|
|
#21
11-13-2006, 10:11 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: He Sees Your Cards.
I don't know the answer David is looking for, but it reminds me of something I read a while back on the non-iterative Prisoner's Dilema. If there is a poker situation that mirrors this game, then any deviation from the dominant strategy would be incorrect, theoretically giving the protagonist and advantage. So if we are playing 3 card guts with one chip each in the pot, he could hold his hand if he knew he had a loser, and hope that you hold. But you know he might do this, and so you play correctly and drop your cards. I suppose if I were a brain dude like most of you guys are, I could give you a payoff matrix and all that, proving my point, if it is even a point. But I can't, so Bartender.....
|
|
#22
11-14-2006, 12:40 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: He Sees Your Cards.
[ QUOTE ]
In which games, if any, would it be to your advantage to play one hand only, against a cheater who did not realize that you knew he knew your cards. [/ QUOTE ] none. this would violate the fundamental theorem of poker. By the way, Sklan Man, prove me wrong at your own peril. I will immediately use whatever evidence you provide stating that an advantage can be gained by allowing an opponent to see your cards to crumble your book sales. Homeless shelters are a definite big negative EV. So, shhh.
|
|
#24
11-14-2006, 12:59 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: He Sees Your Cards.
[ QUOTE ]
Blind Man's Bluff. If he couldn't figure out you knew he could see your cards, that would have to put you at a serious advantage. [/ QUOTE ] So, let me ask you this. Would you rather be the person who could see the cards or the one who knew someone was looking at your cards? The advantage obviously goes to the one seeing the cards. Maybe ol' Davie's got something up his sleeve, but i can't think of it. Don't forget, in the example there was nothing said about you being able to see HIS cards.
|
|
#25
11-14-2006, 01:15 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: He Sees Your Cards.
I'm with thedorf on this one. Maybe I am completely lacking in imagination(and experience with the math behind any other game but hold'em)but the answer to this seems really simple. The opponent seeing your cards would allow your opponent to play perfectly against you and it is -EV to play 1 hand or 1,000,000 hands against this guy.
This is assuming Sklansky meant that the guy knew the right plays to make. If this opponent does not then that could change things.
|
|
#26
11-14-2006, 01:25 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: He Sees Your Cards.
[ QUOTE ]
The villain is able to play mistake free poker. The best I could hope to do on any given hand is to make no mistakes and even then I would not have an advantage. [/ QUOTE ] I think that's a bold assumption.
|
|
#27
11-14-2006, 01:28 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: He Sees Your Cards.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] This is an easy call in a cash game, based purely on odds. We have to assume villain has enough of a roll to get his stack in the middle when he has an edge. Then there is no need to wait for a better opportunity. Okay, so not getting caught is a reason why villain won't call every time he has an edge, but it doesn't make going all-in a good play. If villain is only calling here with his usual range, then it's equivalent to the situation where he doesn't know your cards, in which case you would not be pushing junk. [/ QUOTE ] If you're not a cheater and are playing in a cash game and your opponent moves in on the first hand, what hands are you calling with? Not many. That make's it a +EV play (assuming the stacks aren't huge compared with the blinds). Of course if he did this with every hand you would adjust. But not on the first hand. Not getting caught is only half the reason. The other is that you will probably win much more if you don't take unnecessary risks. If you wasn't a cheater but accidently saw hero's cards, then by all means you should call. But that's becasue you don't figure to get many good chances like that. You would't play a game of Russian Roulette, would you? What if I reduced the chances of a bullet to 1 in 20? 1 in 50? The answer is no because you can reduce the chances to zero by not playing. The cheater can reduce his chances of losing to almost zero by folding almost every hand to that first hand all-in bet. [/ QUOTE ] So you think moving all-in with any two on the first hand of a cash game is +EV?
|
|
#28
11-14-2006, 01:29 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: He Sees Your Cards.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] The villain is able to play mistake free poker. The best I could hope to do on any given hand is to make no mistakes and even then I would not have an advantage. [/ QUOTE ] I think that's a bold assumption. [/ QUOTE ] Fundamental Theorem of Poker: Every time you play a hand differently from the way you would have played it if you could see all your opponents' cards, they gain; and every time you play your hand the same way you would have played it if you could see all their cards, they lose. Conversely, every time opponents play their hands differently from the way they would have if they could see all your cards, you gain; and every time they play their hands the same way they would have played if they could see all your cards, you lose. A mistake in Sklanskyworld is when you play your hand differently than if you could see their cards. Since the opponent can see your cards he can play perfect, mistake free poker. Now the fact that you know he knows your cards could change things but I don't see how. You could potentially get read on his hand through the plays he is making but this would still leave you at a disadvantage because you are still playing imperfectly and he is playing perfectly.
|
|
#29
11-14-2006, 01:33 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: He Sees Your Cards.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] The villain is able to play mistake free poker. The best I could hope to do on any given hand is to make no mistakes and even then I would not have an advantage. [/ QUOTE ] I think that's a bold assumption. [/ QUOTE ] Fundamental Theorem of Poker: Every time you play a hand differently from the way you would have played it if you could see all your opponents' cards, they gain; and every time you play your hand the same way you would have played it if you could see all their cards, they lose. Conversely, every time opponents play their hands differently from the way they would have if they could see all your cards, you gain; and every time they play their hands the same way they would have played if they could see all your cards, you lose. [/ QUOTE ] Mistakes according to the FTAP aren't the same as mistakes though. He won't ever play "differently from the way he would have if he could see all your cards", but he might still play very badly. A better fomrulation of the FTAP would use should not would.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
