Re: Question to Krantz, CTS and other recent nosebleed players.
 

i once heard vanessa rousso studied game theory at duke

can anyone confirm?

Re: Question to Krantz, CTS and other recent nosebleed players.
 

[ QUOTE ]
i once heard vanessa rousso studied game theory at duke

can anyone confirm?

[/ QUOTE ]
speaking of "game", I heard that Brad Booth bought into that High Stakes Poker "Game" TV Show with A Cool Million.

Can anyone confirm that?

Re: Question to Krantz, CTS and other recent nosebleed players.
 

[ QUOTE ]
basically he is asking if high stakes players get tricky or play by the book....

lol

[/ QUOTE ]


hhahahaha.. thats not at all what he's asking. a better way to put it is that he's asking if they play basic exploitive strategy or by the book that hasn't been written yet. but that's still not quite it.

Re: Question to Krantz, CTS and other recent nosebleed players.
 

gosh i just seriously do not think about these things when i'm playing poker, and i've done ok

Re: Question to Krantz, CTS and other recent nosebleed players.
 

[ QUOTE ]
basically he is asking if high stakes players get tricky or play by the book....

lol

[/ QUOTE ]

The new book says play tricky.

Re: Question to Krantz, CTS and other recent nosebleed players.
 

I would really like to hear an answer to this "I am beaten and I call anyway 20% of the time to become unbluffable etc." discussion.

Re: Question to Krantz, CTS and other recent nosebleed players.
 

if you know that you are beaten you should fold and not call because then you can play exploitble.

you should make the call if you don't know anything but you don't want to be exploitable.

if you know about a weakness of your opponent you have to play exploitive... if you don't know if he adapted or not, you should play optimal.

this is easy said, but nash equilibriums in no limit poker are very very hard do calculate because its a sequential set of multiple desicions (multiple streets, different betsizes and so on)

this is why game theory and nash equilibriums don't have much meaning in poker in practice because you'd have to calculate it over multiple streets and the betsize varies the optimum heavily...

the closest you can get is that you should bluff a certain amount of percentage which is a common concept. but this is in relation to villains range, and because villains range is not optimal and yours is not because of previous streets it gets exploitable and you will play exploitable and not optimal...

the sentence "still call even though you know you are beat more than the pot odds allow" doesnt make sence in an gametheoretic framework, because if you allready know there is no reason for not playing exploitable. this is a common missunderstanding...

Re: Question to Krantz, CTS and other recent nosebleed players.
 

sick post yo, looking forward to the responses..

I would also like to hear luckyjimm's thoughts.

Re: Question to Krantz, CTS and other recent nosebleed players.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
After reading Jman's post about Phil Ivey's lack of balance in his range in certain situations

[/ QUOTE ]

Link?

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: Question to Krantz, CTS and other recent nosebleed players.