Is having the initiative a fundamental advantage?

[elindauer]

Hi phish,

[ QUOTE ]
1. Yes, 'initiative' exists only in the mind, but hell, the entire game of poker is a 'man-made' mental game...

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you are confused. The point being made is that certain advantages provide you with a tangible EV edge against perfect playing opponents, and others do not. For example, having aces gives you an EV edge. Using a lucky card protector does not. The question in this thread is simply to which category does "having the initiative" belong.

[ QUOTE ]
2. You claim 'initiative' does not exist in a game theory model. I believe it does...

[/ QUOTE ]

ok. I'm interested. Convince me, sticking to the assumption that your opponent plays perfect incomplete-information poker.

[ QUOTE ]
...It has to do with risk. In your example ... your continuation bet puts the first claim on the pot. If he has nothing and he wants to 'reclaim' that pot, he now has to put in at least two bets.

[/ QUOTE ]

You have assumed that the 3-bettor must always check-raise to put a claim on the pot. Why can't he just bet the flop? This would seem to grant him all the same advantages, without the need to have "the initiative" going into this round.

Further, why does he have to put a "claim on the pot" at all? Can't he just call?

[ QUOTE ]
In essence he has to risk more than you did, and most people tend to be risk-averse.

[/ QUOTE ]

This argument is invalid in a discussion of game theory. It's just another way of saying that bad playing makes the initiative real, which we already all agree is true.


[ QUOTE ]
I also want to try to understand why 'initiative' exists.... Understanding why it exists is not important to play good poker, as long you know it's real and how to exploit it.

[/ QUOTE ]

You got it! That's the whole point I'm trying to make. I don't think it does exist, but if I'm proven wrong, then I want to understand exactly why it does so I can improve my poker. Either way, I just want to know the answer.

[ QUOTE ]
my theory about why it exist is that we tend to fight much harder to keep what is ours than to take something away from someone else.

[/ QUOTE ]

This misses the point. You are too focused on practical reasons why it exists. The key question is whether it would exist if your opponent played perfectly.


good luck.
eric