[jstill]

[ QUOTE ]
In poker, my own calcs is that a nash eq. will beat virtually all of the opposing strategy space; your chance of playing by luck a non-nash strategy that breaks even is virtual zero.


[/ QUOTE ]

that last comment is especially stupid, most everyone out there is playing non nash poker trying to exploit the other players' weaknesses rather than trying to play unexploitably (becuz most players are bad and wouldnt correctly exploit unbalanced play on our part so its not an issue), the only players really focusing on playing unexploitably are HU lhe specialists and HU lhe bots mostly, even then good ones will immediately, and frequently deviate from it depending on their opponents tendencies (primarily how often they cr/ bluff semi bluff, raise the turn, raise preflop ect ect). In fact playing nash equilibrium poker all or most of the time would be the less profitable option, so to say you couldnt break even without it is completely erroneous unless everyone else is applying " nash optimal" strategy (which will probably never be the case in a game as complex as poker), in which case there really is no point in playing with the rake considered. Playing great poker means knowing when to focus on this unexploitable stuff would often be incorrect (less EV than something else) and when you should be thinking about something else, for example not folding a range of hands to a player thats a rock becuz folding vs most players cr'ing range on this board with your range of hands would be exploitable is actually incorrect (even if it is in accordance with what would be considered the unexploitably optimal play vs any opponent) since this particular opponent isnt cr'ing with a wide enough range to calldown profitably. U have to know when to think about nash in poker, and its really really rare tbh, against really good players who you play regularly I doubt most of us play in games where its necessary truthfully