Hypothetical: After every hand you play, all the villains on the site are are randomly moved around to different tables and seats (only to tables with the same stakes) and their name/avatar is randomly changed. Therefore you build up zero history and everyone you play is completely random and unknown to you. How would this affect your play?

My thoughts:

1. You would have to play more straight forward, no?
2. Because of having to play straight forward, this hypothetical would favor TAGs?
3. You should be 3-betting a lot more?...because the first 3-bet usually gets respect and every hand would be the first hand of a table.

welcome to SSNL 4 years ago? except for the last part. Of course, back then it was bc noone had huds and most players didnt think deeply enough to be concerned wiht your image, previous history unless you were totally out there.

Do not bluff. Play ultra-tight. Value bet more.

Optimum play, IMO.

TAG play would certainly be good, but all of the other nine players could be loose goose donkeys or super nits and everything in between, so even your play style would have be entirely random. It would be a tough game to play consistently.

What do you mean by optimum play? If you mean an equilibrium strategy this is not necessary because if people can't get reads on you they can't exploit you anyway.

Randomizing your play, for example. TOP example: if you bet the river, the odds you're giving your opponent should be the same as the odds of you bluffing.

Why would you bluff?

Edit: The whole point if optimal strategies is being unexploitable even if opponents knew your strategy. If villain doesn't know who you are he doesn't know your strategy, so he can't exploit it.

Or maybe I'm missing something?

And you don´t know their strategies so you play the strategy you certainly know will beat them.

Since each day is a new day, the very first hand dealt, I would get AA and bet it strong and show it down. I'm lucky that way. Next hand I get KK bet it strong and show it down. Next hand I get 23, bet it strong and get a fold on the river. Then I go home.

The next day since it is a new day, the very first hand dealt....


LL

I liked the book. I liked the part you are referring to on a theoritical basis. Realistically, bluffs that don't make sense will not benefit by what you say. DS, in the same book says that bluffs that don't make sense get called. And are you going to look at your watch each time you bet to determine if the second hand is in the right quadrant for you to bluff? Idunno.

Generally, I think that given this theoretical scenario, most people would want to try to get a feel for the table. LAG would benefit from this very early, would steal a few pots but would be quickly figured out. LAG would then need to become TAG, and show down a few good hands.Then TAG could loosen up some.

If there are too many people thinking along these lines, the whole concept falls apart.

Seriously, you would have to just play the hands dealt to you, pay attention to the other players and keep in mind your own image. Not as you know you are but as others see you and try to exploit your image. This is a mistake that players make. You know you are playing premium hands, but if you aren't showing any down, your table image isn't TAG, it's LAG, until proven otherwise.


fwiw

LL

Whats a TAG? Someone who needs a preflop chart to play poker?

You can't get a feel for the table if you switch tables after every hand...

.

True enuff. That def changes things. Will think a little more.

Assuming that everyone realizes this is happening, then I would have to think that the strategy of the population is going to evolve as a whole, and there will be a proper counter strategy to play against an average player in that population. That is, I don't think you can really imagine the correct way to play in this game until you saw how other people are playing - that is, not other *individual* people but how people in general are playing.

You could argue either way

ok if everyone plays tight aggressive - well, re raise every pot cos chances are ppl dont have anything most of the time

I like the idea, going to email fulltilt now, we could call it erm..... "rush poker" ?

@ the guy who said don't bluff, lol. realize lines that people would view are commonly take by people with monsters, and take those lines when you are on a bluff. flat flop raise turn IP, etc. most of the time people will not have the cards to stand up to monster lines. not saying every time, but still profitable. also polarize your leading into the pf raiser range.

I demand royalties. Damn it.

Pre: 3.5 x
flop: 2/3 pot
Turn: 2/3 pot
river: 2/3 pot

PROFIT

Just use the optimal counter strategy versus the average opponent. Mainly based on stack size. Versus people with less than 100bb bluff way less. Versus guys with 100+ generally play taggy. HOwever, as the game evolves, most players will use this strategy, therefore eventually you would want to start bluffing a ton, because tbh most people don't bluff nearly enough. Passive fish rarely bluff, regs bluff a good amount, but when they start bluffing even less, that only leaves a few maniacs bluffing. Also regs are the majority of the players, so literally going ape **** with bluffing would become optimal, in the right situations ofc. You'd really wanna make sure their range is wide enough, b/c in a game without metagame a lot of ppl will be playing tight as hell.

Hi there asdfasdf32, and congratulations on the successful nature of your idea, which might be called "Rush with anonymous players" and could easily have been the inspiration for Rush. I know how you feel about it, and I hope that when you get over the disappointment, you are encouraged by the near-miss you have had.

I occurred to me that if someone revives the SFAToker thread there will be two threads on the same topic, as SFAToker is also simply Rush with anonymous players. If that happens, perhaps it would be appropriate to merge them into one "Rush with anonymous players" thread?

I don't play rush poker because it rules out reverse twilighting

Haha.. nice idea. Shoulda patented.