[waffle]

[ QUOTE ]

People use the term optimal way too loosely imo which causes all sorts of confusion. Optimal implies money/+EV/etc, but thats not the case if villian is exploitable. Exploitable also implies that its a bad/losing play, which is not always the case.


[/ QUOTE ]

Exploitable doesn't mean it's bad play or a losing play. I think this board has generally decided to follow the definition of 'optimal' and 'exploitable' as used in the <u>Mathematics of Poker</u>. Neither have emotional value (bad/good) and they have clear definitions. I think they should be used.

[ QUOTE ]

As an aside, when speaking about being game-theory optimal, is there even such a thing as an 'optimal line'? Doesn't game theory tell you to do every single action x% of the time? So as soon as somebody recommends a specific line, they are already tossing game theory out the window and looking at the specific situation?


[/ QUOTE ]

No. In HE, because most ranges have so many hands in them, most hands can play "Pure" strategies. Hands on the border play mixed strategies.

In other words, you can often use your kicker to balance your play. If you have ace high in a certain situation and you've decided you only want to call down with ace high some of the time, you might call down with AK,AQ,AJ and fold others (if they're in your range.)

For a simple example (that makes no sense in context of a game), let's stay your range after an arbitrary action range is:

A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 AT AJ AQ AK

"Optimal" strategy might be:

AK-AQ: Raise/Call
AJ: 50%: Raise/Call 50%: Call
AT-A6: Call
A5: 80%: Raise/Fold 20%: Fold
A4-A2: Fold

Just because you recommend a specific line it doesn't mean you are tossing game theory out the window.