please let Byron Jacobs continue his HU series

[scorer]

sounds like the publisher asked him to write it to fit a certain outline, author didn't want to do this..hence here is where we are today.

[elffaw]

rofl, great job dynasty.

[ByronJacobs]

[ QUOTE ]
sounds like the publisher asked him to write it to fit a certain outline, author didn't want to do this..hence here is where we are today.

[/ QUOTE ]

A couple of points about the heads up stuff.

1) Ed commissioned me to write a heads up series. I have done this – the series is planned out and I have written the first two articles. I also have a pretty clear idea what I want to say in subsequent articles. As we all know, Ed is no longer the editor, Dynasty is. If he is unhappy with the articles then I don’t feel he is under any obligation to publish them. 2+2 pay for this stuff and if they feel they don’t want this material then that’s fine – I don’t have a problem with it.

2) There may have been a misunderstanding (in the forums) along the lines that Dynasty wanted me to do the articles a certain way and I wanted to do them differently. This is not the case. He simply felt my initial article was too brief to sum up a complete small blind strategy and wanted instead to explore the idea of a player annotating 100 hands from a HU session. I said I was very happy to do that but that first I wanted to get my thoughts down on a basic small blind and big blind strategy in order to provide a context for the subsequent 100 hand annotation. However, discussions stalled at this point.

3) Finally, I don’t think it is possible to have a complete strategy to play HU. I have logged around 100K hands playing HU and have been pretty successful. The main feature of my style of play is that I don’t have one. I am almost completely fluid in this respect and will alter virtually every aspect of my play based on what I see my opponent doing. Nevertheless, you have to start somewhere and so I do have a basic game plan which I will use at the very start of a session before I have any hard information on my opponent’s tendencies. It’s not deep and it certainly isn’t comprehensive but I don’t think it needs to be. It’s a jumping off point and articulating it was the planned subject of the first two articles.

[elffaw]

[ QUOTE ]
3) Finally, I don’t think it is possible to have a complete strategy to play HU.

[/ QUOTE ]

Quick note about this. And it is only a theoretical note. It is mathematically proven that there exists a single optimal strategy for LHE. If you stick to this strategy your opponent, no matter how he plays, can do no better but breakeven against you. It is a mixed strategy, so it will vary actions when given the same information. (When holding XX on a YYYY turn, after this preflop and flop action, facing a donk, call 80% and raise 20%.) Of course, no one knows what it is. We just know it exists.

This strategy will also fail to make the most money versus opponents, since it is optimal and not maximal. A maximal strategy is one that adapts to your opponent, exploiting his mistakes but leaving yourself open to counterattack.

As an example, imagine playing against a player in rock paper scissors who chooses rock every time. The maximal strategy would be to choose paper every time. The optimal strategy would be to choose rock, paper, and scissors with a 1/3rd probability of each. Notice the optimal strategy does not win any money from this very stupid player.

So I do think there is value in developing a default strategy that is your starting point to launch off your adaptations.

[JaredL]

[ QUOTE ]

Quick note about this. And it is only a theoretical note. It is mathematically proven that there exists a single optimal strategy for LHE.

[/ QUOTE ]

False. LHE is a finite game. Therefore there exists a nash equilibrium. That a NE exists is a different statement than that 'there exists a single optimal strategy' for LHE or any other game. For one, given the way your opponent is playing it's possible that there are several optimal strategies.

[ QUOTE ]

If you stick to this strategy your opponent, no matter how he plays, can do no better but breakeven against you.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is true of the equilibrium strategy.

[ QUOTE ]

It is a mixed strategy, so it will vary actions when given the same information.

[/ QUOTE ]

This isn't very obvious at all. In most theoretical poker games the equilibrium strategies are pure strategies. You are probably correct that it's a mixed strategy equilibrium (I would assume that especially in the preflop round you would mix over actions), but I wouldn't make this claim.

[ QUOTE ]

This strategy will also fail to make the most money versus opponents, since it is optimal and not maximal. A maximal strategy is one that adapts to your opponent, exploiting his mistakes but leaving yourself open to counterattack.


[/ QUOTE ]

What are you talking about here? I'm familiar with no definition of optimal that involves you doing anything other than the best. Even ignoring the use of the word optimal in economics and game theory, in laymen's terms how could optimal mean something other than optimal?

[ QUOTE ]

As an example, imagine playing against a player in rock paper scissors who chooses rock every time. The maximal strategy would be to choose paper every time. The optimal strategy would be to choose rock, paper, and scissors with a 1/3rd probability of each. Notice the optimal strategy does not win any money from this very stupid player.


[/ QUOTE ]

Again, how can you have an "optimal" strategy not win anything in the long run when another strategy does better?


[ QUOTE ]

So I do think there is value in developing a default strategy that is your starting point to launch off your adaptations.

[/ QUOTE ]

This I agree with, although I'm not sure that one should make their default strategy the equilibrium strategy (assuming it came to you in a dream or something). The problem is that players tend to play pretty far off from the equilibrium strategies except possibly at very high limits. As a result the equilibrium strategy will be far from optimal. I think a better place to start would be to make some assumptions about how your opponents play certain hands, taking the average player at your stakes, and find the best response to that.

[Dynasty]

After comments from many posters, including Mason in an e-mail, I'm thinking of publishing Byron's article in the October issue.

It may be useful to compare my views to the views of the Magazine readers after they get a chance to read the article.

[elffaw]

Hi Jared, when I say "optimal strategy" I mean the same thing as "Nash equilibrium". I think this is where our confusion arises. The strategy ensures we will at least breakeven no matter how our opponent plays, but we only profit when our opponent makes dominated errors. And you are right, there may be more than one Nash equilibrium for HU LHE.

[jogsxyz]

Publish the article. Just don't title it the complete guide to SB play in HU.

[Shandrax]

I love all the talk about a game-theory-break-even approach when you have a 5% rake to overcome [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Oh yeah, publish the article! Call it whatever, but publish it.

[skillzilla]

i liked the HU article very much, it helped me win 3 HU matched today.
i have a Q: why doesnt the harringtons "your getting 3:1 so any 2 cards should atleast be limped " rule aplly to limit holdem