Balancing Bluffs vs Balancing Strategy

[Divad Yksnal]

[ QUOTE ]
No, the book doesn't contain much specific advice on particular poker games (by design - we do consider a particular case study of NL - the BB vs an early raiser).

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, so sad, that.

D.Y.

[Divad Yksnal]

"and a young woman at that"

By Sklansky standards you are a bit old. Though he may accomodate you if you will oblige.

D.Y.

[Divad Yksnal]

Jerrod writes, "One obvious example of this is the "arms race" on the turn in high limit LH games online. What developed there was a tendency after the sequence rc; kbrc; b? on two-flushed boards for people to semi-bluff raise liberally on the turn (including all flush draws, straight draws, and other weaker draws such as small pair+gutshot and the like)."

Recently? Not exactly "high" limit games online but the betting sequences you mention were happening in games way back when PlanetPoker was the biggest site. 20-40 was the biggest game. Short games had truly great players even then.

Math is fun, though, ain't it?

DY

[Divad Yksnal]

yes, and wait some more. if what you are saying is true, you really are in good situation. There's no amazing magic thing to do. If you are getting called, value bet more. give specific hand samples if you want. I doubt what you say is true. more likely you don't how to play poker. Even if you don't, try hard and study, this will soon fade. you are in the right place. Ignore the fools.

DY.

[leaponthis]

[ QUOTE ]
I doubt what you say is true.

[/ QUOTE ]

So do you think her real motive for posting this is to try and get in Sklansky's pants?

leaponthis

[jogsxyz]

[ QUOTE ]

For two-player zero-sum games, optimal strategies always exist. To see this, just specify strategies more robustly, including actions with each hand type in each possible sequence (betting action and cards that have come). Then make a matrix of these strategies. Obviously at least one cell must be the minimax, and therefore optimal.

jerrod

[/ QUOTE ]

That may be true for a simple two player game.
On the turn the values of the river matrices
are unknown. How is a minimax strategy calculated
when the cells contain unknown variables? Each
player is forced to make a decision on the turn
based on variables which are functions of the
river card. Hold'em is too complex.
Let's use lowball as an example.

Lowball. 2 player game. Simplify the game even
further. Each player is dealt and redealt cards
til they hold either a pat nine or a one card draw
to an eight, which they must play. Player X draws
one. Would he really defend with the same fixed
strategy against a player Y who draws one or plays
pat? X should call with a king against Y who
draws one and some smooth nine against Y who
stands pat. This two player game is really four
separate two player games. X pat, Y pat.
X pat, Y draws 1. X draws 1, Y pat.
X draws 1, Y draws 1.
There are separate optimal strategies for each
of the four games. Or is this considered one
compete overall optimal strategy where both X
and Y are allowed conditional mixed strategies
dependent on both draws?

In hold'em there are four streets and four bets
per street. The relative values of the two
player's hands can change with every street.
This is more complex than lowball. None of the
cell entries in the other games have variables.
How does one minimax strategies based on variables
which are a function of cards dealt on later
streets? The hold'em game requires recursion
for the solution. My simple lowball example is
really four separate games. How many more games
would hold'em be?

Also if there were an optimal strategy for every
zero-sum two player game and headsup hold'em is
a single zero-sum two player game, that would
mean the headsup hold'em game is solvable.
That just doesn't seem likely.

[George Rice]

1. This "situation" has always been in the "open forum." regardless of your PM. As you pointed out, I didn't respond to it.

2. I'm not making things up; interpreting your actions is more accurate. When you continually make negative remarks in response to someone's posts it's obvious to most that you are looking for a response (whether you admit it or not).

3. Again, the "Don't haunt me" comment was half in jest. It didn't need to be taken private. I wasn't looking for you to ignore me (not that I really care one way or the other). You over-reacted. It should have been interpreted as that you should keep your "problem" with David between you and him, and not let it spill over to me.

4.I never indicated I wanted nothing to do with you. That's exists only in your head. It's true I couldn't care less one way or the other, but I never claimed I wanted nothing to do with you.

5. Make all the ridiculous statements you want. But don't complain when others point them out. And don't confuse "friendly" advice/criticism from another poster as a complaint from a moderator, or as that poster acting like a moderator.

6. I feel no need to make a formal complaint to a moderator. Why would you think I would do that? If David puts up with you then that's fine by me. Although pointing out all that stuff about your past suggests that you are hoping to be discovered by another moderator, so you can be banned again. Seems strange that you've posted almost 200 posts in three weeks and claim not to care if you are banned again. Something doesn't smell right.

7. I don't ignore any poster. I guess I could always look at a poster's name before reading their posts, but I see no reason for doing this. And as I previous said, sometimes you have something worthwhile to contribute. Frequently not. By the way, pointing out something wrong that's posted isn't done only to correct the poster, it's also done so that other readers aren't misled. So I may very well be responding to your posts in the future. I will try, as I usually do, to attack what's said, not who said it. But if your post is an attack, I may step in to defend the attacked--my choice.

8. That's fine if you don't like me. I really couldn't care less. You may be surprised to learn that I don't dislike you, regardless of your posts. I would need to know a lot more about you to dislike you. However, I do question your motives.

9. I'm finished with this subject, as I don't want to push my limits with the other forum participants.

[Jerrod Ankenman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

For two-player zero-sum games, optimal strategies always exist. To see this, just specify strategies more robustly, including actions with each hand type in each possible sequence (betting action and cards that have come). Then make a matrix of these strategies. Obviously at least one cell must be the minimax, and therefore optimal.

jerrod

[/ QUOTE ]

[...]

Also if there were an optimal strategy for every
zero-sum two player game and headsup hold'em is
a single zero-sum two player game, that would
mean the headsup hold'em game is solvable.
That just doesn't seem likely.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not only likely, it's proven. (von Neumann and Morganstern, and then Nash proved the existence of equilibria in games with more than two players). I don't really understand your comments about "different games" - the turn and the river are part of "in every sequence" from my comments above. To specify a strategy for the game, you must specify an action in every possible sequence, from preflop through all possible flops, turns, and rivers, and all betting sequences with nonzero realization weight (ie, any sequences you allow to happen.)

jerrod

[curious123]

[ QUOTE ]
It's not only likely, it's proven. (von Neumann and Morganstern, and then Nash proved the existence of equilibria in games with more than two players).

[/ QUOTE ]

QFT.

[schroedy]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't really understand your comments about "different games" - the turn and the river are part of "in every sequence" from my comments above. To specify a strategy for the game, you must specify an action in every possible sequence, from preflop through all possible flops, turns, and rivers, and all betting sequences with nonzero realization weight (ie, any sequences you allow to happen.)

jerrod

[/ QUOTE ]

Jerrod:

Surely you recognize by now when you are dealing with people that do not understand the difference between "[theoretically] solveable" (if every atom in the universe were harnessed for computing power) and "has been solved." Similarly, you have retards on this forum that confuse "optimal" with "best" (although Daniel Negreanu made the same mistake on the Circuit internet show where Bill C. was interviewed).

In my opinion, every poker player should be very interested in optimal strategy under every circumstance. And should almost never employ it.