Solving Poker

[blank frank]

[ QUOTE ]
Yah okay in the real world a pro would probably make more money than some one playing perfect strategy, even thought I still reckon perfect strategy would beat the rake. But I still think it would be cool if some one created an unbeatable algorithm, by unbeatable I mean you have about the same chance as beating craps.

[/ QUOTE ]

What, you mean none at all? Craps is a losing game, which means it is mathematically impossible to beat without infinite money and time. If you develop a perfect strategy for poker, and everyone plays it, it comes down to who gets what cards. Add in a rake and it becomes a losing game, and thus mathematically impossible to beat without infinity.

-Frank

[6471849653]

Doyle Brunson solved it one day saying that all there is to poker in any situation is to figure where one stands relative to the opponents.

That is the same as dominating the game by having the better hand on average. All poker games are that and only that, there not being anything else to it. That's though not true but it's the main thing.

One needs feel to that too; a bot can do it from one part even better than a human if it has the complete profile of the opponent/s. Easiest games are draw, loball as there are no board cards.

[jimdmcevoy]

I reckon if you took the best heads up limit holdem player in the world and played him/her with perfect strategy, your expectation would be more than the rake, hence it's a very similar situation to being the house in craps. I can't prove this, but I doubt that any one alive is very close to perfect playing heads up limit holdem.

But I am not talking about everyone playing perfect strategy, just one person.

"Craps is a losing game, which means it is mathematically impossible to beat without infinite money and time."

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume what you mean by this is that it is impossible to have positive EV playing craps.

[jimdmcevoy]

I'm not sure exactly what you mean, but I'll say this:

If you play perfect heads up poker, no matter what your opponents strategy is, he will at best have 0 expectation against you (not including rake) and I doubt any man alive could play to have 0 expectation. Perfect strategy plays the same way against any type of opponent.

[blank frank]

[ QUOTE ]

But I am not talking about everyone playing perfect strategy, just one person.

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay, I just don't see that as a realistic situation.

[ QUOTE ]

"Craps is a losing game, which means it is mathematically impossible to beat without infinite money and time."

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume what you mean by this is that it is impossible to have positive EV playing craps.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why, did you mean something else by "beating craps?"

[mmcd]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure exactly what you mean, but I'll say this:

If you play perfect heads up poker, no matter what your opponents strategy is, he will at best have 0 expectation against you (not including rake) and I doubt any man alive could play to have 0 expectation. Perfect strategy plays the same way against any type of opponent.

[/ QUOTE ]

The problem with playing perfect strategy heads up is that you will drastically lower your own expectation. Once a certain minnimum threshold of skill (on the part of your opponents) is reached in poker, most of your profit will come from recognizing specific mistakes that specific opponents make, and exploiting them.

[WinHoldemSupport]

it is clearly possible even if there is a rake if a sufficient number of opponents are playing non-optimally.

however, if god plays god in holdem then only the house wins.

in order to win at holdem you must meet and play inferior opponents.

winholdem support
http://www.pokerbot.com

[jimdmcevoy]

Agreed, but as Mike Caro has said, as soon as you adjust your strategy to exploit your opponent, your own strategy is non optimal and can be exploited, so you have to be 100% sure he will play how you think he plays, and in my mind you can never be 100% sure. I just like the idea of perfect poker, even if it doesn't win the most.

[jimdmcevoy]

" Okay, I just don't see that as a realistic situation. "

Why not? I see it as realistic say for online poker, or some kind of publicity "Howard Lederer plays Deep Blue Bot" thing.

" Why, did you mean something else by "beating craps?" "

I am confused here, since you are quoting me talking about a quote. I think I need to find out how to quote properly.

[mmcd]

as soon as you adjust your strategy to exploit your opponent, your own strategy is non optimal and can be exploited...

True.

so you have to be 100% sure he will play how you think he plays

Very wrong.