Streib article

[HesseJam]

Very good article, indeed. It is so good that I wished it had not been published. The last thing I need is this sort of information out in the public.

I am amazed that it hasn't been discussed a lot more.

[BarronVangorToth]

[ QUOTE ]
It is so good that I wished it had not been published.

[/ QUOTE ]


T3ch wants to be free.

Barron Vangor Toth
BarronVangorToth.com

[poincaraux]

The public seems not to care so much about this type of information.

[SumZero]

It is interesting to compare this article to the one by Dennis Bragg called "Short Stack Play From the Small Blind". Bragg found that in HU if your opponent calls only with top 25% of the hands than you should push any two cards profitably (in terms of CEV). And he calculated the table for 50%, 75%, and 100% as well. The addition of changes in profitability in terms of $EV from the CEV and how that changes over time weren't in Braggs article and is a big benefit of this latest article (as everyone in STTF should know from various ICM posts and raptor challenge type posts).

Can I still find this Braggs' article?

Andrew Prock:

[ QUOTE ]
It's pretty important, if you're going to present solutions to problems, that you properly state what problem you are solving. You didn't present a game theory optimal solution, so presenting it as such is a bit confusing. As far as how close the solutions are to the game theory optimal one, they look like they are off by quite a bit, especially for small stacks.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that honesty is the best policy, although I think we can cut Streib some slack given that he was publishing in a magazine, not a scholarly journal.

In the same vein, I would similarly suggest that anyone comparing their solution to his should fully explain how they arrived at their solution and why they believe it to be correct.

I've seen a number of solutions that claim to be optimal, but they don't all agree. It seems to be time for a public discussion of methods of solution so that the peer-review process can take place.

I'm more than happy to talk about how I arrived at my (very good) approximate solution.

For those worried about losing EV, don't. The willfully ignorant will remain blissfully so.

[droidboy]

[ QUOTE ]

I've seen a number of solutions that claim to be optimal, but they don't all agree. It seems to be time for a public discussion of methods of solution so that the peer-review process can take place.

I'm more than happy to talk about how I arrived at my (very good) approximate solution.

For those worried about losing EV, don't. The willfully ignorant will remain blissfully so.

[/ QUOTE ]

I got my solution by using ficticious play (as did Streib). I checked my solution against one that was constructed independently using the same method and they agreed. My solution agrees with the sample solution posted by eastbay, who used the simplex method to solve the problem directly. If I remember correctly, both methods produce the same optimal solution. The simplex method produces it directly, whereas ficticious play slowly converges to the solution.

Streib used ficticious play, but didn't allow for mixed strategies, which meant that his final solutions probably oscillated around the optimal solution, but never converged. My guess is that he just picked one of the solutions when it started to oscillate.

I certainly didn't mean to impune Streib's honesty. I was just looking for clarity in my heavy handed manner. And to be fair, the main point of the article isn't the solution per se, but how deviating from the solution affects your EV.

In truth, because it's the solution to a toy game, it's not vital that it be 100% correct, because it doesn't map directly to true play.

- Andrew

www.pokerstove.com

[ QUOTE ]
The public seems not to care so much about this type of information.

[/ QUOTE ]

They would much rather talk about plants or how to play AA. Do you see why?