Question to Krantz, CTS and other recent nosebleed players.
 

First, I apologize if my question is unclear. I'm writing this during my break from studying for school. Anyways, this question is directed to Krantz, CTS, and other recent nosebleed players that were not long ago, regulars at 2/4+. After reading Jman's post about Phil Ivey's lack of balance in his range in certain situations, I began to wonder how much no-limit poker, especially at the higher stakes, started deviating to game theory. I know highstakes limit poker relies heavily on game theory and randomization, evident by the barrage of loose calldowns many pros make, and since no limit stems of from limit poker only with a much wider degrees of freedom, I'm assuming it will follow the same path. My question is this, at nosebleed no limit stakes, how much are you guys taking randomization and game theory into consideration. Are you justifying some of your calls even though you know you're mostly beat, with the idea that if you make the call 20% of the time, you are unexploitable? Or are you guys still playing according to what your opponent can possibly have and simply playing a guessing game? The only example that I know of that makes me believe people still play by according what they "feel" or think they're opponent has is the sick check with position by durr against krantz when he had TPTK with AK and Krantz had 5,6, unless that of course was part of randomizing his hands.

My other question is, should 10/20, 5/10, or even 2/4 players play with this mentality of playing according to game theory and randomization. Will it help their game at these stakes or will it only hurt it?

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

wrong forum

paragraphs are your friend

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

[ QUOTE ]
wrong forum

paragraphs are your friend

[/ QUOTE ]

but it is interesting....post it again in the high stakes no limit

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

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
wrong forum

paragraphs are your friend

[/ QUOTE ]

but it is interesting....post it again in the high stakes no limit

[/ QUOTE ]


Maybe move it to Poker Theory. Interesting nonetheless.

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

high stakes is probably a better place, but BBV would be the best (: Thankfully most of the nose bleed players are pretty good at replying, which is nice to see.

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

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

lol

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 ]

you are wrong about that.

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

the problem with a lot of game theory in nl is that it requires you to set a % to the times he is bluffing, which, since many situations come up rarely, is a guessing game in of itself.

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

game theory is for nerds ----------- end of thread

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

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

[/ QUOTE ]

Link?

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.
 

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

[ QUOTE ]
game theory is for nerds ----------- end of thread

[/ QUOTE ]
hi, you must be broke!

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

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
game theory is for nerds ----------- end of thread

[/ QUOTE ]
hi, you must be broke!

[/ QUOTE ]


damn I guess I should go get a book about game theory so I can make mad loot at poker

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

[ QUOTE ]
First, I apologize if my question is unclear. I'm writing this during my break from studying for school. Anyways, this question is directed to Krantz, CTS, and other recent nosebleed players that were not long ago, regulars at 2/4+. After reading Jman's post about Phil Ivey's lack of balance in his range in certain situations, I began to wonder how much no-limit poker, especially at the higher stakes, started deviating to game theory. I know highstakes limit poker relies heavily on game theory and randomization, evident by the barrage of loose calldowns many pros make, and since no limit stems of from limit poker only with a much wider degrees of freedom, I'm assuming it will follow the same path. My question is this, at nosebleed no limit stakes, how much are you guys taking randomization and game theory into consideration. Are you justifying some of your calls even though you know you're mostly beat, with the idea that if you make the call 20% of the time, you are unexploitable? Or are you guys still playing according to what your opponent can possibly have and simply playing a guessing game? The only example that I know of that makes me believe people still play by according what they "feel" or think they're opponent has is the sick check with position by durr against krantz when he had TPTK with AK and Krantz had 5,6, unless that of course was part of randomizing his hands.

My other question is, should 10/20, 5/10, or even 2/4 players play with this mentality of playing according to game theory and randomization. Will it help their game at these stakes or will it only hurt it?

[/ QUOTE ]

You need to drop out of school and start working at 7-11. Do it now.

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

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
game theory is for nerds ----------- end of thread

[/ QUOTE ]
hi, you must be broke!

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong.