Need help with game theory and bluffing.

[sharkscopeaholic]

Just read the ToP chapter of game theory and had some questions. Is this mainly for bluffing once all the cards are out? If not can someone give an example in nl hold em on a turn bet for example. This would be a considered semi bluff though right and not have much to do with game theory? Finally is game theory mainly just for draw games and not so much for hold em or omaha, stud? It seems like it would be most effective in limit games than nl.

[smark102]

Just thought I'd get the conversation started

Game theory is a subject born from economics that aims to evaluate decisions in given situations. It certainly applies to all poker games and poker situations. The equation for a turn bluff or turn semibluff looks the same but with different abstractly quantifiable variables.

EV = %times opponent fold * money in pot + %times called * equity

So, game theory can applied to anything.

What do you guys think?

[disasterflop]

i think this room smells weird

[sharkscopeaholic]

am i missing something here disaster? and not many people know/care about game theory?

[ev_slave]

[ QUOTE ]
Game theory is a subject born from economics that aims to evaluate decisions in given situations.

[/ QUOTE ]

No. We economists borrowed game theory from mathematicians and have applied it to our interests. Just like we've done with calculus, matrix algebra, statistics, etc.

[ QUOTE ]
EV = %times opponent fold * money in pot + %times called * equity

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a mathematical expectation. This is not an example of game theory.

[ QUOTE ]
So, game theory can applied to anything.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is closer to correct. Game theory often assumes that all players are rational, but in poker this assumption is often violated. People play when drunk, play a particular hand a particular way because they "felt" that they'd get there. So while we can learn lessons from Game Theory (the optimal bluffing frequency in a given situation is an excellent example) we can't always use it in every situation.

All that said, it is still worthwhile to study it and learn the lessons. This way, we know what is a good idea, and we know that we need a good reason when we deviate from the lessons (i.e. change bluff frequency to 0% despite pot-odds when an opponent always calls).

[ev_slave]

[ QUOTE ]
am i missing something here disaster? and not many people know/care about game theory?

[/ QUOTE ]

Correct, most people don't really know. Further, it seems to me that the people that know game theory don't apply it very often because any "solution" to a game (i.e. Sklansky's ToP chapter) will depend critically on the assumptions of the game. The assumptions often differ from the reality of the poker room (online or otherwise) so if you learn that "I should do this in this situation" based on the math, the answer could be wrong if you assumed your opponent was a rational player and in reality he's very drunk or distracted or a mediocre card player in general. Further, games often assume that the payoffs are known, but in poker all we have is quick estimates of our payoffs based on what we hold, what our opponent might hold, how much he might bet/call on the next street, etc. So there are several limitations to the theory.

In my opinion the most applicable aspect of Game Theory to poker are games of a Bayesian type, where one play is unsure of the opponent's "type." This is applicable because although we may now if a player is generally TAG, LAG, Calling Station, etc, we don't know how strong he is in that hand. Solutions to these types of game often have players behaving in a way that all types respond the same way, all types respond different ways, etc. Since there are often more than one possible solution, we would like to think about it and pick a solution that matches our needs. For example, it is a mistake to make a bet on the end that only hands that beat us can call (this would be a seperating equilibrium where strong types call, and weak types fold). What we would like to do instead is to either make a bet where all types call and the loss we take when stronger hands call is compensated by when weaker hands call (this is an example of a pooling equilibrium when all types call) or if we can't figure out a bet to get us to a pooling eq, then we check behind.

Basically, I would hold off on strict game theory studying right now, because as you can probably tell above, most good players do this sort of thing without having had to learn about Bayesian Games first.

[sharkscopeaholic]

So you're saying to forget about game theory and concentrate on getting the bad hands in their range to call by bettting the right amount. So concentrate on bet sizing basically.

[drzen]

[ QUOTE ]
So you're saying to forget about game theory and concentrate on getting the bad hands in their range to call by bettting the right amount. So concentrate on bet sizing basically.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know much game theory but it seems to me that the difficulty in using it is having a good handle on your opponents' strategy. If he'll do this, you should do that, but how often is he doing this? It would help if no one ever played drunk.

[jay_shark]

Try playing limit hold em against Spartan the limit hold em bot from poker-academy . The bot doesn't even try to know what you're doing and yet the best hope for you is to break even . So in a way , if you apply game theory in a game like limit hold em , there is very little any player can do even without knowledge of how your opponent plays .

[drzen]

Is it possible then to learn to play the same way as the bot?