|
|
|
|
#1
11-27-2007, 03:08 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: malmuth on bluffing
[ QUOTE ]
Suppose there are two players, lets call them A and B. They play exactly the same, except that on the end Player A will bluff 50 percent of the time and Player B will never bluff. Who do you think plays worse? [/ QUOTE ] I do agree that his answer to who's worse A or B is wrong. (I'm assuming A bets his entire range as Mason stated.) Even if your opponent bets their entire range you can still fold the worst of your hands. A's strategy is slightly worse than B's. 
|
|
#2
11-27-2007, 04:15 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: malmuth on bluffing
Is he not speaking in an all-knowing theory manner? Meaning when the guy who bluffs zero percent of the time bets, he is only betting when he has the best hand. And for the guy that bluffs 50% of the time, he is only bluffing when he has the worst hand for certain.
Sometimes you obviously bluff with the best hand or value bet the worse, but that would needlessly complicate basic theoretic models. This seems like the most obvious explanation here. Occam FTW? [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]
|
|
#3
11-27-2007, 02:21 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: malmuth on bluffing
[ QUOTE ]
Is he not speaking in an all-knowing theory manner? Meaning when the guy who bluffs zero percent of the time bets, he is only betting when he has the best hand. And for the guy that bluffs 50% of the time, he is only bluffing when he has the worst hand for certain. Sometimes you obviously bluff with the best hand or value bet the worse, but that would needlessly complicate basic theoretic models. This seems like the most obvious explanation here. Occam FTW? [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] [/ QUOTE ] I would be helpful to have the essay. Without it we really can't say what he's talking about. I would guess that the folks who say he's wrong have mininterpreted what he wrote.
|
 |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
