|
|
#21
04-18-2007, 11:18 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Hoss TBF - part of Think Tank?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Oh and anyone who thinks they've literally solved sh LHE doesn't know what that means. [/ QUOTE ] I don't know what they are trying to say, but if you could take the weakest parts of your games and take an unexploitable route (on the fly, or pre-packaged,) you would be unbeatable to the people not capable of doing this. Then you just would just tee off on your strengths against there weaknesses in the spots they arise. I.e. Schneids plays better than me in raised pots on the low paired boards, if I could game theory - null this edge, that would be huge. If you can come up w/ a style to play that's unexploitable in these spots on the fly, that would be as good as "solved" to me. I don't know if this is possible, I certainly wouldn't know where to start. [/ QUOTE ] someone who knows better feel free to correct me if i'm wrong, but even if somehow you were doing this it would be impossible to computationally verify it with current mathematics/technology. 
|
|
#22
04-19-2007, 12:18 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Hoss TBF - part of Think Tank?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Oh and anyone who thinks they've literally solved sh LHE doesn't know what that means. [/ QUOTE ] I don't know what they are trying to say, but if you could take the weakest parts of your games and take an unexploitable route (on the fly, or pre-packaged,) you would be unbeatable to the people not capable of doing this. Then you just would just tee off on your strengths against there weaknesses in the spots they arise. I.e. Schneids plays better than me in raised pots on the low paired boards, if I could game theory - null this edge, that would be huge. If you can come up w/ a style to play that's unexploitable in these spots on the fly, that would be as good as "solved" to me. I don't know if this is possible, I certainly wouldn't know where to start. [/ QUOTE ] It's not possible to come up with an unexploitable strategy for a part of the game (i.e. to solve part of the game) without solving the whole. Also, though I am a little unclear on this point, it seems that there is simply no such thing as an unexploitable strategy (i.e. solution) to multiplayer poker. There is a solution for hu lhe or any other hu game, but it is well beyond reasonably available computing power to discover it. I'm not sure if someone with access to super-duper military computers or something could solve it, but in any case that's not Bill and Jerrod. There's a huge gap between saying they've actually solved the game and saying they have come up with good approximations of a solution. But actually I doubt they or Hoss_THB have done even that much. For one thing as noted they play very different styles which strongly suggests they are not working from a detailed canned strategy. For another thing having played PLO and NL with Hoss as well as LHE, I can tell he's much more of an instinct player than the virtual bot that some people are imagining. These game theory panics surface every year or so. I remember a couple of years ago people were claiming Neverlose was a bot because he multitabled and didn't chat. That turned out to be hilariously off the mark. But anyway I was really just objecting to the suggestion that they have actually solved LHE, which is quite naive.
|
|
#24
04-19-2007, 12:53 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Hoss TBF - part of Think Tank?
[ QUOTE ]
You really seem to want to argue and I'm not in the mood. I know you hate me cause always 3-betting is clearly wrong. [/ QUOTE ] I honestly don't know what you're talking about. You asked me why I objected to the statement that they had probably solved sh LHE (or whatever the statement was) and I explained, at length. I am the last person to argue for the sake of arguing. Edit - Maybe you don't realize that the statement I was objecting to was made by someone else in this thread.
|
|
#28
04-19-2007, 11:30 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Hoss TBF - part of Think Tank?
[ QUOTE ]
always 3-betting is clearly wrong. [/ QUOTE ] I'm pretty sure the only way this is correct is if people adjust poorly to your 3-betting. The whole "playing perfectly postflop" to me = running good. Hand reading can only take you so far IMO, especially when there are late position raises to factor in. If every time I am in the SB you open and I 3-bet I really don't see how I can play perfectly when the flop misses me. If your range doesn't change then I am playing the flop against this huge range and have to assume you raise this and that and who knows what. If your range tightens then my pf 3-bet gets worse and worse. If your range loosens then my pf 3-bet gets better and better. I don't really understand this strategy but would really like to put it all in perspective. And FWIW Victor my WTSD is now 45.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
