Game Strategy

[TWCReborn]

This is a thought experiment but it may very well relate to game theory. I was thinking, if there were a game that were equivalent to a high-blind situation in poker (in a full ring), except everyone started with an equal number of chips-- say 10 times the big blind, the top 3 got paid 50-30-20, the blind starting positions were randomized, and instead of cards, every showdown were determined at random giving all participants in the showdown an equal chance.

Every player would have the decision to bet, check, call, raise and reraise just as in real poker. The main difference between poker and this game is that showdowns can occur for less than all of one player's chips with no further possible rounds of betting-- it would just require that no one raise all-in or put someone else all-in.

One way to win this game might be to steal enough from the call-shy players to build up your stack, but avoiding putting everything on the line on a heads up all-in coinflip (which would increase the equity of the remaining players). Given that you had to enter a computer program into such a game with no information on your opponents, what kind of program would fare well? Would you avoid raising against players that reraised all in? Would you sit back and watch the action to find targets you can steal from? Would you defend your blind by reraising a loose player?

I know the question of how one would play would determine on how others play, but I think there would be some optimum strategy that fares well against the widest range of opponents just as tit-for-tat was shown to fare pretty well in the iterated prisoner's dilemma game.