Re: blitzing on third and long and the problem with poker forum advice
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
TSo this bluffing into a dry side pot thing isn't really a very good example, because it's not an example of an "optimal" or "equilibrium" solution - it's an example of perturbing the (three-player Nash) equilibrium solution by threatening to transfer equity from one guy to the other in order to make the threatened guy pay you.
[/ QUOTE ]
So basically this "isn't really a very good example" because it doesn't fit into the narrowly contrived parameters that make the math work out all pretty.
[/ QUOTE ]
Right, even though poker is usually a zero-sum game, Pete has managed to create a non-zero sum situation for the only two players with choices to make, shouldn't we explore it?
|