Balancing Bluffs vs Balancing Strategy

[leaponthis]

[ QUOTE ]
The Mathematics of Poker seems to make reference to this play and states that any small gain from limping would be negated by the fact you are not playing preflop in a consistent way and could thus be more easily read. Whether that is true depends on the game.

[/ QUOTE ]

If Sklansky is correct here, and as usual he usually is, his statement indicates that the authors of this math book are a bit flawed in their thinking. Perhaps this book is not what many here make it out to be. Be careful.

leapopnthis

[leaponthis]

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah. Imagine the other guy's strategy as like a series of regions (the value raise region, the value call region, the semi-bluff region region, the drawing call region, and so on). Now if there weren't card removal effects (like this were some kind of idealized game), the only hands that would be mixed strategies would be hands on the border, which are mixed to make the overall frequencies right.

[/ QUOTE ]

This mechanical method of optimal play seems to lend itself to being programmable in a computer. Have you run a computer simulation? Does Turbo Texas Holdem employ this optimal game theory strategy?

leaponthis

[soon2bepro]

David. It's obvious game theory is best only when your opponent is tough. If you know the guy is going to pick scissors no matter what, you pick rock every time, you don't do better by using game theory and picking 33% each.

You explained this in the theory of poker.

What's your need to go over this here?

[leaponthis]

[ QUOTE ]
on two-flushed boards for people to semi-bluff raise liberally on the turn (including all flush draws, straight draws, and other weaker draws such as small pair+gutshot and the like).

The exploitive response to this that I observed was for original bettors to three-bet liberally, including hands as weak as middle pair in this sequence, because the number of semi-bluffs was just far too high compared to the number of value raises (as these players wouldn't adjust their value raise thresholds to balance). Against a properly balanced strategy, three-betting this liberally is a disaster. This also shows a clear example of why, contrary to some players' assertions, playing optimally or in a balanced manner isn't about equalizing all your opponent's actions --just the ones that are on the borders.


[/ QUOTE ]

If I read this correctly the semi-bluffing liberal raiser was raising so frequently with draws that he was being exploited via three bets from his opponent. So you propose balancing your semi-bluff raises via a game theory (randomized) approach that takes into account value raising your good hands.

I can see where a randomizing approach is certainly preferable to consistently semi-bluff raising in the face of a consistent three bet. Are you proposing that whenever one finds themselves in a potential semi-bluff situation that one semi-bluff on a randomized basis? The semi-bluff concept includes some liklihood that your opponent will fold. If done without this in mind then the raiser is making a mistake. This liklihood leads to one having knowledge of their opponent. So if done correclty one would only semi-bluff in situations where there is a good chance that it will produce the desired results. Randomizing would mean that you would sometimes be semi-bluffing knowing that there was no chance of obtaining the desired results. Sure you would nulify the consistent three betters exploitation of a semi-bluff but so what you would now be making semi-bluffs knowing they were not suited to the situation.

leaponthis

[Kimbell175113]

leaponthis,

Optimal play is waaay too complicated to be calculated in real-time by any computers currently in existence. (I might have some vocabulary wrong here, but the idea is sound.) So no, Turbo Texas Holdem != optimal.

[andyfox]

"In poker there is such a thing as talent. Talent that allows a player to rise above his opponents and out play them. Out play - not out calculate. Sklansky disregards this in his theories because talent does not lend itself to logical analysis."

David has written:

"The fact is that many of the superstars are freaks. They have an inborn talent for the game as most champion athletes do. It is safe to assume that most readers do not have this talent. They thus cannot hope to achieve top level play without a lot of help. . . .

"Being good at poker is something like being good at bowling or golf. You need talent to become a superstar no matter how much you know. However with proper coaching, practice, and study most people shoud be able to achieve one notch below superstar status. Most people can become 190 bowlers or shoot 77 in golf if they have a coach who can show them all the fundamentals. It is not necessary that they have that much talent. With proper coaching, practice, and study they can frequently surpass people who have much more talent but who don't want to study and practice the fundamentals.

"Thus, I would like you to consider me your poker coach. I might only be able to get you to be a 77 shooter but this is good enough. Even if you can't get on the pro tour with this score, there is plenty of money to be made if you're this good. This is especially true in poker. There are a lot of 90 shooters out there just waiting to give you their money. Let me help you take it."

David recognizes that his audience likely has less talent than the superstars and writes for that audience.

[andyfox]

"It might be better to play a hand differently almost every time from the way it should be played if it was the last hand of your life. For the sake of future hands."

But eventually that future has to come to be the present. When is the point at which we stop playing the hand differently and start playing it Sklansky-optimally?

I think what you mention in one of your other posts in this thread is correct: basically, you do better playing every hand like it was the last hand of your life up to a certain stakes level.

[leaponthis]

[ QUOTE ]
In poker there is such a thing as talent. Talent that allows a player to rise above his opponents and out play them. Out play - not out calculate. Sklansky disregards this in his theories because talent does not lend itself to logical analysis."

David has written:

"The fact is that many of the superstars are freaks. They have an inborn talent for the game as most champion athletes do. It is safe to assume that most readers do not have this talent

[/ QUOTE ]

So sue me.

laponthis

[mikechops]

[ QUOTE ]


In real poker there are card removal strategies and in order to balance for new public information (like the community cards to come) there is probably a little mixing for several hands around. But almost certainly many hands use pure strategic options. (this means they do one thing or another 100% of the time)

In general, when a player deviates from a strategic option that is pure, he will often lose value.


[/ QUOTE ]

Jerod, aren't you equating real poker with something like your 0-1 games which result in pure strategies? In actuality aren't there groups of hands that are broadly equivalent - e.g. all flush draws? If this is the case, then real poker is similar to the AKQ game which requires a mixed strategy.

Or were you talking about pre-flop play specifically.

[jogger08152]

[ QUOTE ]
If there existed a workable (winning) game theoretical strategy, guys like Sklansky and Fergusen and Weideman, etc.. would win all of the heads up championships.

[/ QUOTE ]
You are insane.