Re: More Derb Hands
[ QUOTE ]
How is it?
While Game Theory is a tool you could use to study the effects of actions (particularly those you might describe as metagame actions) on the interactions between the players. Simply calling such an action or sequence of actions "game theory" is meaningless.
I actually read it as an implication that the player had done this research and was using the results accordingly. I find this to be as wild a speculation as claiming he can see my hole cards.
I will now stop derailing this entirely focused thread with my nits.
[/ QUOTE ]
The goal of any non-cooperative game theory problem is to formulate an optimal strategy that takes into account your opponents' optimal strategy, (and his adjustment to your strategy, and so on). Poker is a non-cooperative game. The set of hands with which "DERB" check-raises the turn on XYZ flop, W turn, after check-calling the flop could, in theory, be optimized based on the set of responses his opponents give to the check-raise, the frequency with which they give them, and the hands they hold when giving them. Because the set of all poker situations is irreducibly complex, it is hard to imagine someone being able to come up with a complete game-theoretic solution (in fact it is probably technically impossible), but every time you say something like, "he raises light, I'll adjust my 3-bet range" or "he continuation bets too often, I'll bluff-raise x % of the time", you are make a game-theoretic adjustment. When people in this thread claim that DERB is winning by, say, 3-betting the turn with a wide range such that his opponents make more incorrect folds than he loses by paying off, they are making a game-theoretic claim, whether they frame it that way or not. Brad was just pointing this out.
Poker is game theory. Using your actions to manipulate the situations in which your opponent will take certain actions in order to maximize the edge of your actions in those situations. "Manipulating hand ranges" is a phrasing you may have read on these boards before. This goes a lot deeper than the bluffing frequency example in Theory of Poker because the ranges of hands you and your opponent can hold interact in a much more complex way than "I'm first to act on the river with a monster or nothing... how often do I bluff?"
|