21/17/3.0/22
 

VPIP 21%
PFR 17%
AF 3.0
WTSD 22%

In iStrong's well post he claims this to be the type of player that is playing close to an unexploitable game.

[ QUOTE ]
Btw, I believe unexploitable play to be around 21/17/3.0 wtsd 22. Anything away from this can be exploited in one way or another.

[/ QUOTE ]

He proceeds to say that its important to understand why this is "unexploitable" and that its important to know how to play vs it and how to adjust vs people who deviate from this strategy.

[ QUOTE ]
I agree, unexploitable strategies are not necessarily +EV (edit: maximally +EV i mean). And unless you're playing a bunch of people who are playing unexploitable strategy it's definitly not the most +EV. It may be possible that there are several unexploitable strategy and not just one. Regardless, it's not really relevant. All I was trying to say is when you see a 30/25/8 you should immediately think that there is a way to exploit this guy and figure out how (things like 3-betting him more IP, calling more IP, slowplaying more post flop etc)

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this can be a pretty good discussion that we should continue here instead of derailing his well.


Some interesting questions that arise from this:

1. Is there an unexploitable strategy?

2. If so, is it optimal (meaning maximum EV)?

3. How should we play vs this type of player?

4. Anyone who deviates from this preflop style needs to be adjusted to properly, and played against slightly differently. Correct?

5. If so, how does hand change vs a player whom is

a) 10/5/2.0
b) 50/30/4.5
c) 64/10/0.5
d) 28/22/3
e) 19/16/3.5
f) 100/0/0.5
g) 100/90/7
h) 6/0/2
i) 12/10/5
j) 30/20/3.4

I dont mean to post these questions and have everyone quote them and answer each one, but more-so to think about each of the questions and give general thoughts on the subject.

I'll post my thoughts later.

Re: 21/17/3.0/22
 

first thought:
lol i exploit these players all the time

Re: 21/17/3.0/22
 

[ QUOTE ]
first thought:
lol i exploit these players all the time

[/ QUOTE ]

Me too, but I want to get a discussion going on how we exploit them with respect to the "unexploitable" stats above (which I don't exactly agree with fwiw)?

Re: 21/17/3.0/22
 

1.) No, being able to play well postflop isn't necessarily #s
2.) Optimal preflop numbers vary from table to table, against a bunch of nits you want to be looser, against a bunch of donkeys you want to be tighter
3.) Too general of a question really, each player like this has bad tendencies
4.) Well duh you have to adjust to diff types of players
5.)
a. SuperLag
b. Nit
c. Lag in pos
d. TAG/LAG, depends on relative position
e. Lag
f. slag is pos
g. Nit
h. SuperLag
i. Lag
j. Nittish tag

Re: 21/17/3.0/22
 

1. Yes, it is the Game Theoretic Optimal Strategy. It is currently unknown for poker.

2. It is the optimal strategy vs. other people who are playing optimally. It is not optimal vs. players who make mistakes.

3. The best you can possibly do vs. the GTOS is to also play the GTOS, by definition.

4. GTOS is a lot more than preflop. Anyone who is playing differently than the GTOS in any way has a "leak" which you can adjust to exploit.



It is interesting to think about because the GTOS is a very randomized balanced strategy. Basically any time someone is not randomizing or balanced enough they have a leak which you can exploit if you can adjust in the right way.

Re: 21/17/3.0/22
 

A strategy can be "unexploitable" but in poker it is better to exploit others weaknesses, not focus your energy being unexploitable yourself. Exploiting opponents is where the money comes from. Like Sklansky says in NLHTAP, in math land there probably is a perfect strategy, but the people who would use it wouldn't be the biggest winners.

Re: 21/17/3.0/22
 

i think this thread is almost as taboo as "how do I play against (insert reg here)", but that's just me. wayyy too much personal information IMO.

i won't be posting strategy in this thread.

Re: 21/17/3.0/22
 

dont really get it...just because PF numbers are nice doesnt mean that they arent horrible postflop. there was a thread in hsnl a bit back on 'unexploitable strategy' and the consensus was there was none (i think).

