[gilly]

"The fact is, it can easily be a poker mistake to play according to game theory. To do so means you are not optimizing your play against an opponent who does not play according to game theory."

I do not really like the way the term "game theory" is being used synonymously with full rationality. Game theory should be viewed as a setting in which to view the game. An apparatus where you have to fill in the assumptions (ie how rational your opponent is).

The comment "an opponent does not play by game theory" is in a lot of ways a poor statement. The better way to say it is you are going against an opponent that is not fully rational, or does not have full information. These are things that must be taken into consideration when making your decision. While I know it is a tautology and of very little use, everyone applys "game theory" to their decision process whether they know it or not. It is up to the person viewing the game to put in the paramters that the other player is using.

This is at the heart of a game I created where if you play assuming your opponent is rational you end up with one decision (and do poorly), however in a series of these games you should pick up that the opponent is only maximizing his total possible win, rather then playing rationally. Now given this information you can re-optimize to get an optimal outcome. This is still game theory. It is just that your opponent is playing in a different manner. Both players are playing in a game theoretic environment.

I know this is somewhat off the wall and probably makes very little sense but it is just what I thought.