Poker question from alphatmw

[_TKO_]

I think tilt is a factor here.

[Shandrax]

I assume the question was about a Hold'em scenario, since people usually mean "Hold'em" when they talk about Poker. If it was about Hold'em though, it is not clear (to me) how much game theory you can apply to a game with community cards. Most of the conclusions from Draw or Stud simply don't apply to Hold'em, especially since the last card comes face up.

I have always wondered if it is correct in Hold'em to bluff (or call) on every street with the game theory frequency even if it doesn't appear to make sense, or if you should just pick your spots and only bluff when scarecards hit or draws appear on the board.

That's part statement, part question.

[jogsxyz]

[ QUOTE ]
I have always wondered if it is correct in Hold'em to bluff (or call) on every street with the game theory frequency even if it doesn't appear to make sense, or if you should just pick your spots and only bluff when scarecards hit or draws appear on the board.

That's part statement, part question.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, game theory will make the proper bluffing frequency adjustments. With no threat of a bluff, opponent will not need to make any crying calls.

[kdotsky]

[ QUOTE ]
I assume the question was about a Hold'em scenario, since people usually mean "Hold'em" when they talk about Poker. If it was about Hold'em though, it is not clear (to me) how much game theory you can apply to a game with community cards. Most of the conclusions from Draw or Stud simply don't apply to Hold'em, especially since the last card comes face up.

I have always wondered if it is correct in Hold'em to bluff (or call) on every street with the game theory frequency even if it doesn't appear to make sense, or if you should just pick your spots and only bluff when scarecards hit or draws appear on the board.

That's part statement, part question.

[/ QUOTE ]

From the *optimal* game theory perspective, the game makes no difference. I could write a program that takes either (or any) type of game as input, and outputs an unbeatable solution. The only hitch is I'd die long before the program finished.

Any game theory frequency you're using is a very rough approximation. But this is the crux of the original question -- the game is far too complex for a computer to solve in reasonable time let alone for a mathematician to approximate in his head. It would be analogous to a chess player being able to think through every possible scenario from the current situation until the end of the game. In reality, the mathematician can only take the concepts from what he knows about game theory and apply them, perhaps through rough approximations. This is sort of what people are doing when they intentionally vary their play.

[jogsxyz]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I assume the question was about a Hold'em scenario, since people usually mean "Hold'em" when they talk about Poker. If it was about Hold'em though, it is not clear (to me) how much game theory you can apply to a game with community cards. Most of the conclusions from Draw or Stud simply don't apply to Hold'em, especially since the last card comes face up.

I have always wondered if it is correct in Hold'em to bluff (or call) on every street with the game theory frequency even if it doesn't appear to make sense, or if you should just pick your spots and only bluff when scarecards hit or draws appear on the board.

That's part statement, part question.

[/ QUOTE ]

From the *optimal* game theory perspective, the game makes no difference. I could write a program that takes either (or any) type of game as input, and outputs an unbeatable solution. The only hitch is I'd die long before the program finished.

Any game theory frequency you're using is a very rough approximation. But this is the crux of the original question -- the game is far too complex for a computer to solve in reasonable time let alone for a mathematician to approximate in his head. It would be analogous to a chess player being able to think through every possible scenario from the current situation until the end of the game. In reality, the mathematician can only take the concepts from what he knows about game theory and apply them, perhaps through rough approximations. This is sort of what people are doing when they intentionally vary their play.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you think nl hold'em is more complex than chess? I don't.
A computer would be able to preform bookkeepping task no human could. Most serious online poker players own such programs.

[Kel]

By chess is a game with complete information and hold'em is a game with incomplete information. Imagine a game of chess where you don't know where the opponent pieces are.

[Butso]

[ QUOTE ]
"the world's greatest mathematician and game theory expert goes heads up against the world's greatest behavioral psychologist / people reader. both have average skills in the other person's expertise, and both have a good understanding of poker. who has the edge, and how much is it?"

