All you ever need to think about to improve in poker....

In an attempt to make my game more mathematical last night i looked up papers on game theory and I stumbled across this piece of brilliance.

http://www.swansonsite.com/W/instruc...ame_theory.pdf
This following sums up poker better than I have ever seen anything sum up poker ever.

ignore the first parts math, its talking about one card poker with a three card deck.

If you always play the optimal strategy, then as the opener you will have an EV of −1/18 no matter how your opponent plays, and as the dealer youwill have an EV of 1/18 no matter how your opponent plays. In the long run, you will only be a break-even player. If you use the optimal strategy, your opponent cannot profit through superior play. But he also cannot suffer through inferior play. By playing “optimally” you havecreated a situation in whichyour opponent’s choices, good or bad, will have no effect on your EV. Clearly, by symmetry,you cannot do this and win. (Unless your opponent lets you always play as the dealer.)
So the object of the game is not to play optimally. It is to spot the times when your opponent is not playing optimally, or even to induce him not to play optimally, to recognize the way in which he is deviating from optimality, and then to choose a non-optimal strategy for yourself which capitalizes on his mistakes. You must play non-optimally in order to
win. To capitalize on your opponent’s mistakes, you must play in a way that leaves you vulnerable. For instance, your opponent may be bluffing too much. To capitalize on this, you begin to call more frequently than is optimal. Once you do this, however, your opponent could stop
bluffing altogether and take advantage of you. When you realize he has done this, you would start calling much less frequently than is optimal. In this way, you and your opponent’s bluffing and calling frequencies would oscillate, sometimes higher than optimal, sometimes
lower. In game theory, an optimal solution is also called an “equilibrium.” The idea is that, through this back-and-forth struggle, the players would eventually settle upon the optimal frequencies and reach an equilibrium with one another. While this might be true in certain
“real-world” situations (in politics or economics, for example), it is certainly not true in One Card Poker. An “expert” One Card Poker player would rather quit playing altogether than settle for the monotonous compromise of playing a zero EV optimal strategy. A battle
between two One Card Poker experts would not be a battle in which both sides played optimally. Such a battle would be a complete waste of time. Rather, it would be a back- and-forth struggle like the one described above; a struggle which never slows down and never reaches equilibrium.The heart of the game is the struggle. Playing optimally erases this struggle. Playing optimally prevents your opponent from taking advantage of you, but it also prevents him
from being punished for his mistakes. As such, using game theory to “optimally” bluff or to “optimally” call a bluff can only be regarded as a defense. But since it defends both you and your opponent, a better defense is to simply not play at all. That being said, it should be pointed out that there are times when the optimal strategy will be profitable; namely, when your opponent makes Stupid Mistakes. In that case, you can
play optimally and be a long term winner. By playing optimally, you ensure that changes in his bluffing and calling frequencies will not affect his EV. Since his EV will be intrinsically negative due to his Stupid Mistakes, you will have a positive expectation. (On the other
hand, if he is making Stupid Mistakes, then you can probably outwit him without game theory.) When your opponent does not make Stupid Mistakes, playing optimally is an exercise in futility. But nonetheless, there is still value in understanding the theoretical aspects of
optimal play. In order to profit, you must know, for example, when your opponent is bluffing too much. But what does it mean to bluff “too much” in a situation. It means, of course, bluffing more than is optimal. So you must know what the optimal strategy is (even though you will consciously avoid it) in order to decide on the proper counter-strategy against your opponent.

I would read this, but the distinct lack of paragraphs makes it fairly unreadable

Originally Posted by PokerMuzz

I would read this, but the distinct lack of paragraphs makes it fairly unreadable

well i made it more neat than it was, you can do it yourself k thx.

Originally Posted by PokerMuzz

I would read this, but the distinct lack of paragraphs makes it fairly unreadable

He just copy/pasted part 7 in the article.
It is easier to read in the article if u open it up and increase the zoom.

