#61
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Bryce is \"In the Well\"
Now I'm curious.
|
#62
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Bryce is \"In the Well\"
You wrote earlier in this thread that "GTO" play only achieves neutral EV and isn't a winning strategy, but isn't that restricted to certain simple games such as river bluff (catching) decisions? Complete HU LHE GTO play (not that this is a solved game yet) should have a positive EV against any other strategy unless I've completely misunderstood game theory.
Assuming that that is so, an actual question: do you think that such a "perfect" but not specifically exploitive player would beat a normal rake? Against tough players, such as yourself? |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Bryce is \"In the Well\"
Well, the rake does not really factor into higher-stakes play. It's much easier to see how GTO play leads to neutral results in single-street decisions, but the same is true for multi-street decisions, albeit the amount of information that becomes involved there becomes enormous and any sort of "balanced" play you generally see attempting to approach something like that is generally fairly hack and slash and only applies in some limited context.
|
#64
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Bryce is \"In the Well\"
GTO play from both players certainly does (in symmetric games), but non-optimal strategies perform worse than optimal ones against optimal strategies (in fact this isn't a million miles from the definition of optimal play in the game theory sense) in many toy games so it'd be very surprising to find that this isn't the case for poker too.
|
#65
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Bryce is \"In the Well\"
Actually, you're correct on that point, I apologize about that. An easy example would be to say that player A plays a GTO game where all his frequencies are perfectly balanced for the highest possible rate of return based on the hypothetical assumption that his opponents will always make the best possible action themselves. If he plays against player B, who is a tough but non-GTO player then player B cannot win money but can still lose some money. If he plays against player C, who will fold every single hand, he will win more money than if playing against player B. Interesting point.
Also, since this always comes up: note that while player B cannot beat player A he can show a larger edge over other opponents who do not play like player A. What you often see as a result of this in higher-stakes bleeder games is that there is usually a long feeling-out period wherein many players may play very conservatively and closer to a player A style until they have a lot of data about their opponent's actions / frequencies and can assume with a high degree of confidence that their opponent will do something with a high degree of probability, at which point they may begin to shift more towards a "player B: style. Note that in some areas, like folding on the river, many players may elect to take a more conservative and proactive "player A" style with the knowledge that once they attempt to take a more exploitative "player B" style (folding with above GTO frequency to bets or raises in "tough" spots) tough opponents at these limits may become exploitative themselves in this area and begin to bluff more. Many players do tend to "cheat" in some of these spots as well, meaning that they still do make many "hopeless" calls in these spots but, often because they assume that their opponent is not that tough or that dynamic, still do fold more than the GTO frequency. Some players do stuff like this at a subconscious or intuitive level, others do it at a mathematical level. |
#66
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Bryce is \"In the Well\"
[ QUOTE ]
So let's say you have a 665 flop and you check-raise this with a hand that is going to showdown 30% of the time. [/ QUOTE ] What do you mean by "going to showdown 30%"? Do you mean our pot equity is 30%? If not, how do we come up with this number? Thanks. |
#67
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Bryce is \"In the Well\"
What I mean is that 30% of the time you see that flop you check-raise with a hand that is going to showdown if your opponent raises back at some point, be it trips, ace high, etc.
|
#68
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Bryce is \"In the Well\"
Bryce ... awesome vids btw, feel free to do some more NL stuff, even if you feel you're not there yet. It's great to see the processes as you learn. (and I'm guessing you're still heads and shoulders above most)
|
#69
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Bryce is \"In the Well\"
Not sure how much you'd appreciate this question, but what kind of winrate is normal for a good player at the bleeders in HU LHE?... are we talking 0.5/100 here or less?
Anyways, awesome thread. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] |
#70
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Bryce is \"In the Well\"
[ QUOTE ]
What I mean is that 30% of the time you see that flop you check-raise with a hand that is going to showdown if your opponent raises back at some point, be it trips, ace high, etc. [/ QUOTE ] Is there a logical or mathematical way to arrive at this 30% number? Or is it more based on experience and mostly subjective? |
|
|