Collusive Entanglement

[Sredni Vashtar]

If there's a bustle in your hedgerow, don't be alarmed now, it's probably just Sredni Vashtar.

Collusive Entanglement:

In physics, the term "quantum entanglement" refers to actions between objects.(1)

What does this have to do with poker? Nothing (well nothing in the same sense that gravity has nothing to do with poker) but Sredni figured Ikke would like that.

The term 'collusive entanglement' refers to the interrelationships between poker players' strategies.

Let's state the following:

A) Player 1 has entered the pot and has an exploitable strategy.

B)You are acting behind him, have the knowledge and hand to exploit player 1.

C)Several players act behind you who all have exploitable strategies


Sounds like a good place to play? Right?

But of course your head is humming and it won't go, because you know very well that Sredni has let a rooster into the henhouse.

Let's go straight to an old thread called "Think about Shania." Here, long time poster Phat Mack brought up a situation which will help shed some light on collusive entanglement.

In that post PHat Mack wrote " I don't know Mr. AA, but I used to play PL with his cousin. Cousin would only play AA, KK and AKs UTG, and he would always bring it in for the max raise. I would make it a point to sit at his left. I'd keep track of his stack, and if it was suitably big, I would call his bring-in raises with almost anything. I had two reasons: a) I knew where he was, and if I hit, I had his stack; and, 2) my calls might bring other players in, and if I didn't hit, they would, knocking his chips loose and putting them in play. Cousin was a good example of a player with an outed Shania."



Notice here that we have a player with an exploitable strategy meeting condition A) above. Phat Mack has met condition B.

Now for condition C, we'll put several players with exploitable strategies behind. Ok, let's put a couple of maniacs back there.

So we have met conditions A, B, and C. So surely this is a profitable situation right?


Phat Mack is shaking his head, as he knows all that glitters is not gold.


To make this clear as possible let's have a remaining player make a raise for sure. This allows the AA to reraise, taking Phat Mack's price away. See?

We have multiple exploitable strategies that *combine* to produce a dire situation.


Obvious right? In extreme cases, yes.

Using simulations and thought experiments as well as empirical data, it has become quite clear to me that there are sometimes situation in shorthanded *limit* play where if certain combinations of patterns continue to play out, it is difficult if not impossible to beat over the long run. In spite of the fact the opponents seem to have flawed strategies.

This post has just touched the surface. This topic is huge and largely unexplored at least in publicly available literature. I may post more specific stuff later, but probably not.

So think about Collusive Entanglement, and Shania will love you for it.





Here's a post by Tom Weideman to think about:

(just goto google groups rec.gambling.poker and search for Weideman advantage stupidity)


http://groups.google.ca/groups?hl=en...gambling.poker




Sredni Vashtar, whose stairway lies on whispering wind.









(1)Quantum entanglement is a quantum mechanical phenomenon in which the quantum states of two or more objects have to be described with reference to each other, even though the individual objects may be spatially separated. This leads to correlations between observable physical properties of the systems that are stronger than any classical correlations. As a result, measurements performed on one system may be interpreted as "influencing" other systems entangled with it. However, no information can be transmitted through entanglement. See http://www.free-definition.com/Quant...anglement.html

[EjnarPik]

I don't know what pills you're on, but I'd like to try a half.

Ejnar Pik, Southern-Docks.l

[Nottom]

It really is a shame you don't post more often.

[Monty Cantsin]

I don't think this is quite as paradoxical as it appears, and in fact conventional strategy addresses this type of situation when, for example, you 3-bet a strong player who you think might be raising to isolate a weak limper, or when you consider how the rest of the table is adjusting to your adjustments to a maniac.

The interference patterns that emerge from the overlapping wave functions of multiple exploitable strategies are still potentially exploitable. I mean, in theory, not by me. I'm usually the Planck's constant in such equations. Which is n-n-nobody's fault but mine.

/mc

[maryfield48]

There should be a link on every page of the forums to Tinyurl.com.

[andyfox]

There's always been a bustle in my hedgerow, but that's a whole 'nother story. Hopefully, others won't elaborate.

Good stuff, Sredni, as usual. Shades of the Prisoner's Dilemma, Abdul's fishes schooling together for unintentional mutual benefit, and Caro's A beats B and B beats C, but, somehow, C beats A (which struck me as one of Mike's typically long-winded ways of playing rock/paper/scissors).

One problem I have is getting from Mr. AA's cousin to " . . . impossible to beat over the long run." Because the exploitable strategies (or should I say, tactics) are not, in actuality, employed 100% of the time (e.g., andyfox's pump-or-dump occurs 100% of the time on paper but maybe only 85% of the time at Commerce) or the situation comes up so rarely (e.g., Mr. AA's cousin having A-A, K-K or A-K UTG and the exploiter being directly on his left).


Hopefully, your (or others') more specific stuff will help.

Best regards,
Andy

[andyfox]

In the linked Weideman thread, Vince Lepore questioned how a stupid tactic could result in a more positive outcome for the stupidman than a smart tactic for a smartman. If a stupid tactic ends up +EV, how can it be stupid?

Smart tactics can end up -EV as compared with less smart tactics. There's an example of this (I think) in (I also think) the original HEFAP (it's probably also in the 21st centruy edition). It concerns levels of thinking. I don't remember the exact example, but player A and player B are going to increasingly high levels of thinking and the result is more "fantastic" (this might have been the exact word used; perhaps is was "unbelievable" or something else) than if two clueless players had been simply doing clueless things.

Would it be logical that, since smart players can end up with stupider results than stupid players would in the same situation, that stupid players can then also end up with smarter results than smart players would in the same situation? Or is this itself an illogical conclusion?

Can a realman economy result from economic girliemen?

[SA125]

"Cousin would only play AA, KK and AKs UTG, and he would always bring it in for the max raise"

"To make this clear as possible let's have a remaining player make a raise for sure. This allows the AA to reraise, taking Phat Mack's price away. See?"

"We have multiple exploitable strategies that *combine* to produce a dire situation."

I'm still blasting Zep, and saw them the last time they played Madison Square Garden in June 77 for $5 without a ticket (and have the button given out by WPLJ to prove it) I can appreciate your post for reasons other than the poker.

This looks like a hand where a rock who only raises AA, KK or AKs raises UTG and got a lot of maniac callers, then a guy who read HPFAP looks down on the button and sees 88 and re-raises for an all or nothing flop. Big pots, especially with maniacs on board, attract all or nothing flop callers.

The guy calling with 53o, figuring all the high cards are out, will win a few very big pots.

BTW - The $5 I paid went to the usher. I sat with a buddy on the stairs of the red seats (1st level above ground) and there were two guys to my left. While the lights were still on, one guy pukes in the others lap. Catches it all. They run out. We look, it's clean. Oh yeah. Best $5 bucks I ever spent.

Other than that, all I know is "I've got a woman I want to ball all day......"

[LinusKS]

Hey, that Tom Weideman dude is a pretty smart guy.

[Mayhap]

Great breadth!
/M