blitzing on third and long and the problem with poker forum advice

[starbird]

[ QUOTE ]
For every difficult situation against even slightly observant opponents, the "best" play is the optimal mixed strategy, not any one of the plays that it contains, no matter how much more +e.v. they may be than others.

[/ QUOTE ]

All the plays in the optimal mixed strategy have exactly the same EV, if the opponent is playing optimally. If the trick play has higher EV than the "normal" play, you're not using it enough.

[/ QUOTE ]

[Troll_Inc]

[ QUOTE ]

.....and especially now post-legislation, where the merely good players are the new fish. Especially when as listed in reason #1, they won't get much in return, and will just be feeding free strategy to lazy datamining stat-whores who use hyper multi-tabling trawling to maximize their earn.



[/ QUOTE ]

[grizy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

.....and especially now post-legislation, where the merely good players are the new fish. Especially when as listed in reason #1, they won't get much in return, and will just be feeding free strategy to lazy datamining stat-whores who use hyper multi-tabling trawling to maximize their earn.



[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

And it comes back from the dead.

[Truthiness24]

Consider that online lots of folks are looking for the "right" answer because they are either thinking only on the 1st level, or they want to know the play to maximize EV+. There is almost always an answer (a consensus) on this level.

There is of course an "optimum" strategy, and then the need to vary your play against observant opponents -- to acheive balance and truly maximize winnings. This seems to be the meat of this thread, and I agree with its broader point.

But what if you opponents aren't observant? What if they don't really look past their own hand, or even their own PT stats on you? It is folks that focus more on numbers and less on feel and reads that play on the 1st level and most "need" to "know" the "optimal play."

This is linear, AI-inspired thinking ... it is the kind of thinking that is all too common in poker and the world, and I think that you correctly point out that exploiting it is the key.

But -- and here's the key -- I think that against online lineups you almost HAVE to play the "optimal" play (nearly) every time, and vary only when it dead-on obvious that the "changeup" play is warranted. There are two reasons for this: first, PLO & PLO8 are so complicated (unlike holdem) that most players don't make the right decision often enough to justify playing on the 2nd level (or higher), and because most players are satisfied with the "optimal" play, and anything more sophisticated will be lost on them.

Or, better put, even though you're right to blitz from time to time on third down, I think that you can get in trouble at more tables than not by trying to get too clever. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[grizy]

[ QUOTE ]
Consider that online lots of folks are looking for the "right" answer because they are either thinking only on the 1st level, or they want to know the play to maximize EV+. There is almost always an answer (a consensus) on this level.

There is of course an "optimum" strategy, and then the need to vary your play against observant opponents -- to acheive balance and truly maximize winnings. This seems to be the meat of this thread, and I agree with its broader point.

But what if you opponents aren't observant? What if they don't really look past their own hand, or even their own PT stats on you? It is folks that focus more on numbers and less on feel and reads that play on the 1st level and most "need" to "know" the "optimal play."

This is linear, AI-inspired thinking ... it is the kind of thinking that is all too common in poker and the world, and I think that you correctly point out that exploiting it is the key.

But -- and here's the key -- I think that against online lineups you almost HAVE to play the "optimal" play (nearly) every time, and vary only when it dead-on obvious that the "changeup" play is warranted. There are two reasons for this: first, PLO & PLO8 are so complicated (unlike holdem) that most players don't make the right decision often enough to justify playing on the 2nd level (or higher), and because most players are satisfied with the "optimal" play, and anything more sophisticated will be lost on them.

Or, better put, even though you're right to blitz from time to time on third down, I think that you can get in trouble at more tables than not by trying to get too clever. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

I am an idiot... what are alll these levels people are talking about? are they like my troll mage? I can do 10k dmg fireballs~~~

[Truthiness24]

[ QUOTE ]
.....and especially now post-legislation, where the merely good players are the new fish. Especially when as listed in reason #1, they won't get much in return, and will just be feeding free strategy to lazy datamining stat-whores who use hyper multi-tabling trawling to maximize their earn.

[/ QUOTE ]

So should I just give up on online poker and leave it to you wonks? It's true that play has become a bit tougher since the US government screwed up poker.

And I do have a much better ROI in live action. (Maybe I know why now.)

[Truthiness24]

1st level: what are my cards, and what should I do with them?
2d level: what does my opponent have, and what should I do in light of that?
3d level: what do I need to get my opponent to think that I have so that I can win the most money?
4th level: roll higher than 17 with 4d6 to hit with the blue fireball and scoop the pot.
And so on.

[AKQJ10]

I'm sorry to see this post on a forum that I visit once a month instead of somewhere like Poker Theory. The scope is certainly a lot broader than PLO, and many non-PLO players would benefit from the ensuing discussion. The discussion might also benefit.

I tend to think the distinction between "general 'correct' play from which you vary only for deception" and "most frequent component of an overall strategy" is probably less important than you seem to feel it is. Then again, I'm a low-stakes player -- in fact, the kind of low-stakes player who probably puts in way too much effort thinking about this kind of stuff against unobservant opponents -- so take it fwiw.

[pete fabrizio]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
For every difficult situation against even slightly observant opponents, the "best" play is the optimal mixed strategy, not any one of the plays that it contains, no matter how much more +e.v. they may be than others.

[/ QUOTE ]

All the plays in the optimal mixed strategy have exactly the same EV, if the opponent is playing optimally. If the trick play has higher EV than the "normal" play, you're not using it enough.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

Of all the replies in this thread, I think this may be the most theoretically (though perhaps not practically) interesting. In most of the simple mixed-strategy situations you set up in a game theory class, this is true. E.g., your opponent has made you indifferent between options, so among your "equal e.v." options you mix in such a way that it makes your opponent indifferent.

Now I haven't thought it through all the way, but this doesn't seem to be the case in many poker situations where a mixed strat is called for. A simple example would be the dry side-pot bluff on the river in limit hold'em. It's always unprofitable, but if you never ever did it, your opponent would be able to make many good folds against you and you'd lose the ability to value-bet your good hands. Since you're offering very good pot odds, you only need to dry-sidepot bet a small amount of the time in order to force your opponent to call several future value-bets, so your correct mixed strategy is going to be majority check, small minority bet, even though they have different expected values.

However, there's a lot more to be said about this, and playing against an "optimal" opponent certainly makes things more fun, if not more profitable.

[Truthiness24]

I think that the dry sidepot example is an isolated instance of a situation where even unobservant players will remember your actions and adjust. It is in this sort of spot when your analogy about blitzing on third down is most illustrative. But in more common circumstances (eg what do I do with this hand in this pot), where the "villain" isn't really going to remember the hand -- usually because the villain won -- I think that getting too clever too often costs more than it helps in the long run.

I've never read a book on game theory. Can you refer me to a book or a site that would be accessible to a newbie?

I agree that it is more fun to play against good or "optimal" opponents. I wouldn't have it any other way. But it is painful in the wallet, esp when they are more observant than you. (See my "tracking software" thread from last night.)

Btw, you call the reverse or the SOL to keep the defense "honest." It doesn't matter if it works -- the point is to open up the defense for your conventional game. The reverse is like an advertising bet where you show down junk for your opponents to note.