Is there a poker law of diminishing returns?

[signal]

The law of diminishing returns. Let's first look at an example (I will tie this into poker in a sec, so please bear w/ me).

In intelligence quantification (e.g. IQ tests, SATs, etc.) notable theorists in the field of cognitive psychology have postulated that the law of diminishing returns applies in this instance. I think Arthur Jensen is a leading proponent of ideas like these (don't quote me on this though).

Basically, one can study for a test like the SAT (vocabulary flash cards, reviewing trigonometry); however, there will be an equilibrium point such that no additional "studying", in terms of time or effort or some other metric (subjective/objective), will have a positive effect on the outcome of the test.

Now for poker. Many of us are happy that we found 2+2, SSH, HEFAP, whatever. Years ago, when poker was not as popular, readers of these specialized texts were at a significant advantage. At this point in time even losing/clueless players have inculcated some of the ideas presented in the aformentioned sources.

So is there a law of diminishing returns for poker? The game of poker, IMO, seems less complex than the mathematics of Hilbert space or an erudite text such as the Critique of Pure Reason.... Does this mean that the Law of Diminishing Returns has less of an effect for poker players?


So the basic question is: Will a certain group of players always bleed chips since they have an innate disability, whereby they play "incorrectly" no matter how much textual or conversational instruction they receive? This seems to be the view of some of the 2+2 authors (based on what they say in the intro's of the various books, although I could be wrong).

Of course, a related question is a game theoretic one. In a situation where a large population of players have mastered SSH/HEPFAP/2+2 concepts will we be doomed to be eaten by the rake, or will there ALWAYS be a counter strategy (analogy: the rock beats the scissor; paper covers rock, etc.)? I guess you could ask does poker reduce to pure mathematics\fuzzy logic in the limit of expert play where all players are reduced to statistically equivalent agents or will there always be an advantage to a minority of players?

Sorry for the long post; any thoughts or answers? take it easy everyone.

[Rudbaeck]

I'll answer them in reverse order. No, there will not always be a counter strategy. So if everyone played good enough the rake would be an all-consuming monster. The odds of that happening are pretty low though.

And in Psychology of Poker Dr Al states that he thinks most losing players actually know that they are losing, and know correct strategy but don't bother for various reasons. I'm not sure this is always the case, but I think it's pretty often the case.