I don't think you understood what Bob148 meant. When he was talking about a margin for exploitation shrinking, he wasn't at all considering how good a player is at exploiting. Rather, he was considering how exploitable the play of the opponent is. The less exploitable an opponent's play is, then obviously, the less a player can exploit such opponent's play. Better poker players tend to play in a manner that is less exploitable than poorer poker players (although this is not necessarily always entirely true in all game situations, and good poker players may sometimes play in a manner that is highly exploitable on purpose because (i) they can exploit their opponent by doing so and (ii) their opponent is unlikely to be able to take advantage of the opportunity to exploit them).

As an example, say Player A and Player B are playing rock, paper, scissors:

1. Say Player A throws rock 100% of the time. Obviously Player B can easily exploit Player A by throwing paper 100% of the time.

2. Now, say Player A stops playing and Player C starts playing. Say Player C throws rock 90% of the time and scissors 10% of the time. Player B can still easily exploit Player C by throwing paper 100% of the time (maybe optimally Player B should be throwing rock a small percentage of the time also - I don't know), but it isn't as profitable an exploit as against Player A. It doesn't matter how amazing at exploiting Player B is. He can't exploit Player C as much as he can Player A because Player C's strategy is less exploitable than Player A's strategy,

3. Now, say Player C stops playing and Player D starts playing. Say Player D randomly throws rock 1/3 of the time, paper 1/3 of the time and scissors 1/3 of the time. Player B cannot exploit Player D. It is just impossible. There is nothing he can do; no exploitive play he can make. It doesn't matter how amazing Player B is at exploiting. He can't exploit Player D because Player D's strategy is not at all exploitable.

There is a lot of margin between 2 and 3, but I just skipped to the end.

Now, of course, finding a strategy in typical poker games that is completely unexploitable is much more difficult than finding such strategy in rock, paper scissors. And such exact strategy for an entire overall game has not been found for most poker variants. But some people may play pretty close in certain game situations.

Also, in rock, paper, scissors, the unexploitable strategy actually cannot win; it will break even against all other strategies. In poker, this is not true and the unexploitable strategy will likely beat all other strategies. Although, in a lot of instances, especially as the skill of opponents decreases, the unexploitable strategy likely will not yield as big a profit as some other strategy that is both exploiting the opponent's strategy and is exploitable itself.




Bob148 can correct me if I got wrong what he was communicating.

I agree with all of that. Thanks.

This is very true and it's the converse of what I stated here:

Yadoula seems to think that he can just go ahead and exploit good players wherever he wants to without his opponent finding a counter strategy that is better than his highly exploitive strategy. This may be true of many opponents, but I wouldn't consider them to be good poker players. Thus his argument falls apart there.

Of course I understand him my friend.

I think you will agree that playing un-exploitatively isn't necessarily playing better. If the opponent were playing scissors 100% of the time then a better player would exploit.

That is literally all I said. Too many people nowadays think that the more balanced you are the better you are. And that is just wrong.

Once again you're the only one talking about balance.

Do you deny that a highly exploitive strategy is exploitable?

You said, in part, this in response to Bob148's post:

which doesn't make any sense as a response to what was said as explained here:

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...6&postcount=26

which is why I thought you didn't understand what Bob148 meant.

I don't think that at all.

Even bad players learn what I'm doing in individual situations sooner or later, and they then switch up their play to contend. Fortunately, there are many situations in poker and most players, especially GTO players, try to beat me one situation at a time because they don't understand the generic theory.

If I was against a less exploitable player, I would exploit them less. I have already explained that. I am tiring of speaking with you.

Yeah I was a little unclear there. I wasn't talking about an individual situation.

Just so that we can clarify for others reading. You do agree with me then? Better doesn't necessarily mean using an un-exploitable style?

You don't give your opponent's enough credit.

Do you see how this statement is at odds with this previous statement of yours?:

You can't have it both ways. Take your pick.

This depends on your opponent's ability to see through your tricks and pre adjust.

Sure, against clueless players you can go off the exploitive deep end. However, I'm not considering those opponents for the purpose of this thread.

I don't see how this clarifies anything. The response still doesn't make any sense. And I don't really understand what this clarification is supposed to mean. I don't think anybody was talking about an individual situation, although I used some examples to illustrate what was being talked about.

To try to be even clearer: In any particular tournament or ring game or whatever, the strategy that maximizes profit isn't necessarily an unexploitable strategy, but, rather, may be an exploitable strategy. Yes, of course. This is particularly true as the skill level of your opponents decreases because lower skilled players tend to play in such a way that can be exploited a lot.

Right I'm confused about what u mean, but I agree completely with your last paragraph. Weak players are generally exploitable. But that doesn't mean playing un-exploitable is necessarily better

So you're saying that there's an important distinction between these two player types?:

a) the clueless opponent that is exploitable

b) the good opponent that is exploiting and is thus exploitable

I agree, but you must concede that they're both exploitable.

Yadoula, you realize that every time you "exploit" there's a chance that instead of gaining EV you are losing if you're assumptions aren't correct.

Dude, yeah, that's exactly what I'm saying. A master of exploitation will be exploitable. He's a master, and yeah he is still exploitable, but he's still a very good player. Being un-exploitable is not a measure of your skill.

Doctor, of course I realise that when I get it wrong I lose money! Sometimes we lose, but we win more often if we're the better player. When you exploit you're competing, the best exploiter wins, and so Poker grows. Competition causes growth. The more we exploit the more money there is for all of us.

Do you guys realise that by not learning to exploit properly you not only miss out on loads of profit but also push Poker towards its death? By playing GTO the profits at our tables plummets. I mean, beginners are balancing thanks to books like sklanskys, do none you guys see how much of a problem this is!? I think I'm the only one who gets it, all the rest of the experienced players out there seem to be against me.

... I have concocted a plan to solve this problem, but my plan is to leave you GTO players behind. This is bigger than Poker. It's far bigger than sklansky. Game theory is huge. And my research leads me to believe the same problems span across all fields that use it.

Ok. Then how should that master of exploitation play vs good players?

He considers all the exploitative Levels (up to five), in their entirety. This means that he must consider each Level utilising the past, the present, the future and the future-present. Then, if the opponent is close to GTO he will play close to GTO himself without needing to have ever heard the word 'balance'.

... The perfect GTO player would do exactly the same.

lul wtfffff

haha I agree with doctor wtf

???



Attempting to utilize the future-present gives me a headache.

You guys are missing out if you haven't read his posts before.

I cracked everything gents.

Each Level is split into those four sections. And thus, we find the boundaries surrounding all comprehendible strategies.

You should write a book.

Thank you doc for the great post

Yeah you mean OTR we have decisions that ARE NOT a lot closer as compared to OTF.

No.

OTR the decisions are close/indifferent way more often.