|
|
#31
06-06-2007, 07:30 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: 21/17/3.0/22
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] iStrong, i've seen you claim that 21/17/3 is unexploitable, and even define it as such... BUT I haven't seen a solid reasoning why. [/ QUOTE ] I don't think there is a reasoning behind it. I just find it real hard on average to make money of 21/17/3 type players. If i were to find myself on a table of 21/17/3 players (who are as skilled as me), I'd probably play 21/17/3 myself and expect not make or lose much in the long run. [/ QUOTE ] ?!?!?!?!?!?! head asplode so because you can't play against a SLAG it is unexploitable? is this really the reason? 
|
|
#34
06-06-2007, 08:02 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 21/17/3.0/22
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] iStrong, i've seen you claim that 21/17/3 is unexploitable, and even define it as such... BUT I haven't seen a solid reasoning why. [/ QUOTE ] I don't think there is a reasoning behind it. I just find it real hard on average to make money of 21/17/3 type players. If i were to find myself on a table of 21/17/3 players (who are as skilled as me), I'd probably play 21/17/3 myself and expect not make or lose much in the long run. [/ QUOTE ] ?!?!?!?!?!?! head asplode so because you can't play against a SLAG it is unexploitable? is this really the reason? [/ QUOTE ] No, I can't make money against a sLAG who is as good as me. I can make money against a 38/30/8 if he is a good as me but has to play within those statistical restrictions. P.S.: I did say in the well thread that 21/17/3.0 was just an opinion. It could very well be 25/21/4.0. Maybe we can harness our collective power and see what everyone thinks the most GTOS stats look like. ie. if you were looking at a list of tables where everyone had the same stats x/y/z. what would be the values for x/y/z that you'd hate the most? (assume that you don't have any weaknesses yourself and that you are the best player in the world ie. you can't say 30/0/0 because you hate playing calling stations)
|
|
#35
06-06-2007, 08:14 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 21/17/3.0/22
I think it’s interesting that nobody here has taken into account ‘era’. I personally don’t see how one can possibly argue that there is EVER an unexploitable strategy, or even an single optimal strategy. An optimal strategy is one that is the most +EV against a given opponent. As you develop a pool of opponents, optimal stats will converge and yield an average, optimal strategy for that pool. That said, generally accepted poker strategy goes in waves, and what that optimal strategy looks like is based on how the average player is playing at that time. An optimal strategy 20 years ago would look quite different than the one being discussed today.
As far as unexploitable goes, it doesn’t exist unless it’s defined as being able to adjust faster than your opponent. The fact that being one step ahead is valuable in any endeavor in life, should not be news to anyone.
|
|
#37
06-06-2007, 08:37 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 21/17/3.0/22
iSTRONG, you're way off base with your obsession w/ preflop stats.
some random remarks: - it has been proven (Nash) that at least one optimal(=unexploitable) strategy exists for any n-player game w/ a finite strategy space. This includes NLHE. - strategies in the 18-23/15-20/2-6 range are popular because they provide a very easy framework to robotically exploit the strategies employed by the general opponent in your games, not because they are neccesarily close to an optimal strategy. "Natural selection" favours those strategies that exploit your random opponent in the easiest way, not those strategies that deviate the least from optimal play! - it's perfectly conceivable that multiple optimal strategies exist, some might resemble the known TAG style, others might be more like 20/10 w/ lots of open/over limping, limp/reraising and postflop overbetting. As long as they're not too loose or too tight, agressive and balanced at any action node in the game, anything might be possible!
|
|
#38
06-06-2007, 08:38 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 21/17/3.0/22
I think - Since the most optimal strategy,(as mentioned above) must be diffrent depending on the player, the "optimal strategy" must be the one that is the LEAST exploitible one, by the averge one. Since the averge changes over time, the strategy must to.
I think - like Bilbo-san said, a compleatly unexploitable strategy simple means making your decisions based on random events, this can't be exploitble since there is no information for villain to use, even if he knows u are doing it. If however u make your decisions based on information about the specific player, I think it can always be exploited in some way. Since he can adjust. Perhaps I should just quote Snipe [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]
|
|
#39
06-06-2007, 08:49 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 21/17/3.0/22
there is no Nash equilibrium with irrational players
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