Re: 21/17/3.0/22
 

still there are certain ways to procede postflop against certain preflop hand ranges.

Re: 21/17/3.0/22
 

[ QUOTE ]
dont really get it...just because PF numbers are nice doesnt mean that they arent horrible postflop. there was a thread in hsnl a bit back on 'unexploitable strategy' and the consensus was there was none (i think).

[/ QUOTE ]

There definitely is one and IMHO the way aba & PA play is getting pretty close. Lots of bluffing & value shoving, very mixed up ranges, you're unexploitable to set mining from Shania, etc.

Re: 21/17/3.0/22
 

By unexploitable, do we mean unbeatable long term? My initial reaction is that, if you play a very specific way, no matter what that method is, someone who is good at adjusting to your game, can exploit you. Part of being "unexploitable" is to be able to adjust your game when necessary, no?

Re: 21/17/3.0/22
 

[ QUOTE ]
still there are certain ways to procede postflop against certain preflop hand ranges.

[/ QUOTE ]

yes and this is exactly the point of the thread

Re: 21/17/3.0/22
 

[ QUOTE ]
dont really get it...just because PF numbers are nice doesnt mean that they arent horrible postflop. there was a thread in hsnl a bit back on 'unexploitable strategy' and the consensus was there was none (i think).

[/ QUOTE ]

Obviously, playing 22/17/3.0 or whatever unexploitable strategy stats might be doesn't make you unexploitable. It's just that there is a theoretical optimal unexploitable strategy and that knowing what the stats for that strategy is will allow you to judge how to take advantage of people who deviate too much from it.
Let's say you think someone is raising too many hands prelfop. Why do you think that? The reason is that he raises to many hands in comparison with unexploitable play. So you gonna make an adjustment to exploit that. For example, you'll start 3-betting more. But by doing this you open yourself for exploitation yourself, but the question is will your opponent realise this, and start attacking your weakness (3-betting too much) and protecting his by adjusting his opening range / 4-betting more. This is most obvious in heads-up play but it's still there and it's very important to understand it at 6-max.

Re: 21/17/3.0/22
 

[ QUOTE ]
By unexploitable, do we mean unbeatable long term? My initial reaction is that, if you play a very specific way, no matter what that method is, someone who is good at adjusting to your game, can exploit you. Part of being "unexploitable" is to be able to adjust your game when necessary, no?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, being unexploitable means unbeatable in the long run. But with a single strategy balanced strategy.
Like for example, in roshambo, unexploitable play is to select your throw randomly.

Re: 21/17/3.0/22
 

[ QUOTE ]
A strategy can be "unexploitable" but in poker it is better to exploit others weaknesses, not focus your energy being unexploitable yourself. Exploiting opponents is where the money comes from. Like Sklansky says in NLHTAP, in math land there probably is a perfect strategy, but the people who would use it wouldn't be the biggest winners.

[/ QUOTE ]

Without having an idea of what unexploitable strategy is you cannot decide how to exploit your opponents. let's say you see a table full of 24/17/3.0 and you see another one full of 23/17/3.0. Which one are you gonna sit at?
That will depend on your opinion of what unexploitable strategy is... and it's only an opinion because it would be almost impossible to prove.

Re: 21/17/3.0/22
 

[ QUOTE ]
1. Yes, it is the Game Theoretic Optimal Strategy. It is currently unknown for poker.

2. It is the optimal strategy vs. other people who are playing optimally. It is not optimal vs. players who make mistakes.

3. The best you can possibly do vs. the GTOS is to also play the GTOS, by definition.

4. GTOS is a lot more than preflop. Anyone who is playing differently than the GTOS in any way has a "leak" which you can adjust to exploit.



It is interesting to think about because the GTOS is a very randomized balanced strategy. Basically any time someone is not randomizing or balanced enough they have a leak which you can exploit if you can adjust in the right way.

[/ QUOTE ]

[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]

I couln't have explained it better. ty.

