[cairpre]

Thank you for your reply

Since I am considering a predominantly probabilistic and statistical approach to the game how long the game lasts and who the particular players are is probably not important. Remember it's one long session. However we can categorize certain types of tables and base our strategy on that. For example a 10 person table at the beginning of a tournament probably is less aggressive than the last 4 players on the final table. Optimal strategy is modified to the the texture of the table as we evaluate it

It just seems to me that rather than practicing sitting stone faced or overindulging in attempted tell reading Nash presented a good alternative. I was actually thinking about combining it with a different approach.

When I read Mr. Slansky's example of using a coin flip to offset an opponents superior ability in a game of odds and evens ( Theory of poker chapter 19 -game theory), I thought about how I might apply that to poker. Betting, folding, raising, and checking on a completely random basis seemed like a poor plan. However since mixing one actions is the proper strategy and Nash helps us to determine the right percentage mix of actions, like how often to raise or call with a particular type of hand, it seemed a good idea to put the two together.

So lets say you're playing the standard tight aggressive style recommended in most books "randomizing" that basic strategy at about the same percentage as the determined equilibrium point should yield the better results over the long run. I think as long as we assume rational play on the part of the opponents, and have evaluated the table texture correctly we will consistently make correct (not necessarily winning) plays. This just seems an easy rather stress free way of getting maximum return.

But being a relative newcomer to both poker and probablity theory I am not sure how correct this is.