|
|
#21
11-20-2006, 04:50 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Game Theory at on-line micros?
[ QUOTE ]
Game Theory is a branch of mathematics dealing with the problem(s) of making optimal decisions in situations where you are interacting with others. It's not only applied to "games", but also to economics, negotiations etc. [/ QUOTE ] This is what Sklansky writes in ToP too, he also says: "Essentially game theory attempts to discover mathematically the best strategies against someone also using the best strategies." He also says against opponents that are weaker than you it's better to realy on on your judgement than game theory, which clearly means you're better of using your judgement in at micro tables than game theory. Sure, I wouldn't consider game theory a waste of time since gives you better understanding of the game of poker. 
|
|
#22
11-20-2006, 05:16 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Game Theory at on-line micros?
[ QUOTE ]
This is what Sklansky writes in ToP too, he also says: "Essentially game theory attempts to discover mathematically the best strategies against someone also using the best strategies." [/ QUOTE ] Here I disagree. Game theory can also tells you which decision is the best if you have additional knowledge about the other players. One may have to adjust parameters accordingly.
|
|
#23
11-20-2006, 05:53 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Game Theory at on-line micros?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] This is what Sklansky writes in ToP too, he also says: "Essentially game theory attempts to discover mathematically the best strategies against someone also using the best strategies." [/ QUOTE ] Here I disagree. Game theory can also tells you which decision is the best if you have additional knowledge about the other players. One may have to adjust parameters accordingly. [/ QUOTE ] I fully understand how you're thinking, but if we can agree that Sklansky knows what he's talking about you're wrong. When you're adepting your play against a player that isn't playing perfectly, it's no longer game theory. When you know villain will call all your bluff and thus your stop bluffing you are no longer playing according to game theory, even though your play is correct, is based on theory and you're playing a game. "Game theory cannot replace sound judgement. It should only be used when you think your opponent's judgement is as good as or better than yours or when you simply don't know your opponent." "In actual poker situations, optimum strategy based on game theory isn't always the best strategy." Thus, game theory in the micros isn't the best strategy. As said I understand how you're thinking, but it's your false view of game theory that makes us disagree. I suggest you read the chapter starting at page 179 in ToP.
|
|
#24
11-21-2006, 12:05 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Game Theory at on-line micros?
Can we please stop recommending Theory of Poker as the treatise on game theory? It is not, and despite how he bills himself, David Sklansky is not exactly at the fore of game theory.
The three books I've read on the subject... The Compleat Strategyst: Being a Primer on the Theory of Games of Strategy Prisoner's Dilemma Game Theory : A Nontechnical Introduction ... are very dry, but very good. Read those if you want to really get into the nitty gritty of game theory. I'll summarize the ToP version of game theory for you now: bluff once in a while. There you go, that's it. Nick, why did you switch from calling me out with "Your explanation isn't very good though, since game theory isn't only used against players who plays perfectly, but against unknowns we don't know what flaws they have in their game" but now you're touting game theory as only working against perfect play? This is why every time the words "game theory" come up I lose 6 months of my life, because the only reference to it in the poker literature makes it sound as though it's a bluffing plan. It is not. The best and easiest example of game theory is found in the Prisoner's Dilemma: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma Essentially, it's a game where two people have to snitch or not snitch on each other and their jail time is adjusted accordingly. I'll save you the details from the article, but as it turns out it's better to admit you did it than rely on your partner to stay silent.
|
|
#26
11-23-2006, 02:52 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Game Theory at on-line micros?
[ QUOTE ]
Can we please stop recommending Theory of Poker as the treatise on game theory? It is not, and despite how he bills himself, David Sklansky is not exactly at the fore of game theory. The three books I've read on the subject... The Compleat Strategyst: Being a Primer on the Theory of Games of Strategy Prisoner's Dilemma Game Theory : A Nontechnical Introduction ... are very dry, but very good. Read those if you want to really get into the nitty gritty of game theory. I'll summarize the ToP version of game theory for you now: bluff once in a while. There you go, that's it. Nick, why did you switch from calling me out with "Your explanation isn't very good though, since game theory isn't only used against players who plays perfectly, but against unknowns we don't know what flaws they have in their game" but now you're touting game theory as only working against perfect play? This is why every time the words "game theory" come up I lose 6 months of my life, because the only reference to it in the poker literature makes it sound as though it's a bluffing plan. It is not. The best and easiest example of game theory is found in the Prisoner's Dilemma: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma Essentially, it's a game where two people have to snitch or not snitch on each other and their jail time is adjusted accordingly. I'll save you the details from the article, but as it turns out it's better to admit you did it than rely on your partner to stay silent. [/ QUOTE ] Thanks for the fan-freakin-tastic post Pooh-bah!
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