Re: 21/17/3.0/22
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
By unexploitable, do we mean unbeatable long term? My initial reaction is that, if you play a very specific way, no matter what that method is, someone who is good at adjusting to your game, can exploit you. Part of being "unexploitable" is to be able to adjust your game when necessary, no?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, being unexploitable means unbeatable in the long run. But with a single strategy balanced strategy.
Like for example, in roshambo, unexploitable play is to select your throw randomly.

[/ QUOTE ]

This unexploitable strategy would be different for different conditions, though, right? Like one versus a 6 max table vs a 9 max table vs heads up vs the types of players at each table, etc.

Re: 21/17/3.0/22
 

Yes, unexploitale strategy has #of players as a factor. If there is such a thing as a unified Game Theoretic Optimal Strategy for poker. Otherwise it may be a different strategy depending on the number of players.

Regardless, it's pretty clear that 20/17/3.0 will be exploitable headsup.

Re: 21/17/3.0/22
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
By unexploitable, do we mean unbeatable long term? My initial reaction is that, if you play a very specific way, no matter what that method is, someone who is good at adjusting to your game, can exploit you. Part of being "unexploitable" is to be able to adjust your game when necessary, no?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, being unexploitable means unbeatable in the long run. But with a single strategy balanced strategy.
Like for example, in roshambo, unexploitable play is to select your throw randomly.

[/ QUOTE ]

This unexploitable strategy would be different for different conditions, though, right? Like one versus a 6 max table vs a 9 max table vs heads up vs the types of players at each table, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think everyone here is talking about 6max.

What does GTOS mean?

Re: 21/17/3.0/22
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
By unexploitable, do we mean unbeatable long term? My initial reaction is that, if you play a very specific way, no matter what that method is, someone who is good at adjusting to your game, can exploit you. Part of being "unexploitable" is to be able to adjust your game when necessary, no?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, being unexploitable means unbeatable in the long run. But with a single strategy balanced strategy.
Like for example, in roshambo, unexploitable play is to select your throw randomly.

[/ QUOTE ]

This unexploitable strategy would be different for different conditions, though, right? Like one versus a 6 max table vs a 9 max table vs heads up vs the types of players at each table, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

What does GTOS mean?

[/ QUOTE ]

Game Theoretic Optimal Strategy. ie. unexploitable strategy.

Re: 21/17/3.0/22
 

i think even the "unexploitable" strategy is exploitable if you KNOW someone is using it, and you know what it is

it is exploitable by switching gears faster than the "unexploitable" can adjust.... so you start of at 30/20 and the moment the "unexploitable" notices you're 30/20 you tighten up, this will make him continue to play against you as if you're a 30/20 but you're not... or obv. start tight and loosen up

so, it becomes a game of who is more in tune with the flow of the game

Re: 21/17/3.0/22
 

when you say uneploitable strategy do you mean one a bot could do?

Re: 21/17/3.0/22
 

[b] anyone who does not understand this and why it's important should ask themselves whether they think it would be more profitable to play vs. a table full of 21/17/3.0's or a table full of 22/17/3.0's.

If you think you'd prefer playing the 21/17/3.0's, it means that you believe that 22/17/3.0 is closer to unexploitable play than 21/17/3.0
By thinking in this way, you should be able to figure out what you think GTOS stats look like.

Re: 21/17/3.0/22
 

[ QUOTE ]
i think even the "unexploitable" strategy is exploitable if you KNOW someone is using it, and you know what it is

it is exploitable by switching gears faster than the "unexploitable" can adjust.... so you start of at 30/20 and the moment the "unexploitable" notices you're 30/20 you tighten up, this will make him continue to play against you as if you're a 30/20 but you're not... or obv. start tight and loosen up

so, it becomes a game of who is more in tune with the flow of the game

[/ QUOTE ]

Love it. & i totally agree. This is why my 21/17/3.0 is only an average. I can see that I'm not the only ssnl'er who's thought a lot about this.

