play is best 99% of the time -- until you have them trained like a drooling dog and you hit them with the okey-doke (troll's example). This occasion comes up a lot less than it would seem, and often I (and, I suspect you) shake our heads that our "move" or "play" didn't work. It didn't work becase you overestimated the thought process going on in the brain cell across the table.

Because (especially online) tables are so fluid, and because fish don't really learn like you might think they do, it seems best, like I said, not to get too clever. (Except, of course, when you do.)

To be sure, this employs game theory -- I do understand what that basically involves, even if I've never read a book about it. To tie it all together, I am saying that most circumstances in poker require a much more conservative application of game theory. Overthinking -- getting too clever -- can be costly.