What is "Nash equilibrium" as it relates to NLHE?

[_D&L_]

Look at page 18 of von neumann's thesis, located at this link: http://www.math.ucla.edu/~tom/papers/poker2.pdf

Can you tell me why it says that the "value of the game" for the first player is negative, and the value of the second player is the negative of this (hence positive)? And quoting the author, "We see that this game is in favor of player 2."

The last game is the only model where he allowed either player to initiate raising.

Even in von neumann's simple model, player 1s optimal strategy doesn't completely hide information from player 2, it just tries to hide as much as it can, and minimize the impact.

I should point out the information advantage is even greater in ring games. Are you really trying to contest that you can profitably play the same range of hands UTG as you do on the button? Or that you are going to be equally profitable in both positions?

I mean i could go into gametheory here, but its commonsense right?

[Paxinor]

nono we did not understand eachother right.

of course there is a positional advantage in multiple player games if you go into ranges because you have multiple opponents behind you so you need a tighter range, but this has nothing really to do with positional advantage we talk about on the flop for example when somebody likes to play IP because it gives you an advantage there.

you can of course open more lightly in late positions, because the game changes if an early player fold preflop

but: if an optimal player enters the pot in early position, you will not be able to exploit him without either folding too often or folding too less

but we should stick our discussions to HU, because the dynamics get so out of the imaginable that its hard to discuss it.

in HU there is basicly no positional advantage, because if the first player enters the pot, he will be neutral EV to any range that plays against him, even if he doesn't have position on the following streets.

of course the examle you made is not a correct proof of positional advantage because on page ten you see that one player has less options than another meaning its not a full street game because one guy can end the action directly by checking.

there are some asymetries i agree but its not comparable with the value of position in an exploitive game like today. meaning if you knew the optimal strategy you could probably play looser OOP than most people do today.

just that nobody confuses the positional advantage with the one sbrugby talks of when hes making a vid for cardrunners

[questions]

Thanks for the responses. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] Very heavy stuff, though. lol

[dj_mercury]

[ QUOTE ]
Thanks for the responses. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] Very heavy stuff, though. lol

[/ QUOTE ]
The classic exemple to explain the concept is the Prisoner Dilemma.