Edit: sorry i misread your first sentence as "i think even the "unexploitable" strategy is UNexploitable even if YOUR OPPONENT KNOWS YOU are using it. (with which i agree:)

Re: 21/17/3.0/22
 

[ QUOTE ]
i think even the "unexploitable" strategy is exploitable if you KNOW someone is using it, and you know what it is

it is exploitable by switching gears faster than the "unexploitable" can adjust.... so you start of at 30/20 and the moment the "unexploitable" notices you're 30/20 you tighten up, this will make him continue to play against you as if you're a 30/20 but you're not... or obv. start tight and loosen up

so, it becomes a game of who is more in tune with the flow of the game

[/ QUOTE ]

No. This isn't what GTOS means.

We can argue about whether a GTOS actually exists for poker, but if you concede the point that there actually is one, then there is, by definition, no way to exploit it, even if you know what he's doing.

The Roshambo example demonstrates this. Assume we are playing roshambo, and I pick my throws randomly. And you KNOW that I pick my throws randomly. You cannot exploit this strategy.

The S-C hand rankings in NHLETAP are another example. Even if your opponent knows what you are doing, he can't exploit your strategy.

NOTE: This does NOT mean that the GTOS is the most profitable strategy. It means that the GTOS can't be UNprofitable. There's a big difference.

Re: 21/17/3.0/22
 

iStrong, i've seen you claim that 21/17/3 is unexploitable, and even define it as such... BUT I haven't seen a solid reasoning why.

Re: 21/17/3.0/22
 

Yeah, bilbo is right on.

This is a very rough definition of the GTOS :

If an opponent is playing the GTOS then all strategies are -EV against him except the GTOS itself (which is of course 0 EV).

In some cases the GTOS can be found by a simple iteration :

start with a strategy S0 which you believe is close to optimal
find a strategy S1 which is +EV against S0
find a strategy Sn which is +EV against S(n-1)
eventually the iteration ends, no better strategy can be found,
that's the GTOS

(this only converges right in very simple games, in complex games better methods are needed)

It's possible the GTOS doesn't exist for NLHE, but it probably does since it's been found for lots of simplified versions of poker.

But as has already said it's not necessarilly the most +EV way to play against bad opponents. eg. the GTOS won't value bet really light because it will be afraid of bluff-check-raises, it will check behind more. It will also pay off nits too much; it will still be +EV against nits because it's gauranteed to be cuz it's balanced - eg. it will steal enough pots from them to make up for paying them off too much.

Re: 21/17/3.0/22
 

[ QUOTE ]
iStrong, i've seen you claim that 21/17/3 is unexploitable, and even define it as such... BUT I haven't seen a solid reasoning why.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think there is a reasoning behind it. I just find it real hard on average to make money of 21/17/3 type players. If i were to find myself on a table of 21/17/3 players (who are as skilled as me), I'd probably play 21/17/3 myself and expect not make or lose much in the long run.

Re: 21/17/3.0/22
 

whatever PA plays is unexploitable. so ya, those stats (lol stats mean nothing end lol)

Re: 21/17/3.0/22
 

My initial reactions:
- it is somewhat silly to refer to a stat profile as a strategy in the game theoretic sense when the game is multiple iteration of a best 5 in 7-9 card poker hands. As orange pointed out a 3 variable stat profile which is heavily weighted toward pre-flop play may not have much do with how a player plays post-flop when most of the $ goes in.
- If we are going to start making references to game theoretic concepts we ought to be clear on defining the game, strategy space, ect.
- I'm not sure that we get any mileage out of trying to apply game theory to poker because defining the game is difficult and different for every player (whats the time frame?, how many players are there?, who are the players?, ect) and because the strategy space is large (i.e. it is more than a stat profile).
- At any given time every player is doing something that is exploitable in some way. The trick is to figure out what these tendencies are and figure out what adjustments to make before the other player adjust to your adjustments (if said player is even capable of making these adjustments).

Lucky

Re: 21/17/3.0/22
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
iStrong, i've seen you claim that 21/17/3 is unexploitable, and even define it as such... BUT I haven't seen a solid reasoning why.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think there is a reasoning behind it. I just find it real hard on average to make money of 21/17/3 type players. If i were to find myself on a table of 21/17/3 players (who are as skilled as me), I'd probably play 21/17/3 myself and expect not make or lose much in the long run.

