unexploitable nl play
 

is it possible to play unexploitable poker with 100 bb stacks? obviously being a better player in every way would work, but i was wondering if there was something equivalent to the SAGE system (although obviously infinitely more complex). I realise this method of play is probably practically impossible to work out, and probably sub optimal against a skilled player, but does anyone reckon such is system exists?

Re: unexploitable nl play
 

heres the biggest mistake people make about thinking about playing unexploitable poker (mainly this thought derives from my limit play/ thinking but it applies to NL as well): U dont need to concern yourself with playing completely optimal unless your opponents are capable of exploiting unbalanced play and adjust very quickly. Most players aren't thinking about your range and what you're liable to do with each hand and how they can exploit that anyways, most players (and I think this is even more try in small stakes NL than limit) are playing almost exclusively 1st level poker and even when they go second or (rarely) third level, they do so poorly. So thats where you're wrong, playing optimal unexploitable poker is the most useful vs SKILLED players, not the other way around. VERY IMPORTANT.

Ideally you want to play as exploitable (unbalanced) of a game as you can get away with and just focus on making the best decisions in each instance and not concerning yourself about your overall strategy (exploitability) unless you commonly see the same players (and they are capable of making adjustments exploiting you) ie they play well (if they play poor, but adjust to your consistent play just readjust, you dont need to think in terms of overall unexploitable play, just exploit their weaknesses to the max and recognize changes in their tendencies vs you over time). Most of our opponents are idiots (ideally with table selection), so playing unexploitable poker vs them is not "optimal" in the terms of it being what will net you the most money.

Re: unexploitable nl play
 

[ QUOTE ]
I realise this method of play is probably practically impossible to work out, and probably sub optimal against a skilled player, but does anyone reckon such is system exists?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, it exists. It was proven by John Forbes Nash Jr. in 1950.

Andrzej

Re: unexploitable nl play
 

It exists for HU play. For other games, you may have new problems, such as implicit collusion.

Re: unexploitable nl play
 

jstill, deeply think like you, on lower stakes just focusing on exploiting opponents tendencies and their holes is most important, if opponent is wise and playing back at our hole (due to opening it to exploit others) we should close it and found another leaks at their strategies, but isn't it wise to first know how to play optimal and unexploitable to know how to go back from exploitable way to unexploitable one? to know how much we went away? of course on low stakes it's not so important, but learning process should be done on lower stakes before (hopefully) we hit higher stakes...

Re: unexploitable nl play
 

[ QUOTE ]
is it possible to play unexploitable poker with 100 bb stacks? obviously being a better player in every way would work, but i was wondering if there was something equivalent to the SAGE system (although obviously infinitely more complex). I realise this method of play is probably practically impossible to work out, and probably sub optimal against a skilled player, but does anyone reckon such is system exists?

[/ QUOTE ]

whether or not an unexploitable play exists is a little irrelevant.


unexploitable play hasn't even been found for chess yet - and that's a game where 100% of the knowledge is available.


the idea of finding such a system for poker - where there is the added randomness of cards and unknown information - is on such a scale of magnitude so much harder that it isn't even feasible to consider the possibility yet.



i suspect such a sytem is theoretically possible, but I can't imagine it being developed within the near future.

Re: unexploitable nl play
 

Any game that allows mixed strategies has an optimal strategy, so yes, it exists.
As others have pointed out it is a holy grail not worth looking for. Optimal play does a terrible job maximising profit in about any game you can find on earth. I don't know about high stakes though. It is good to know what strategies are suboptimal and how to exploit them, because thats how you make a lot more money than playing optimal.

Re: unexploitable nl play
 

[ QUOTE ]

the idea of finding such a system for poker - where there is the added randomness of cards and unknown information - is on such a scale of magnitude so much harder that it isn't even feasible to consider the possibility yet.

i suspect such a sytem is theoretically possible, but I can't imagine it being developed within the near future.

[/ QUOTE ]

That may be true for hold-em but not for all forms of poker. Game theory has already been developed for draw poker and probabaly could be (or maybe has been) for similar games where there are only 2 rounds of betting.

I'm not sure if having exposed cards makes it more complex, or if it is just because of the multiple rounds of betting, but with stud and hold-em, I agree that even if possible, it would probably take a mathemetician a lifetime to develop such a strategy, and then you would need to be an android like Data to use it in practice, able to draw on an encyclopedic memory and do instantaneous calculations for each betting round.

