Poker question from alphatmw

David Sklansky · #1 11-30-2006, 02:01 AM

"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.

snagglepuss · #2 11-30-2006, 02:06 AM

sklansky,

are you capable of determining perfect game theory vs any opponents with dynamic stack sizes?

gull · #3 11-30-2006, 02:06 AM

1) Duh.

2) The house has an edge (rake).

alphatmw · #4 11-30-2006, 02:20 AM

since i don't know much about game theory except its basic concept, i'll have to ask someone to expand on this. what exactly constitutes perfect game theory in heads up poker, and what's stopping any game theorist from reaching this level? if such a level is unattainable (as i would assume is so, or else there would be lots of unbeatable heads up players right now, no?) then how would you change your answer to my question?

ESKiMO-SiCKNE5S · #5 11-30-2006, 02:29 AM

psychologist and its not close

all you maths wizz kids today i swear, back in my day we just looked a man square in the eye and made the right play

Harv72b · #6 11-30-2006, 02:45 AM

[ QUOTE ]
psychologist and its not close

[/ QUOTE ]

Obviously. The math expert would of course make all of the mathematically correct decisions in each hand. However, the psychologist/people reader will generally have a good idea of what the mathematician is holding, because of his area of expertise, and having average mathematics skills, will comprehend what the mathematically correct move would be for the mathematician. He could then bet, raise, or fold accordingly, setting the mathematician up to do whatever he desired. Being an expert in the field of psychology, he could also, if he wished, give off physical tells which would lead a person with average beharvioral psychology skills to believe whatever he wished them to.

In short, the mathematician will win the pots where he makes a big hand. The psychologist will win the rest.

Eagles · #7 12-02-2006, 06:05 PM

[ QUOTE ]
sklansky,

are you capable of determining perfect game theory vs any opponents with dynamic stack sizes?

[/ QUOTE ]
IMO this question needs to be answered.

Eagles · #8 12-02-2006, 06:15 PM

Also I think this question would be very interesting if you replaced texas hold em with battleship.
edit: The game theorist would have to have a huge edge there.

stump5727 · #9 12-09-2006, 03:41 PM

Its seems as though that a perfect game theory is unbeatable the psychology but not unbeatable (through perhaps sheer luck, or another optimal game theory), does that mean there’s a more specific game theory is maybe more optimal?

I guess my main question is that one of the arguments is stating that perfect game theory is unbeatable, that mean against a psychologist, correct?

My next question is, is a game theory always constant whether full table, short table, or heads up, then does it take into affect stack size or is this all part of the optimal game strategy?

And lastly is optimal game strategy for efficiency or consistency?

kdotsky · #10 12-09-2006, 04:22 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Its seems as though that a perfect game theory is unbeatable the psychology but not unbeatable (through perhaps sheer luck, or another optimal game theory), does that mean there’s a more specific game theory is maybe more optimal?

[/ QUOTE ]

The game theory strategy, by proof, is unbeatable, regardless of the opponent (think of the rock-paper-scissors example). There may be more than one optimal strategy, but by definition if they played against each other neither would loose. And by loose we mean have a negative long run expectation -- meaning that yes one may win by sheer luck as you mentioned.
[ QUOTE ]

I guess my main question is that one of the arguments is stating that perfect game theory is unbeatable, that mean against a psychologist, correct?

[/ QUOTE ]

No. It's not an argument for one -- it's mathematically proven. The strategy would be the exact same against any opponent. Keep in mind, though, that though we have an algorithm to calculate this strategy, it would take a computer an impractical amount of time to compute.
[ QUOTE ]

My next question is, is a game theory always constant whether full table, short table, or heads up, then does it take into affect stack size or is this all part of the optimal game strategy?

[/ QUOTE ]

The optimal strategy would change if you added more players to the table. It does take into account stack sizes. It calculates the optimal strategy (e.g. raise 30%, fold 30%, call 60% of the time) for every possible scenario you can be in in the game. The opponent have different stack sizes, or there being different numbers of opponents, are different scenarios.

[ QUOTE ]

And lastly is optimal game strategy for efficiency or consistency?

[/ QUOTE ]

I have no idea what this means. I would call it for "security". You are guaranteed not to lose (which means you will most likely win), but against worse players you could win a lot more playing an exploitive strategy (though you would loose a lot more doing this with a better opponent).