The ultimate way to outplay your oponent

[wtfsvi]

Theory discussion got a bit off topic in another thread ( this one ), so I'm posting it here.

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Svar på:</font><hr />
The way to ultimately outplay someone else is to make it so that it is impossible to outplay you. Therefore, your goal is to only give your opponent neutral EV decisions. Then he can make a bad move which will allow you to make a +EV decision but which again leaves him with only neutral EV decisions. Therefore, your goal should be to make a move such that for your hand range in the particular setting it doesnt matter whether he calls, raises, or folds, because they should all be neutral EV.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can't agree with this. As I see it, to only offer neutral EV decitions is not optimal if you know your oponents tendencies/errors (and you should). Then optimal play is to prey on them, by offering villain an oportunity to make a mistake that you know he's likely to make. (It might sound like we are talking about play with the hole cards face up, a la the fundamental theroem of poker scenario, but this, as well as the fundamental theorem obviously, applies whether hole cards are turned face up or down.)

What do you think?

[Drunken Monkey]

If you only leave your opponent with -EV options you will always win. This however is not always posible. SO if you want to outplay your opponent you want to give him situations where you "know" he will choose the most -EV option even though there are other options that are not as bad.

[TheWorstPlayer]

Just because he only has neutral EV decisions against you doesn't mean that he can't make a mistake. The way in which he chooses between the neutral EV decisions with which he is presented can (and likely will) allow you to make a +EV decision which will again leave him with a neutral EV decision. Obviously this is easier to see from a limit perspective due to the limited strategy space. For example:

You have KK UTG and raise. He calls in the BB. Flop comes JT6r. He checks, you bet. Now ideally should be making this exact same sequence of moves on this type of board with enough hands such that your hand range here should be large enough that all three options (raise, call, fold) are neutral EV. This must be the case because if, for instance, folding were preferable, then you should start taking this line with more hands to exploit the fact that he is folding too much. Once you start adding more hands, he will have to start calling more since he will be ahead more often of your widened hand range.

So let's say that your hand range here is such, in fact, that he only is presented with three neutral EV options. However, let's say that every time he has better than top pair, he raises, every time he has top pair he calls, and every time he has worse than top pair he folds. So even though you perfectly balance your actions so that he can't make a +EV decision based on your hand range, his action gives away so much information about HIS hand range that your next action will be +EV for you since he is not properly balancing his strategy.

But again, your response to his action should be perfectly balanced so that again he has only neutral EV actions. Basically, every time he does something that gives you information which you then use to put yourself onto a +EV course. Your actions, however, are perfectly balanced so that HE gains no information from your actions and therefore cannot steer the hand into a +EV course for him. That is how you are playing perfectly against him and he is not playing perfectly against you.

Edit: It should be clear that you can't possibly provide someone with a -EV option without also giving them a +EV option. Therefore, perfect play must entail always providing only neutral EV options.

[bradha]

I think it is technically impossible to have folding, calling, and raising all EV neutral decisions. For example, suppose that there are no more cards to come, and I bet $20 into you, giving you pot odds of 10 to 1 for a call. If you think the odds of you winning are less than .5, you can dismiss raising as an EV neutral option. If the odds are .10 it is EV neutral between a call and a fold. If I am playing at all well, then raising is -EV and it is a neutral EV decision to call or fold.

It is good to vary your bets and play enough that your opponent has a hard time putting you on a hand, but you should not be so random as to give no information. If you have bet a lot of chips, your opponent knows you probably have a good hand. To bet on crap too often gives less information, but your opponent can beat that strategy by betting their hands and not worrying so much about yours...

[AaronBrown]

The game theory solution is to pick the best strategy, assuming your opponent knows your strategy and picks the best counterstrategy. In theory, that cannot be beaten. However, it tends to lead to situations in which it doesn't matter what your opponent does, the game is break-even for both of you.

For example, in Rock-Paper-Scissors, game theory says to pick each play with 1/3 probability, ignoring what your opponent does, and what you did in previous rounds. If you do that, you will neither win nor lose in the long run whether your opponent plays the same strategy, or always chooses rock, or anything else.

