[0,1] Game #6: The Raising Game (MOP Pg. 184)
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 339
Can somebody explain why we are justified in making the assumption that:
y2 = Rx1 ==> x3 = Ry2 (?)
In other words, why does R remain constant over the nth bet?
I see absolutely no reason for this to be true, or not to be true.
They give absolutely no explanation, except for a vague "X is now in the same position Y was in". I don't understand how that is anything close to a tangible argument.
Whenever I try to show this through direct calculation, I end up with a slightly different result.
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 9,881
Their situations are indistinguishable because it is a game which permits an infinite number of raises.
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 339
It seems like some kind of argument that the game is composed of sub-games which are all equivalent to one another, and so (by some step) we can conclude the the optimal fraction of hands to raise for putting in the second bet is the same as that fraction for putting in the third bet, it's only the ranges that change.
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 9,881
What problem do you have with that argument?
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 339
I don't have a problem with it, I just wasn't familiar with a lot of game theory terminology before I started reading the book.
![[0,1] Game #6: The Raising Game (MOP Pg. 184)](https://d30akgybcov179.cloudfront.net/icons/hamburger.svg){kind=icon}
![[0,1] Game #6: The Raising Game (MOP Pg. 184)](https://d30akgybcov179.cloudfront.net/icons/close-sidebar.svg){kind=icon}
![[0,1] Game #6: The Raising Game (MOP Pg. 184)](https://d30akgybcov179.cloudfront.net/icons/quote.svg){kind=icon}