If you use perfect game theory and have no physical tells, no one can have an edge on you head up.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong

This is a game of imperfect information in which the game theory guy does not know the type of his opponent. By type I simply mean the way any 'realisation of' the psychologist plays the game. In any optimal strategy chosen by the game theory wiz there will (almost certainly) be realisations of his opponent's type against which he is an underdog-It is possible that the psychologist can have an edge against Mr. game theory.

[Xhad]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"the world's greatest mathematician and game theory expert goes heads up against the world's greatest behavioral psychologist / people reader. both have average skills in the other person's expertise, and both have a good understanding of poker. who has the edge, and how much is it?"

If you use perfect game theory and have no physical tells, no one can have an edge on you head up.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong

This is a game of imperfect information in which the game theory guy does not know the type of his opponent. By type I simply mean the way any 'realisation of' the psychologist plays the game. In any optimal strategy chosen by the game theory wiz there will (almost certainly) be realisations of his opponent's type against which he is an underdog-It is possible that the psychologist can have an edge against Mr. game theory.

[/ QUOTE ]

Read the thread plz

[kdotsky]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I assume the question was about a Hold'em scenario, since people usually mean "Hold'em" when they talk about Poker. If it was about Hold'em though, it is not clear (to me) how much game theory you can apply to a game with community cards. Most of the conclusions from Draw or Stud simply don't apply to Hold'em, especially since the last card comes face up.

I have always wondered if it is correct in Hold'em to bluff (or call) on every street with the game theory frequency even if it doesn't appear to make sense, or if you should just pick your spots and only bluff when scarecards hit or draws appear on the board.

That's part statement, part question.

[/ QUOTE ]

From the *optimal* game theory perspective, the game makes no difference. I could write a program that takes either (or any) type of game as input, and outputs an unbeatable solution. The only hitch is I'd die long before the program finished.

Any game theory frequency you're using is a very rough approximation. But this is the crux of the original question -- the game is far too complex for a computer to solve in reasonable time let alone for a mathematician to approximate in his head. It would be analogous to a chess player being able to think through every possible scenario from the current situation until the end of the game. In reality, the mathematician can only take the concepts from what he knows about game theory and apply them, perhaps through rough approximations. This is sort of what people are doing when they intentionally vary their play.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you think nl hold'em is more complex than chess? I don't.
A computer would be able to preform bookkeepping task no human could. Most serious online poker players own such programs.

[/ QUOTE ]

Poker is more computationally infeasible than chess. IIRC, heads up limit holdem has a similar number of possible states as chess.

However, to solve chess you just enumerate over all possible states. In poker, due to incomplete information, the time it takes the algorithm to solve it is a polynomial function of the size of the state space (it might be exponential, I don't remember, but it's the same point). Then take into account the fact that the number of states in poker grows exponentially as you add more players to the game.

I might be a bit off in some of the statements I made, and I don't feel like doing the research, but I think that yes, NL holdem is at least as complex as chess, at least by the metric of how hard it is for a computer to solve.

[kdotsky]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"the world's greatest mathematician and game theory expert goes heads up against the world's greatest behavioral psychologist / people reader. both have average skills in the other person's expertise, and both have a good understanding of poker. who has the edge, and how much is it?"

If you use perfect game theory and have no physical tells, no one can have an edge on you head up.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong

This is a game of imperfect information in which the game theory guy does not know the type of his opponent. By type I simply mean the way any 'realisation of' the psychologist plays the game. In any optimal strategy chosen by the game theory wiz there will (almost certainly) be realisations of his opponent's type against which he is an underdog-It is possible that the psychologist can have an edge against Mr. game theory.

[/ QUOTE ]

Way Way Wrong. The optimal game theory strategy is the same against any opponent, regardless of how he is playing, and it is already proven to be unbeatable.

The term game theory is thrown around loosely in poker. You don't understand what it really means to play by optimal game theory.

But again, keep in mind the mathematician cannot play this optimal strategy because it takes too long to compute.