Game theory makes my brain hurt. I keep trying to force myself into it because its so balla.. but maaan its tough stuff.

bump because IMO the fact this isn't being discussed is a travesty because this is the kind of concept that is going to take your game to the next level.
Here I'll even bring out an awesome point we can focus on.
"It is to spot the times when your opponent is not playing optimally, or even to induce him not to play optimally, to recognize the way in which he is deviating from optimality, and then to choose a non-optimal strategy for yourself which capitalizes on his mistakes. You must play non-optimally in order to win.

In general people focus too much on individual hands when they should really be focusing on the scope.

"the best pker advice i ever received was that only pot odds, pot/fold equity, and hand ranges matter. if a hand range is in someway exploitable, exploit it."

edited so that stupid link wouldnt be in there

Originally Posted by gabe

"the best poker advice i ever received was that only pot odds, pot/fold equity, and hand ranges matter. if a hand range is in someway exploitable, exploit it."

excuse me for not getting why you put quotes around this.... is it because your paraphrasing?

because i saved some longer quote from some guy and i just took out that part which was the best

got it.

good quote, really made me think, hmmmmm....... I guess poker really is that simple.

it reminds me of a 2p2 msnl thread someone talked about being annoyed when ppl say "if you fold here then you're too exploitable" (something like that)...his point was it's ok to do something exploitable as long as opps haven't adjusted to it yet.

Originally Posted by benny999

it reminds me of a 2p2 msnl thread someone talked about being annoyed when ppl say "if you fold here then you're too exploitable" (something like that)...his point was it's ok to do something exploitable as long as opps haven't adjusted to it yet.

nice point, interesting too.

Originally Posted by gabe

" if a hand range is in someway exploitable, exploit it."

Any chance I could get some elaboration on this? How exactly are hand ranges exploitable?

a donk's river bet calling range is really wide, so you value bet vs his range

you know some particular player will never c/r a really dry flop with a great hand, so you bluff when you see this because his range is filled with air

etc

woah! 7k post mark gabe!

oh shit i wish i noticed before making like all these dumb ccommune posts that made me get it even higher

Originally Posted by gabe

"the best pker advice i ever received was that only pot odds, pot/fold equity, and hand ranges matter. if a hand range is in someway exploitable, exploit it."

I think this is the same idea as what ISF wrote, except much simpler. Incorporating game theory into your game will make it much more difficult to put you on a range, making you more difficult to exploit.

Because the maths in NL hold 'em is so complex no one will ever hit on the optimal strategy against you, and only the best players would get anywhere near the "equilibrium" described in the article about 3 card poker. In reality we're swinging wildly around the equilibrium as we counter our opponent's flawed strategy with our own flawed strategy, which we developed from our flawed analysis of their strategy. The person who can analyse their opponents game the best and develop a good strategy to beat it is the biggest long term winner.

Even if opponents strategy and you know it 100% it's still difficult to develop the optimal strategy. E.g. take the 19 hand strategy except 1/6 times a pair doesn't hit they bluff a set. Now develop the OPTIMAL strategy to beat it, and tell us exactly what your EV is against this player per hand. Now start doing this against multiple opponents on the fly as they change their strategy.

My point is, it's nearly impossible, and nobody has the maths ability or reading skills to play perfect game theory poker. Everybody is constantly making mistakes, and we end up with what Gabe said.

Lots of stuff has been said while I was writing this post. I should take up Gabe's forum posting strategy as well.

This talks about hand-ranges in a very interesting way. Its a little off from game theory, but read the article and you'll know what I mean.

http://www.bluffmagazine.com/onlinefeature/gbucks.asp

Originally Posted by flyingPenguin

Originally Posted by gabe

"the best pker advice i ever received was that only pot odds, pot/fold equity, and hand ranges matter. if a hand range is in someway exploitable, exploit it."

I think this is the same idea as what ISF wrote, except much simpler.

did we expect anything different from gabe.

Gabe is the king of simple and short.

Wasn't this exact concept in NLHT&P? There being no real way of finding an optimal strategy, but that playing optimally isn't as good as trading small mistakes for larger ones.

the implementation is much more difficult than the theory.

I mean it's OBV to say "find the guys weakness and exploit it". I guess it's not obvious to "OK" players that you can't just play a straight TAG game like an algorithm and expect to win money off of good players. (note that you CAN against bad players)