Re: unexploitable nl play
 

[ QUOTE ]
unexploitable play hasn't even been found for chess yet - and that's a game where 100% of the knowledge is available.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah, the point I was planning to make. Except yours was probably more concise.

But to add to the discussion, Chess is also a game where the number of possible moves are reasonably small. In poker, you have a much greater range of plays available. In a 5/10 game the smallest increment is a $5 chip (online, it's even smaller). So you decide to bet the flop with $30 in the pot... great! Do you bet $25? $30? 35? All the way up to your whole stack? Which is optimal?

This makes an optimal strategy just seem like a headache.

Re: unexploitable nl play
 

[ QUOTE ]
Any game that allows mixed strategies has an optimal strategy, so yes, it exists.

[/ QUOTE ]

my game theory is rusty, but is this true in games of imperfect information?

Re: unexploitable nl play
 

didnt read all the replies but in NlHE theory and practice, skylansky says the perfect unexploitable player would make less money than an exploitalbe one becuase the exploitable one is changing his game to each table to maximize return

Re: unexploitable nl play
 

[ QUOTE ]
jstill, deeply think like you, on lower stakes just focusing on exploiting opponents tendencies and their holes is most important, if opponent is wise and playing back at our hole (due to opening it to exploit others) we should close it and found another leaks at their strategies, but isn't it wise to first know how to play optimal and unexploitable to know how to go back from exploitable way to unexploitable one? to know how much we went away? of course on low stakes it's not so important, but learning process should be done on lower stakes before (hopefully) we hit higher stakes...

[/ QUOTE ]

sorry i hadnt come back to reply to this yet aszmel...

it is true its important to know how to play unexploitable in any situation... that concept is pivotal in all poker and I really think its easier to learn it from a limit perspective truthfully, atleast at first, maybe overall as well. But whats even more important than knowing how your range cant be exploited (this is the very important concept of reading your own hand) is knowing which players are going to be thinking on a second level trying to exploit your range (ie acting upon it) and thus you take it to the third level and take the action with your hand that would be the optimal equilibrium vs their range (ie you have to know how much of their range might make a play at you on certain boards ie if you fold x part of your range they can easily exploit this and raise the lower part of their range as a bluff).

determining when you need to apply these concepts is what being expert is all about, I cant claim to know and its more of an each situation kinda thing then learning how to do it all the time... so yes you should know how not to be exploited in certain spots (ie u 3bet preflop in limit with JJ-KK and the board is Axy r) some players you should fold as they wont raise without an A enough to calldown profitably and some players you have to showdown as too much of their raising range may take shots at you because so much of your 3 betting range is liable to fold (in their mind). Discerning the difference player to player is the tough part, being able to tell if your easily exploitable in a situation based on combinations and pot odds and their range (and your range) is actually the easier of the 2 parts of this whole concept (once you learn it, which you should for theorectical sake even if you rarely apply it directly while playing).

Re: unexploitable nl play
 

[ QUOTE ]
is it possible to play unexploitable poker with 100 bb stacks? Obviously being a better player in every way would work, but i was wondering if there was something equivalent to the SAGE system (although obviously infinitely more complex). I realise this method of play is probably practically impossible to work out, and probably sub optimal against a skilled player, but does anyone reckon such is system exists?

[/ QUOTE ]

At least one unexploitable strategy exists for heads-up play or colluding opponents. Things get a big more interesting with multiple players.

Some analysis (sorry, no citation) shows that good Jam/Fold play is very difficult to exploit.

Re: unexploitable nl play
 

The Rock style of play come closest to an unexploitable style. When done correctly, it will eke out a small profit but won't win much. The funny thing is if everybody at a table played an unexploitable style, they would all end losing about 5% in the long run----due to the rake [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img].

Re: unexploitable nl play
 

[ QUOTE ]
The Rock style of play come closest to an unexploitable style.

[/ QUOTE ]

this is simply not true.. people keep reiterating that sentiment for some reason

i also disagree that rock style eeks out a small profit in NL, at the low limits the regular tag 8+ multitablers with the best results (winrate and $/hr) are full blown nits (with some exceptions obviously).

the reason ur wrong about the unexploitable aspect is that it is very easy to exploit tight fit or fold nits in many many situations. They are not the players u make the most money against as they are not the loose players playign too many hands and stacking off light postflop (the easiest players to exploit) but they shouldnt be the ones who give you a headache or win the most off of you either (unless they are great at adjusting and play the players very well, and know when/whom to bluff and do so regularly, untrue of your standard rock).