You are suggesting an opportunistic strategy instead. You try to outguess your opponent. Obviously, that's better if it works. But it's worse if your opponent figures out your thought processes and uses them to outguess you. For example, bad RPS players will pick the thing that would have won for them last time. If you figure that out, you can beat them every time. But if they do this once, then figure you'll try to exploit it, they can beat you.

I agree with you, with the proviso that the game theory solution offers protection when other players are better than you. Generally the best idea in that situation is to quit. If you are staying because you want to learn, playing the game theory solution will not help. But if you're staying because it's a tournament, or you feel some obligation to stay, then it can make sense to use game theory as a shield.

[wtfsvi]

Great. This is what I'm talking about.

[wtfsvi]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Svar på:</font><hr />
Just because he only has neutral EV decisions against you doesn't mean that he can't make a mistake. The way in which he chooses between the neutral EV decisions with which he is presented can (and likely will) allow you to make a +EV decision which will again leave him with a neutral EV decision. Obviously this is easier to see from a limit perspective due to the limited strategy space. For example:

You have KK UTG and raise. He calls in the BB. Flop comes JT6r. He checks, you bet. Now ideally should be making this exact same sequence of moves on this type of board with enough hands such that your hand range here should be large enough that all three options (raise, call, fold) are neutral EV. This must be the case because if, for instance, folding were preferable, then you should start taking this line with more hands to exploit the fact that he is folding too much. Once you start adding more hands, he will have to start calling more since he will be ahead more often of your widened hand range.

So let's say that your hand range here is such, in fact, that he only is presented with three neutral EV options. However, let's say that every time he has better than top pair, he raises, every time he has top pair he calls, and every time he has worse than top pair he folds. So even though you perfectly balance your actions so that he can't make a +EV decision based on your hand range, his action gives away so much information about HIS hand range that your next action will be +EV for you since he is not properly balancing his strategy.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is interesting and you clearly have a point. However, it doesn't show that offering only neutral EV decitions is optimal. What it shows is that you can still be +EV (or -EV) overall while offering only neutral EV decitions for villain.


</font><blockquote><font class="small">Svar på:</font><hr />
Edit: It should be clear that you can't possibly provide someone with a -EV option without also giving them a +EV option. Therefore, perfect play must entail always providing only neutral EV options.

[/ QUOTE ] Yes, that is clear. But if I know villain, and he will chase a flush draw for a pot sized all-in bet on the turn, I should offer him to do that. Why would I offer him a neutral EV decition, when I can offer him a giant -EV decition that he will make? These spots will come less often as your oponents get better, but they should still be around as long as he doesn't play perfect.

If villain plays perfect, you will lose or win exactly nothing against him if you leave him with only neutral EV decitions. Thus, offering only neutral EV will be optimal. But when villain does not play perfect, you are giving up EV by not offering him -EV decitions (Even if you offer him a +EV decition as well. Because you know he won't take it, that's why we call it outplaying.)

[wtfsvi]

Didn't mean to make this. I'm notifying the moderator, maybe he'll delete it.

[TheWorstPlayer]

If you bet all-in (and he is obviously behind your hand range a very large portion of the time you do so) then you are leaving open the room for him to fold and thereby 'outplay' you. If, however, you only make a bet such that he is getting the exact correct odds to call, fold, or raise with neutrality then there is NO WAY for him to outplay you by doing any action and thereby it is impossible for him to outplay you. The only possibility is for you to outplay him because he cannot properly neutralise your options. Yes, it this concept is much harder (impossible?) in NL because you have to pick an amount to bet and there are stack size constraints, but that is still the only way to guarantee that you are outplaying your opponent and will never be outplayed. It is thereby perfect play. Yes, if your opponent is guaranteed to make certain very bad decisions, you can get more EV out of them by other methods, but it is not guaranteed. The only way to GUARANTEE outplaying your opponent is to neutralise all of their options.

[wtfsvi]

You are not guaranteed +EV by offering only neutral EV decitions. +EV in that situation requires you to outplay your oponent when the decition comes back to you. That is no different than outplaying him by offering him a -EV decition that you know he is likely to take.

The only thing you're doing by only offering neutral EV decitions is to take away one of the two ways you and your oponent can outplay each other. (Him making a -/+EV decition against you and you making a -/+EV decition against him.) If he's better than you, that's a good thing, and if you're better than him, it's a bad thing.