|
|
#22
02-04-2007, 04:02 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: OT Linuxers
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] That's very good advice ;-) [/ QUOTE ] DON: PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE update your software! I don't think your sim will be compatible with Windows Vista, and it would be great to add 2-7 in the middle as an option! TT [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] [/ QUOTE ] Can any Linux users tell me if they've run Don's software on Wine? 
|
|
#23
02-04-2007, 10:01 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Modern Chinese Poker
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] it would be great to add 2-7 in the middle as an option! [/ QUOTE ] There's no optimal state for 2-7 in the middle. [/ QUOTE ] ???? [/ QUOTE ] Isn't this obvious? Much of the reason 2-7 in the middle has become so popular is that it fundamentally changes the game from mechanical to exploitative, because of the weakening of the ordered hands directive.
|
|
#24
02-04-2007, 11:48 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Modern Chinese Poker
[ QUOTE ]
Isn't this obvious? Much of the reason 2-7 in the middle has become so popular is that it fundamentally changes the game from mechanical to exploitative, because of the weakening of the ordered hands directive. [/ QUOTE ] Badugi, this kind of makes sense to me if different players tend to have different approaches. (I don't know if this is true or not in practice. There may be some "Conventional Wisdom" that is routinely followed.) Would you agree with this: [ QUOTE ] Some help here. I feel like this has potential to be very opponent dependent. Without simulator help to solidify some sort of "basic" strategy, I can see the par middle hand varying from player to player. Some may routinely punt the middle for strong outside hands, while others may be more inclined to build around the middle when there is any sort of reasonable low available. The structure (2-4, 1-6, etc.) will surely have a say in this as well. [/ QUOTE ]
|
|
#25
02-04-2007, 12:23 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Modern Chinese Poker
[ QUOTE ]
Would you agree with this: [ QUOTE ] Some help here. I feel like this has potential to be very opponent dependent. Without simulator help to solidify some sort of "basic" strategy, I can see the par middle hand varying from player to player. Some may routinely punt the middle for strong outside hands, while others may be more inclined to build around the middle when there is any sort of reasonable low available. The structure (2-4, 1-6, etc.) will surely have a say in this as well. [/ QUOTE ] [/ QUOTE ] Entirely. If there's a "conventional wisdom" that all your opponents follow in regards to dumping the middle or loading it up, you will beat the snot out of them by playing the opposite way.
|
|
#26
02-04-2007, 01:17 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Modern Chinese Poker
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] it would be great to add 2-7 in the middle as an option! [/ QUOTE ] There's no optimal state for 2-7 in the middle. [/ QUOTE ] ???? [/ QUOTE ] Isn't this obvious? Much of the reason 2-7 in the middle has become so popular is that it fundamentally changes the game from mechanical to exploitative, because of the weakening of the ordered hands directive. [/ QUOTE ] Its only exploitive temporarily because those who are practicing near perfect strategy have an edge on those who are not - same as Mandarin style, or straight CP. Personally I find 2-7 in the middle easier to play than traditional high card CP games because it removes the memorization of some charts. TT [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]
|
|
#27
02-04-2007, 01:53 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Modern Chinese Poker
[ QUOTE ]
Its only exploitive temporarily because those who are practicing near perfect strategy have an edge on those who are not [/ QUOTE ] No. The only reason that perfect strategy exists in standard CP is because of the ordered hands directive. When you do away with it in the middle, you destroy the perfect strategy state. You can test this by removing it from standard CP if you like, playing all three hands for high but removing the ordering requirement. You'll find that there's no longer a finite optimal strategy. (Of course there's still a game theoretical optimal strategy.)
|
|
#28
02-05-2007, 10:58 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Modern Chinese Poker
[ QUOTE ]
No. The only reason that perfect strategy exists in standard CP is because of the ordered hands directive. When you do away with it in the middle, you destroy the perfect strategy state. You can test this by removing it from standard CP if you like, playing all three hands for high but removing the ordering requirement. You'll find that there's no longer a finite optimal strategy. (Of course there's still a game theoretical optimal strategy.) [/ QUOTE ] I can believe that removing the ordering constraint from CP means there is no optimal strategy, because a player may swap either of the two 5-card hands at will. (A player who knew he was likely to get scooped with the standard ordering would be motivated to swap his back and middle.) But I'm not sure this is sufficient to prove that CP+27 does not have an optimal strategy. If this is the case, we ought to be able to find a pair (or quartet) of CP+27 hands without an equilibrium of pure strategies. Can you describe one off the top of your head? I will give it some thought and see if I can come up with an example. (Are we actually 100% sure that, if we knew all the other player's cards, there would still be a pure strategy in CP? Haven't read Smolen's book but it's not obvious to me that we couldn't, for example, find an embedding of the penny-matching game.)
|
|
#29
02-06-2007, 12:18 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Modern Chinese Poker
[ QUOTE ]
If this is the case, we ought to be able to find a pair (or quartet) of CP+27 hands without an equilibrium of pure strategies. Can you describe one off the top of your head? [/ QUOTE ] No flushes: A: 2222344455578 B: AAA334567789T If B can see what A is setting he can always adjust to win 2 of 3. If A can see what B is setting he can always adjust to win 2 of 3. (I think. I took two minutes on this.)
|
|
#30
02-06-2007, 02:11 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Modern Chinese Poker
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] If this is the case, we ought to be able to find a pair (or quartet) of CP+27 hands without an equilibrium of pure strategies. Can you describe one off the top of your head? [/ QUOTE ] No flushes: A: 2222344455578 B: AAA334567789T If B can see what A is setting he can always adjust to win 2 of 3. If A can see what B is setting he can always adjust to win 2 of 3. (I think. I took two minutes on this.) [/ QUOTE ] Hmmm... A1: 55544 23478 222 B1: AAA77 34568 T93 A2: 22244 23457 558 B2: AAA33 45689 77T A3: 22224 34578 554 B3: AAA93 34568 77T A4: 55544 23478 222 == A1 Cute. I can't find a way out of the cycle. It's rock-paper-scissors. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] In a 4-handed game I would almost certainly be playing A1 as A, but I'm not sure which of the B arrangements above I would prefer. B2 can really only take all three if somebody has to dump in both middle and back, probably B1 has the best chance of winning two.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
