Two Plus Two Newer Archives  

Go Back   Two Plus Two Newer Archives > General Poker Discussion > Poker Theory
FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old 11-23-2006, 05:05 PM
David Sklansky David Sklansky is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 5,092
Default Re: Bill Chen Type Pure Math/Poker Problem

After pondering for a few minutes, I'm thinking the answer is actually simple. Everybody should bet with a frequencey that prevents a renegade from profiting with lesser hands. So for instance if four people ante one dollar and the bet is three dollars, a bluffer could gamble three to win three if everybody else folds. To prevent him from profiting the others must fold no more often than the cube root of one half. Did I miss something?
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 11-23-2006, 05:18 PM
JaredL JaredL is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: No te olvidamos
Posts: 10,851
Default Re: Bill Chen Type Pure Math/Poker Problem

[ QUOTE ]
After pondering for a few minutes, I'm thinking the answer is actually simple. Everybody should bet with a frequencey that prevents a renegade from profiting with lesser hands. So for instance if four people ante one dollar and the bet is three dollars, a bluffer could gamble three to win three if everybody else folds. To prevent him from profiting the others must fold no more often than the cube root of one half. Did I miss something?

[/ QUOTE ]

I got the same and yes it was fairly simple and works basically for the reason you describe. What makes you think it should have been difficult?
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 11-23-2006, 06:29 PM
bigpooch bigpooch is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 1,330
Default Re: Bill Chen Type Pure Math/Poker Problem

Yes, that's a good short-cut: for each player, the other
(N-1) players must play independently, but such that the
betting frequency collectively must be equal to the optimal
game-theoretical calling frequency, i.e., so that "bluffs"
break even in the long run.

Exploitative strategy:

Now, suppose we "know" a specific player, A, is playing
suboptimally by picking slightly smaller numbers than
everyone else. Now, if you're in the game, you can play
somewhat "looser" and take advantage of "loose play". Of
course, we have to be sure that A is doing this consistently
for if A just did some very short-term advertising, we'll
end up being the "sucker"! This certainly explains the
dynamics in some of the games.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 11-24-2006, 07:45 AM
starbird starbird is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Carthago delenda est
Posts: 44
Default Re: Bill Chen Type Pure Math/Poker Problem

[ QUOTE ]
Everybody should bet with a frequency that prevents a renegade from profiting with lesser hands.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. Another way of looking at it is that if your hand is right on the borderline, all your equity is fold equity, since anyone with a hand above the threshold will beat you. One consequence is that it doesn't cost the renegade to play more hands (his fold equity is just as high with a terrible hand), but he won't gain, either, and his strategy will be exploitable.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:24 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions Inc.