Whats in a Range

[Cablelessray]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
so, is there any starting strategy that is more correct than any other? short of folding the nuts throught 20th nuts, and only raising hands that don't play on the board, can't any realistic starting strategy be viable assuming one is able to adjust to his/her oponent?


[/ QUOTE ]

very nice, and an important concept to get at. The answer is, theoretically speaking, there is a strategy which you oculd employ (if anybody could figure it out) that would be unexploitable by your opponent. That is, you would be doing things with a frequency that would make the EV of all your opponents decisions exactly the same. If you and your opponent both played perfectly then this would be the optimal strategy for you to employ. However, nobody plays perfectly and everybody is exploitable to some degree. So, the result is we all try to adjust our frequencies to take exploit our opponents. If our opponents were static, never changing, individuals then there would be a frequency mix that we could find that would exploit him to the max. However, such a person doesnt exist so we go on playing and adjusting to our opponents, and they go on playing and adjusting to us, and whoever adjusts the best wins the most money.

[/ QUOTE ]

see now i believe i must disagree on this. if you are aware of game theory implicatons in rock paper scissors, you will imidiately see a correlation, and why what your saying is questionable. in rock paper scissors, randomizing play is a sure fire way of always giving your oponant the same odds, 50%. but when applying game theory, and psychological dentancies, one can produce for him or herself an edge. i believe the same is true at the poker tables in casinos or online in the comfort of your lazy boy. they will be a way in which one can make their oponants make the worse EV decision. making all their choices the same EV is giving your oponent too much credit. your implying you can't produce an edge for yourself, and if you can't do that, you shouldn't be worrying about this thread.. you have other issues to deal with!(not intended towards anyone, just putting it out there.)

[runout_mick]

[ QUOTE ]
On a hypothetical level if one option is clearly "better" you take it. The point is that the majority of situations in which you start with at least a medium sized stack do not involve a specific "better" option. In those situations a mixed strategy is the "best" option.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think now it stands to reason that if it is early at a table you are likely to be at for awhile, you should now make a play that differs from the ideal (especially in a common situation. TPTK etc...) so that in future instances of this situation players will have the wrong memory imprinted as your status quo. "Wow! He checks two pair on a coordinated board? OK...". This in turn allows you to play the situation in the "ideal" fashion a disproportionally high amount of time, just because first impressions are so much more lasting than long term observations.

This came out more convoluted than I wanted... hope it makes sense.

[Cablelessray]

after a long night of reading my own post and thinking it over, i think i may see what you are trying to say, MLG. if it's in your own ability to not make a mistake and constantly put your opponent to at least difficult decisions, if not the most difficlut, and so because of this out play your opponent who will inevitably make some mistakes, what your saying would be valid. or am i just delusional from an extended rereading of my own post all night, as well as the entirety of 7 different forums, and answering some of the most pointless threads such as the "what's your sn and why thread" that has NOTHING to do with poker.

[mrbaseball]

[ QUOTE ]
no doubt, something needs to be done...almost every post in the top 10-15 is an official thread or a sweat request or the like


[/ QUOTE ]

Heh [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] This is why I pretty much quit reading and posting in this forum years ago. But I'm really trying to upgrade my MTT game right now so I have forced myself to sift through the 95% crap that is here for the few nuggets.

This used to easily be the best strategy forum at 2+2 but the "official" and sweat threads make it way too annoying.

[Cactus Jack]

Don't want to let this thread go, because it's too valuable.

At the lower limits and maybe even higher limits, if you play the situation, does this not really randomize your play, or give the appearance of randomizing? Given the hand, your position, and the opponent(s), the correct play is rarely the same play, therefore it appears random to most opponents who think of these thing, which happens less often than any existing pattern.

Where I think game theory becomes important in low limits is when you have a common hand in a common situation, something like AK in UTG+1, and the opponents would expect you to raise 3X the BB and you choose to limp or raise 4X, because it's not what they expect you to do in this situation and it would make it harder for them to put you on AK, as if they could, anyway. It would esp make it harder for them to expect whatever you do next time, as you clearly are not playing from the norm.

Yes, no?

Is "game theory" as applied to poker, as much gaining a psychological edge as mathmatical?

CJ