Do you limp first in shorthanded? Why?

[ALL1N]

You are right on the money.

Game theory is all about making your game unbeatable; mixing up your play so that smart opponents cannot outplay you based on previous play.

However, playing in an unbeatable manner is often suboptimal, profitwise. When you limp JJ (as suggested by KSU), you are making a play that is almost certainly less profitable than raising, for obvious reasons. Game theory suggests that if your opponents are observant, they will notice that you raise here, and that at some later stage it could become more profitable to limp because they can't put you on JJ. But why limp JJ before this stage??

Perhaps you've been dealt JJ 5 hands in a row and raised everytime. Now it could be more profitable to limp so that they don't put you on JJ. But why mix it up by limping before it becomes profitable to do so??

Heres the thing: the information your opponents use (previous hands) to put you on a hand is available to you too! Playing poker is all about making decisions on all the information available to you, so why "mix it up" when you can just make the play which is superior in the given situation.

For example, lets assume you've just posted up in the cutoff, been dealt AA and KK, and taken them both down unshown on the river after raising preflop and betting each street. On the next hand you are dealt KJo in MP. It is folded to you. You would usually steal raise here, but due to your temporarily loose-aggressive table image, it is more likely that you will get callers behind you, or perhaps a reraise. Instead of "playing game theory" and making this raise if neither of your cards are clubs, you can make the superior play of folding by being aware of the circumstances.

Game theory would be useful if you had a short-term memory loss and couldn't use the previous information to your advantage while your opponents could. Otherwise, it is a poor justification for a certain play.

ALL1N

[ALL1N]

[ QUOTE ]
And, most of all, I want them to play incorrectly according to Sklansky's fundamental theorm of poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

I also want my opponents to play incorrectly according to Sklanksky's fundamental theorem of poker - by making plays such as openlimping QQ.

[kiddo]

[ QUOTE ]
and couldn't use the previous information to your advantage while your opponents could

[/ QUOTE ]

Obvioulsy, using game theory is bad if you are better then your opponents. Then you can outplay them by a better use of the information there is.

But if you have a very tricky opponent, and if you get the feeling he is reading you right all the time. Then, couldnt game theory - used liked described in this thread - be a good way to not have to feel unsecure against this guy? Of course, then maybe you should leave the table, but if the other players are bad...

[ALL1N]

[ QUOTE ]
Then, couldnt game theory - used liked described in this thread - be a good way to not have to feel unsecure against this guy?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not going to write about what makes you feel secure/insecure, but using purely random outcomes to determine your play is the worst possible option. It is akin to playing as a robot. If, for a reoccuring future scenario, you feel that you will be making a decision and obtaining a lower expected value than purely random decision-making would achieve, then it is foreseeable that random play is superior. However, it would be superior still to make the decision opposite to the lower expected value.

In simpler terms, if you are betting on sports, and feel that you are so bad that it you would be better off randomizing your bets, then why not just oppose your previous line of thinking. You really think that Arsenal is going to beat Leeds, so bet on Leeds. If you are correct that your predictions are worse than random decision-making, you are better off.

Using random outcomes to determine your decisions is poor play, and justifying it by your "apparent unpredictability" is a poor argument. You should be able to take advantage of your "apparent predictability" if you haven't been mixing it up.

ALL1N