Ciaffone and Game Theory

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Everyone:

The following appears in the latest Ciaffone article in Card Player. I thought that some of you might want to comment on it.

Best wishes,
Mason

One critic said that our strategy here is an “exploitable strategy.” He meant that such a strategy is not in accordance with game theory, and can be taken advantage of by an aware opponent. He most certainly is right, but this does not mean we are wrong. Most people do not turn loose of top pair on the turn when raised. The opponent normally does not know you may do so. 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. As this pertains to our situation here, when you are raised on the turn, you are going to run into a big hand more often than game theory would dictate. (I note that our “exploitable strategy” critic is a player from Vegas, a place where you are more likely to run into a sophisticated opponent who has some tricky moves.) So, in most poker games, you are supposed to fold more often than game theory would dictate. Poker is not a game in which you stick to a certain strategy regardless of whom you face or the character of a particular game. Frankly, top players fold more often than they are “supposed to,” because they know when they have likely run into a big hand.

[rigoletto]

when you are raised on the turn, you are going to run into a big hand more often than game theory would dictate

I believe this is true for the average game, but the following statement is very important.

Poker is not a game in which you stick to a certain strategy regardless of whom you face or the character of a particular game.

To Bob this sentence is a defense for not sticking to game theory, but it can equally be used as an argument for using game theory when the situation calls for it.

Bob advocates laying down top pair top kicker for a turn raise, but I've played plenty of players who'll raise with any big A, or big draws, here hoping you'll lay down, and if you do, you're toast playing with guys like that on your left.

Another important point is how your opponents percieve you. If you play agressive and raise hands like 88, and AJs from middle position, they are more likely to raise you with any A on the turn.

[BB King's]

The crucial point is:

As this pertains to our situation here, when you are raised on the turn, you are going to run into a big hand more often than game theory would dictate. For some players in some games this is true - a turn-raise means two pair or better. In some other games it may not be true.

I note that our exploitable strategy critic is a player from Vegas ... I wonder who that could be ?

No, I'm not folding AK for a turn-raise w/ a xxAx-board.

[bernie]

shouldnt that depend on who's raising you? and if it's a c/r and the players c/r-raising standards?

just a thought

b

[BB King's]

As i see this debate - it goes like this:

Bob C: If a player is bluffing with a lesser frequncy than Game Theory would indicate you should call less often with your marginal good hands - hands that can only beat a bluff - thereby saving you some bets.

Mason: Wrong ! If you do that - sooner or later your opponent will catch on and begin to bluff with GT - or maybe even more.

Bob C: We don't know for shure that my opponent will catch on - or how soon he will do it. If he does I have the easy choice to change my calling-strategy.

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi BB:

You wrote:

Mason: Wrong ! If you do that - sooner or later your opponent will catch on and begin to bluff with GT - or maybe even more

This isn't correct. If you're folding a lot, your opponents are going to begin to bluff you more, and they might not change their strategy against anyone else. Notice that they do this without thinking about Game Theory. But it will be disasterous for you.

Best wishes,
Mason

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Bernie:

I agree that who raises you is very important and should play a significant role in your decisions. Notice that this is the opposite from a Game Theory strategy.

Best wishes,
Mason

[bernie]

Mason,

im going to reread the game theory part in TOP. i was under the impression that it was based on your opponents tendency. which would change at times depending on how he's playing. it seems youre saying it's a gross generalization on how to play a faceless opponent. is that right? ill be reading

er, best wishes [img]/forums/images/icons/wink.gif[/img]

b

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Bernie:

That's right. When you go to a Game Theory strategy you ignore any characteristics that you believe your opponent may have. Part of the reason for this is that you may have become unsure of your judgement (against this particular player) and thus can't make poker decisions well.

Best wishes,
Mason

PS: If you've read the Poker MBA, a book I happened to like, the Game Theory chapter, while a worthwhile chapter, has nothing to do with Game Theory.

[BruceZ]

Mason,

It is true that you make more money by not using game theory against a player who is also not using game theory as long as this situation remains static. Poker is not static though, and by making tough lay downs you may encourage these opponents to begin playing more correctly. So while it is true that you should play in such a way as to capitalize on your opponent's errors, you must also make sure to keep him playing incorrectly.

BTW, After an enormous amount of thought, I have added a response to our discussion about Ciafone's book in the mid-limit forum. I also responded to Sklansky's analysis of one of the hands.

-Bruce