15-30 live hand

[jstill]

also do u think on this board villains best possible line on all streets really was ck call ck call then bet fold the J river? are u raising a worse hand enough on the river he can call profitably? if he plans on betting should he just be resigned to calling a raise? if ur that aggro how many draws with no SD value are u stealing with and firing 3 streets with he loses value from by betting?

[Guy McSucker]

[ QUOTE ]

I may be missing something here, but I am pretty sure that is the standard game theoretical usage. Optimal = game theoretic equilibrium strategy not only in C&A but in any game theory book you'll find....

[/ QUOTE ]

Not quite.

In the big thread about this book, JaredL rants:

[ QUOTE ]

I don't understand at all their nonstandard use of words. They use optimal when they should use equilibrium and use exploitive when they should use optimal or best-response. It takes some getting used to for people who have read other texts in game theory and those who haven't will have to readjust should they decide to take a course in game theory.


[/ QUOTE ]

to which Chen responds

[ QUOTE ]

Actually the use of the term "optimal" is fairly common when describing equilibiria in zero-sum two player games. In fact the equilibrium is the same as the minimax solution and the term optimal for the strategy pair is used for example by Gilpin and Sandholm from CMU in their "Optimal Rhode Island Holdem" paper. This is also the term used by the Manitoba group and Daphne Koller at Stanford. It seems it's a term adopted ny the Computer Science people working on algorithms for these problems.

It's a fairly common if not standard usage in this field.

...

Our goal is not to unify notation across fields, but to clearly define our terms so people across different fields can read and understand what we are talking about.


[/ QUOTE ]

And this last point, which is very reasonable, was the reason for my reply in this thread. Chen and Ankenmann have written a nice book, and fixed upon some terminology, which whether standard across GT or not, we should probably use standardly when discussing poker from now on.

Guy.

[gaming_mouse]

Interesting....

In any case, I have seen it used in game theory contexts before, so I assumed it was a standard synonym for equilibrium strategy.

EDIT: also, fwiw, I have seen "maximal" = most exploitative

[ILOVEPOKER929]

"also do u think on this board villains best possible line on all streets really was ck call ck call then bet fold the J river?"

I dont know which line is best vs me in this spot, but the villain certainly took one of best possible lines since I did manage to lose the maximum in this hand. Against me in this spot with his specific hand on that board I think there are 3 candidates for the best line:

1: C/R flop, Bet/Evaluate turn, Bet/Evaluate river.

2: C/C flop, C/R Evaluate the turn, Bet/Evaluate river.

3: C/C flop, C/C Turn, Bet/Evaluate river.(the one my opponent actually took)

"are u raising a worse hand enough on the river he can call profitably?"

I think the answer is yes. I am capable of raising any "calling hand" 4x or worse in this spot vs a certain population of player types. This means my strategy on the river is exploitable but that doesnt matter if my judgement on this opponent is accurate which it may or may not have been in this case.

"if he plans on betting should he just be resigned to calling a raise?"

Yes since against me he will have a profitable crying call, of course If I knew that was his strategy then I would just call the river assuming he will bluff sometimes.

"if ur that aggro how many draws with no SD value are u stealing with and firing 3 streets with he loses value from by betting?"

I dont know the specific answer to this question other than to say that on this exact board I will be 3barreling alot more often than normal. If I have queen high or less on the river I will be betting pretty close to 100% of the time in this spot. If he donks the river and I have King high or less Im just gonna fold.

BTW, Since all you guys love that book so much, maybe I'll open my mind and give it another chance.