From an unexploitable overall strategy standard point you have to have a wide range in many spots, which typical rocks do not at all. Typical rocks are also the easiest to play correctly against if youre observant and competent ie they have very tight regimented ranges and you can put them on an exact range based on their preflop action which they literally never vary, opening the same hands in the same positions without fail and its a very small range so easy to calculate what you should do vs it at the table esp if they play very straight forward postflop and play against you the same as all opponents (again true of many multitabling rocks). For example in limit the fit or fold guys will get run over by lagtags buying pots everytime its profitable on a board for them to run a bluff (with or without a draw) vs their opponents preflop range (this same concept holds in NL though the bluffs are more expensive and have to work more thusly). Thats why no tags survive in the mid limits when the loose passive fishes are less prevalent.

Esp if you look at limit, theres a reason optimal play has shifted from total nit tag to lagtag or straight up lag as the games have gotten tougher. It will be true of NL eventually as well (unless an influx of bad players emerege again in the future). Theres a reason guys like Hoss TBF in limit (who bases his whole game on the book mathematics of poker by chen and akkeman, and is super laggy and shows down like crazy) and CTS durr ozzy ect in NL are the biggest winners in the highest games. They're play is the best at being tough to exploit and exploiting others, and it simply is not the rock style that is "unexploitable".

They are also great at adjusting obviously and understand the intricacies that make them apply certain thinking at times and not at others based on metagame the opponent the board ect ect.

Re: unexploitable nl play
 

Thanks for the input. Just to clarify I didn't say any style was truly unexploitable just "closer" to it. By Rock I don't mean "weak-tight" or nit but a solid Rock. I agree that at the upper levels, the LAG style is currently in vogue. So what type of players are the high stakes poker winners "exploiting"? If you asked the top players in LHE or NLE would they rather face a table of LAGs or Rocks, what would they say?

I'm not going to get into an extended debate about this. This is it for me.

Re: unexploitable nl play
 

yeah im not trying to debate really and it certainly wouldn't become an arguement ( I do like hearing others opinions) but I think if you asked most of the winning lag tags in the mid to high limits lhe games 20/40+ theyd rather face a passive fish or maniac (these are the bad lags, there are definitely a wide array of "lags" some easy to exploit some the toughest in the games) first obviously (depending on the player and who they have better results against/ are better at exploiting and their variance preference) then for sure a rocky tag over a lagtag 30+/20+/2+ type

theres just a reason you dont see hardly any winning true tags at those limits (20ish vpip/ less than 15 pfr) and its becuz they are way too exploitable in way too many spots and easy to play against for competent players. A few really good postflop ( and I mean far superior to the competition) are out there for true tags but not many (and theyre all 2p2ers who have been pros for years).

I dont have much first hand knowledge for the higher levels of NL though truthfully I dont know what empirical evidence shows to be the distribution of winning players stats wise but Im assuming as you move up playing the solid rock style has to give way to playing lag and making people play worse against you to get a sufficient edge (since most of the players will be decent anyways or atleast some day that will probably be more so true of the higher NL games as they dry up to some degree as has happened in limit).

Re: unexploitable nl play
 

IMHO..
Here are the two most important things about having an idea about unexploitable play.

#1 knowing what it is for various aspects of the game so you know how to exploite your opponents when they stray to far from it. ex. they bluff too much at large pots so you adjust by calling more etc. (you need to know what the apropriate % of time to bluff for the pot size in this example .. given no tells)

#2 knowing when you are straying too far from it so when someone takes advantage of you, you know how to counter it. Or you have a "safe" way to play when you sit down at or get moved to a table with a bunch of sharks.

Re: unexploitable nl play
 

In Phil Gordon's LGB he talks about a player he calls BOW (Biggest Online Winner), who seems to have a nearly unbeatable strategy that is based on game theory. He expands on the strategy pretty well, which you can look up yourself, but here are the basics:

1. Get in the pot cheaply.
2. Massively overbet with some premium draws.
3. Massively overbet with the nuts or the best hand.

It sounds like it might work, but would be difficult to master, makes for massively high variance, and still requires adjustments when other players figure out what you're doing.

BTW, anyone know who BOW is and if he is still playing this style/winning?

Re: unexploitable nl play
 

im guessin the reference at the time was specifically to prah