Poker question from alphatmw

[jogsxyz]

[ QUOTE ]
keep in mind that i asked for the world's greatest game theorist, not a hypothetical perfect game theorist (unless this level of game theory is attainable).

[/ QUOTE ]

It is possible for no limit MTT short stack play. Only one decision. All in or fold.

[kdotsky]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
keep in mind that i asked for the world's greatest game theorist, not a hypothetical perfect game theorist (unless this level of game theory is attainable).

[/ QUOTE ]

It is possible for no limit MTT short stack play. Only one decision. All in or fold.

[/ QUOTE ]

It has only been approximated. It uses a finite set of stack sizes, and ignores the fact that both opponents have the option of just calling the blind and then playing postflop, which will make the game tree much, much larger.

One AI group did an approximation on the full heads up limit game. The results seemed pretty good playing against an expert human over 10k hands.

If the mathematician can make such an approximation before the game and bring it in on paper/computer/whatever, he'll surely have the edge. How well he can approximate this in his head is a whole different story .

[calc]

[ QUOTE ]
"the world's greatest mathematician and game theory expert goes heads up against the world's greatest behavioral psychologist / people reader. both have average skills in the other person's expertise, and both have a good understanding of poker. who has the edge, and how much is it?"

If you use perfect game theory and have no physical tells, no one can have an edge on you head up.

[/ QUOTE ]

This does not answer the question at all IMO. To employ perfect game theory you must be expert in both psychology/hand reading and mathematics. Neither player fits that profile. So for this hypothetical David's assumption that either player could employ perfect game theory is very unlikely.

[goodsamaritan]

[ QUOTE ]
To employ perfect game theory you must be expert in both psychology/hand reading and mathematics.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are misunderstanding what it means to employ perfect game theory. A perfect game theory strategy is a strategy that is +EV or at worst 0 EV against any opponent and any playing style. A perfect game theory strategy does not take into account tells, psychology, or an opponents specific qualities. A perfect game theory strategy is designed to work against any and every opponent.

I think the source of your confusion is that you are conflating perfect game theory strategy with the strategy that maximizes EV. Against almost all human players, the EV maximizing strategy is not the perfect game theory strategy.

To take an extreme example, a person playing to maximize their EV would play very differently against complete maniac who pushes all in every hand than against an opponent who will only play with AA. However, a person playing the perfect game theory strategy would play the exact same strategy against both opponents.

[kdotsky]

[ QUOTE ]
To employ perfect game theory you must be expert in both psychology/hand reading and mathematics.

[/ QUOTE ]

You don't completely understand what the game theoretic optimal strategy is. It has absolutely nothing to do with psychology or tells. It is the same strategy regardless of your opponent, regardless of how that opponent is playing or feeling at the time, and regardless of whether he has obvious tells. And it is unbeatable.

However, it is also computationally infeasible to compute this solution at the current time. The question is how close to a game theoretic optimal solution can the mathematician play by approximating.

[tabako]

[ QUOTE ]
You are misunderstanding what it means to employ perfect game theory.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are misunderstanding the question. It nowhere says that the mathematician uses perfect game theory, instead it describes him only as "the world's greatest mathematician and game theorist." How can you assume that this person, just because he knows more in this discipline than anybody else alive, uses an absolute perfect strategy as you describe?

[calc]

Perhaps there exists a perfect game theory strategy for heads up play which is unbeatable if there was no rake. However there is no evidence that such a strategy exists or is even possible. So of course if someone employs an unbeatable strategy they cannot be beaten, however this is as irrellavent as saying if the psychology expert can read his opponent's mind he will be unbeatable. Yes, that is true, if the psychologist can flawlessly read his opponent's mind he will be unbeatable, but that qualified answer is meaningless just as the perfect game theory answer is, because it doesn't exist in reality.

I think the intention of the original question was who will have the edge between an expert psychologist/hand reader who is average at maths and an expert mathematician who is average at psychology/hand reading.

Also notice that David did not state who was more likely to employ the perfect game theory, the mathematician or the psychologist.

[David Sklansky]

I agree I did not actually answer the question as it was posed. In real life the psychologist wins in the more complex games.

[alphatmw]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree I did not actually answer the question as it was posed. In real life the psychologist wins in the more complex games.

[/ QUOTE ] ah, everyone agrees then.

[jogsxyz]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree I did not actually answer the question as it was posed. In real life the psychologist wins in the more complex games.

[/ QUOTE ]

A mathematician is more likely to be a game player than a psychologist.