Balancing Bluffs vs Balancing Strategy

[David Sklansky]

[ QUOTE ]
David,

It bothers me a little when you say "It might be better to play a hand differently almost every time from the way it should be played if it was the last hand of your life. For the sake of future hands. "

Game theoretically you should play the hand unpredictably if it's the last hand of your life as well. The reasoning has nothing to do with future hands.

Is this just an effective way of explaining game theory to people that you use because it's effective even though it isn't correct?

[/ QUOTE ]

It is correct. There is a difference between mixing up your play to optimize the value of that particular hand and mixing up your play to maximize the value of all your hands.

[Gobgogbog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
David,

It bothers me a little when you say "It might be better to play a hand differently almost every time from the way it should be played if it was the last hand of your life. For the sake of future hands. "

Game theoretically you should play the hand unpredictably if it's the last hand of your life as well. The reasoning has nothing to do with future hands.

Is this just an effective way of explaining game theory to people that you use because it's effective even though it isn't correct?

[/ QUOTE ]

It is correct. There is a difference between mixing up your play to optimize the value of that particular hand and mixing up your play to maximize the value of all your hands.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you give an example simpler than poker where the game theoretic correct strategy is different for the last game you play than any game previous?

[jjacky]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
David,

It bothers me a little when you say "It might be better to play a hand differently almost every time from the way it should be played if it was the last hand of your life. For the sake of future hands. "

Game theoretically you should play the hand unpredictably if it's the last hand of your life as well. The reasoning has nothing to do with future hands.

Is this just an effective way of explaining game theory to people that you use because it's effective even though it isn't correct?

[/ QUOTE ]

It is correct. There is a difference between mixing up your play to optimize the value of that particular hand and mixing up your play to maximize the value of all your hands.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you give an example simpler than poker where the game theoretic correct strategy is different for the last game you play than any game previous?

[/ QUOTE ]

no he can't. the nash equilibrium doesn't change in constant sum games*. no matter how many repetitions will be played out in the future (nor does the best response to any gives strategy).
the only reason not to play the overall strategy with the highest EV for the actual hand is to make the opponent to change his strategy. if he doesn't (or not in a manner that increases our EV in future hands), there is none.

*constant sum games are game theoretically equivalent to zero sum games.

for nit-picker: note that games with rake taken from the pot (as opposed to time fees, tournaments and rake free games) are not exactly constant sum games. but that is not the point of the discussion.
please also note that the conditions of future hands can be changed due to the developement of the stacks. that means single hands are not independent games in a game theoretical sense. if the game is limit (and the stacks are big enough) or if all the hands would start with a cap or the same amount of money, every hand would truely be independent beside the possible strategy changes of the competitors.