[leaponthis]

[ QUOTE ]
The Mathematics of Poker assumes you are taking this approach. And just like using Game Theory to bluff and call bluffs, using Game Theory to balance an overall strategy, practically guarantees a long term win. My experience tells me that the vast majority of games will be beaten for a greater amount if this approach is shelved for my more exploitive approach but time will tell.


[/ QUOTE ]

Using Game theory to the extent that you suggest above seems to me to be an attempt at fine tuning a very good strategy to ensure optimal play against the very best opponents. The only reason that I can think of to employ such a mythical strategy at present would be if you were playing in the only game in town and everyone in it was an expert. Could be that the 4-8k game in Vegas is such a game but from the take I've been given on some of the players in this game it hardly seems necessary nor practicle to employ nitty, game theoretical perfect poker, if there is such a thing, to win. If there is such a thing as game theoretical optimal strategy in poker it would dispel a lot of the current beliefs about how to win at poker through the use of skills such as game selection, reading your opponent, etc.. I doubt that without mastering these types of skills one could use a math strategy that would win at the highest levels of poker or any level for that matter. Poker skills are necesary for expert play. Game theory is just another tool for the expert. Talent for implimenting these defined poker skills, and not game theory, is the deciding factor on which experts win in the long run, now and in the future.

Your problem is that you can't see past the formula. You and all other math types attack poker as a mathematicl exercise when in fact it's a social exercise. It's a good thing Mason co-authored your books. I believe that he gives more credit to the talent of the player than you do.

leaponthis