[/ QUOTE ]
?!?!?!?!?!?!
head asplode

so because you can't play against a SLAG it is unexploitable? is this really the reason?

Re: 21/17/3.0/22
 

as an aside what is the steal frequency of 21/17/3 UNEXPLOITALBELDO?.... 35%?

Re: 21/17/3.0/22
 

[ QUOTE ]
as an aside what is the steal frequency of 21/17/3 UNEXPLOITALBELDO?.... 35%?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd say so. Prob between 30 and 35%

Re: 21/17/3.0/22
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
iStrong, i've seen you claim that 21/17/3 is unexploitable, and even define it as such... BUT I haven't seen a solid reasoning why.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think there is a reasoning behind it. I just find it real hard on average to make money of 21/17/3 type players. If i were to find myself on a table of 21/17/3 players (who are as skilled as me), I'd probably play 21/17/3 myself and expect not make or lose much in the long run.

[/ QUOTE ]
?!?!?!?!?!?!
head asplode

so because you can't play against a SLAG it is unexploitable? is this really the reason?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I can't make money against a sLAG who is as good as me. I can make money against a 38/30/8 if he is a good as me but has to play within those statistical restrictions.


P.S.: I did say in the well thread that 21/17/3.0 was just an opinion. It could very well be 25/21/4.0. Maybe we can harness our collective power and see what everyone thinks the most GTOS stats look like. ie. if you were looking at a list of tables where everyone had the same stats x/y/z. what would be the values for x/y/z that you'd hate the most? (assume that you don't have any weaknesses yourself and that you are the best player in the world ie. you can't say 30/0/0 because you hate playing calling stations)

Re: 21/17/3.0/22
 

I think it’s interesting that nobody here has taken into account ‘era’. I personally don’t see how one can possibly argue that there is EVER an unexploitable strategy, or even an single optimal strategy. An optimal strategy is one that is the most +EV against a given opponent. As you develop a pool of opponents, optimal stats will converge and yield an average, optimal strategy for that pool. That said, generally accepted poker strategy goes in waves, and what that optimal strategy looks like is based on how the average player is playing at that time. An optimal strategy 20 years ago would look quite different than the one being discussed today.

As far as unexploitable goes, it doesn’t exist unless it’s defined as being able to adjust faster than your opponent. The fact that being one step ahead is valuable in any endeavor in life, should not be news to anyone.

Re: 21/17/3.0/22
 

Snipe,

can you answer the question i asked in the P.S. of my previous post?

Re: 21/17/3.0/22
 

iSTRONG, you're way off base with your obsession w/ preflop stats.

some random remarks:

- it has been proven (Nash) that at least one optimal(=unexploitable) strategy exists for any n-player game w/ a finite strategy space. This includes NLHE.

- strategies in the 18-23/15-20/2-6 range are popular because they provide a very easy framework to robotically exploit the strategies employed by the general opponent in your games, not because they are neccesarily close to an optimal strategy. "Natural selection" favours those strategies that exploit your random opponent in the easiest way, not those strategies that deviate the least from optimal play!

- it's perfectly conceivable that multiple optimal strategies exist, some might resemble the known TAG style, others might be more like 20/10 w/ lots of open/over limping, limp/reraising and postflop overbetting. As long as they're not too loose or too tight, agressive and balanced at any action node in the game, anything might be possible!

Re: 21/17/3.0/22
 

I think - Since the most optimal strategy,(as mentioned above) must be diffrent depending on the player, the "optimal strategy" must be the one that is the LEAST exploitible one, by the averge one. Since the averge changes over time, the strategy must to.
I think - like Bilbo-san said, a compleatly unexploitable strategy simple means making your decisions based on random events, this can't be exploitble since there is no information for villain to use, even if he knows u are doing it.
If however u make your decisions based on information about the specific player, I think it can always be exploited in some way. Since he can adjust.

Perhaps I should just quote Snipe [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

Re: 21/17/3.0/22
 

there is no Nash equilibrium with irrational players

Re: 21/17/3.0/22
 

[ QUOTE ]
there is no Nash equilibrium with irrational players

[/ QUOTE ]

[img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]