OT: the tufat23 ramble

[_dave_]

If you are talking about the crew I think you are, it must be pointed out they ere almost certainly not bots - simply FR grinders *strictly* following a predetermined (and probably calculated using a hudge datamine sample) "unexploitable" strategy. Big difference.

[Isura]

Note: Your language is non-standard and could be confusing to some. From what I've read, the non-exploitable line is called optimal. The other line is called the exploitive strategy (you expect the villain's weaknesses).

Basically I think that at small and mid stakes, the exploitable line is going to be the best. We should only seek non-exploitable solutions against much better opponents, and even in that case there is usually more EV to be had by trying to make the tough decisions. Also, game theory is really really hard to apply to the whole game of poker. So I think it makes more sense to try to apply it in limited and controlled settings, such as river bluffing on very coordinated boards, or 3-bet pots with PSB behind on the flop (where in both cases you can simplify it to a 1-street game). There are 3 ways that I think you make money in poker.

1) Bad opponents. You use fundamentals to exploit their inherent weaknesses. This is what most of small stakes is about. No need to get fancy. Valuebet them when strong, pounce on them and bluff when they show weakness.

2) Inducing bad play. THis works on good or bad players. THis means doing stuff to get people to play sub-optimally, such as 3-betting a lot or taking unorthodox lines from time to time. In mid stakes and bigger games, I'd estimate this contributes to more than 50% of your winrate.

3) Game theory. This is what Prahlad Friedman was famous for.

#3 is very hard in general, and most should not attempt it. #1 is discussed at infinitum on 2p2. #2 is rarely talked about. #3 is referred to from time to time, but nobody reveals much.

#2 is like the cat and mouse game, a continuous chess match. Its a hard game to play, but its how many of the top players like Krantz and samoleus (what I get from reading their posts) play. Consistently out play your opponents, and you'll force them to seek non-exploitable lines. That is exactly what you want, you want others to have to adjust to your style. #3 is a defensive strategy. Say there are 2 fish at the table, but world class player is on your left. It is okay to give up an edge to him, but still you need to protect yourself and that is when the game theory to minimize your losses.

So in general I think that all 3 strategies (fundamental plays, inducing bad play, game theory) are crucial to building the perfect player. Every serious poker player should spend some time on this question: How do you build the perfect player? How do you beat him? How many styles or gears does he have?

I read Krantz's blog a while ago, when he discussed a HU session against durrr from last year. Krantz was extremely impressed because unlike any player he had previously played, durrr had like 8 gears. I dunno if durrr is the perfect poker player, but players like him area good model for thinking about improving your own game.

[Xanta]

Good post Isura, I think that's the jist of tufats post but more articulate. Enjoyed it.