[jogsxyz]

[ QUOTE ]
yeah i got that allready

i am just saying that if people mention that equilibriums have no practical sence in "real poker" and mention the concept of the maximal strategy they are also wrong because in todays poker its more about "keep the edge, don't let the villain adjust" and not about max strategies meaning exploiting his as hard as you can

[/ QUOTE ]

Any true student of the game should learn nash equilibriums for one street games. But that doesn't mean he should follow them religiously. When opponents deviate even only slightly from optimal, often but not always, students would do better by using best exploitive strategy.

[ QUOTE ]

anyway i really think that all academic work so far has not focused enough about those abstractions because todays game theory solving is mostly done by computer scientists and not by economists and in computer sience its more about the algorithm than the acutal solving of the game so there has to be put in some serious research about correct abstraction since those Linear Programming Stuff is kinda shooting birds with cannons without abstractions..

all those guys trying to solve the game have different motivations than "solving the game"

basicly since koller's paper about the sequential form of games in 1995 there hasn't been a major breakthrough even though computers have evolved massivly.

[/ QUOTE ]

Those are just the wrong authors. RGP has threads by poker players. Ferguson, both Chris and his brother Tom, Weideman, Chen, Ankenman all contribute about the micro aspects of the game.
Still waiting for a paper on the two street, dynamic game. Don't think anyone has solved it yet.