Let's assume everyone would know how to play correctly...

[Shandrax]

Could it be exploited?

I mean if everyone would know what the mathematically "correct" play is for any given situation they would all become predictable. The game would essentially circle around the question who is willing to make the most incorrect plays and the timing of it - like making the wrong move at the right time. So in the end psychology would indeed beat raw technical skill.

[Reef]

even if everyone knows how to play correctly, not all of them will. There will always be the fishes and the gamblers.

Plus there are still things such as preflop hand selection, aggression, bluffing, etc.

[R_Ellender]

It's impossible to always know what the mathematically correct decision for each play is unless all the cards are face up. Better players make the closest estimates.

For instance, if everyone played correctly, a guy would call my stone cold bluffs with an ace high, because otherwise he is giving up a pot that he is sure to win.

So let's assume I try to set him up with these bluffs for when I have a hand...

I pick up AA, and with a board of A7T42, I have my opponent's TT crushed. But if he does play correctly, he would fold to any bets I made because he has no chance of winning in a showdown. I couldn't say he played badly if he did call my bets, but he did play incorrectly by placing his money into a pot in which he has no equity.

So I guess it depends on what you exactly mean by "correctly".

[hurlyburly]

I wouldn't be looking for a way to exploit it, I'd be looking for a better table. Any exploit you might find would be too small or infrequent to make up for the long stretches, and wouldn't be profitable enough to keep up with rake and blinds.

[EjnarPik]

According to Theory of Poker, you would not be able to exploit it. Playing correctly includes "mixing it up", for instance bluffing some percentages of times, in equal situations.

Thus the perfect players would be precisely so unpredictable, that you could not exploit it.

Ejnar Pik, Southern-Docks.

[Shandrax]

Let me explain what I mean. It has something to do with "teaching" players to be some sort of weak/tight robot. A while ago I read a quite famous book which advocated folding A-K if you missed the flop. Now let's assume that advice became common knowledge and all fish would play like that, it would be easy to exploit them.

Let's assume the player utg raises on a full table. Everyone folds to you on the button. Let's say you call with 7-2o and the blinds fold. Flop comes rags. He checks signaling A-K, you bet, he folds.

Now that was obviously a trivial example to show the idea behind it. Of course in reality things are more complicated. He could be slowplaying aces for example, but going with Bayes it is more likely he has A-K than that he is slowplaying aces.

Basically it seems to me that lots of these recipe books (if you got XX then raise, if you got YY then fold) turn people into weak/tight players, just on a higher less obvious level.

That makes it easier for the sharks to exploit them, because since they became predictable, the sharks can finally put them on a hand. This is in line with the Fundamental Theorem of Poker, because since fish are following strict guidelines they are basically giving their hands away.

I don't want to claim that poker education is bad as this would be ridiculous, I just want to point out a possible paradoxon that education can be good and bad at the same time, especially if your opponent knows what sort of education you went through.

[Willluck]

It couldn't be because the only way to play poker perfectly is to simply play exactly the same as you would if you knew what your opponents holdings were. So, basically everyone would lose money after so long, because of the rake.

[R_Ellender]

Well if they were under the impression that "if A, do B" was playing correctly, then yes, you could easily exploit your opponents. You could call raises with nothing just because the way they play their hands will tell you exactly what they have. You'd get paid off on your good hands because you'd know when they held a weaker one that was incorrect for them to lay down, and you'd save bets when they only wait to checkraise the turn with a minimum of something like a set.

Its obvious that it would be easy to run over a weak tight table. You could play the Super System NLHE section by the book, betting every flop, and dragging in more pots than you could ever imagine. If they ever played back at you, you would know they held something premium, so you wouldn't have to worry about getting all your money in the pot with the worst hand unless the pot odds made it correct.

However, most books would probably recommend folding if someone bets, you raise, and they reraise, so maybe it would still be correct to get your money in without the best hand.

[PokerDuke]

I guess I would have to sort of echo the sentiments of previous replies ... But perfect or "correct" play in the sense that it's "by the book" would NOT be predictable, because "the book" says to change it up, and be UNpredictable. If "correct" play is perfect in regards to the statistics and numbers, than that individual could in fact be exploited, because the person is going to play more robotic. A robot will not be a good poker player, because you know what they have, or probably have depending on their betting patterns. Poker is a game of human nature, mixed with some use of statistics to supplement the large human side of the game. I guess a cyborg would be a great poker player.

Lesson: A perfect player would be a terrible player. A perfect player would be a great player. And a perfect player would be an average player.

[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]