Can PLO be solved? - Page 2 - Small Stakes Pot Limit Omaha

Two Plus Two Forums Poker Strategy Omaha

Can PLO be solved?

Post Reply Subscribe

...

Page 2 of 3

1 2 3

Page 2 of 3

1 2 3

02-23-2017 , 12:14 PM

#26

illiterat

veteran

Join Date: Mar 2011 Posts: 2,485

Quote:

Originally Posted by gay_on_tse

What you explained is not how GTO works.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gay_on_tse

Disclaimer : I don't know anything about game theory except from Wikipedia.

Quote

02-23-2017 , 01:00 PM

#27

NMcNasty

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 3,990

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oink

All HU poker games can be solved and will have exactly 1 symmetric Nash equilibrium in which both players play a strategy that is unbeatable (And both will have a long term winrate of 0bb/100)

This is wrong. There can be multiple equilibria for zero sum games and there is for poker.

Example 1: The board runout in holdem is a royal flush. It doesn't matter if either player bets $5, $50, or $300 on the river, the game is at equilibrium (neither player can gain an advantage) as long as neither player folds.

Example 2: With 100bb stacks, if player 1 open for 90bb, player 2 will always fold to a cbet. Player 1 can't exploit player 2's 100% fold to cbet frequency (after this raise size), since it requires him to make the much more exploitable 90bb open raise to begin with.

Quote

02-23-2017 , 02:20 PM

#28

Oink

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 10,308

Quote:

Originally Posted by NMcNasty

yeah I think you are right. As said its been a while since I taught and worked with Game Theory. Not sure how I got it in my head that uniqueness was one of the properties in symmetric 2 player zero sum games. A quick google search confirms it as well. Good example using the royal flush run out btw.

Quote

02-23-2017 , 03:56 PM

#29

gay_on_tse

grinder

Join Date: Apr 2011 Posts: 612

Quote:

Originally Posted by illiterat

What's wrong? It just means solar haven't even read wiki. Turns out wiki is right.

Quote

02-23-2017 , 04:07 PM

#30

gay_on_tse

grinder

Join Date: Apr 2011 Posts: 612

Quote:

Originally Posted by NMcNasty

Good one McNasty!

Quote

02-24-2017 , 09:48 AM

#31

SolarAU

old hand

Join Date: Apr 2015 Posts: 1,795

No I don't think I've read the wiki. After 3 years of university I tend to completely disregard secondary/ tertiary sources for information.

Can someone explain how my earlier example ITT doesn't apply to the concept of GTO aka an unexploitable strategy?

Quote

02-24-2017 , 04:19 PM

#32

zplusz

banned

Join Date: Jan 2014 Posts: 656

ITT people have said "unexploitable" = GTO.... my point is that i don't even think it is possible to play "unexploitable" in the game of poker, even fixed holdem with much less variables and outcomes. Correct me if i'm wrong....

Quote

02-24-2017 , 05:03 PM

#33

tofurocks

adept

Join Date: Sep 2015 Posts: 870

Quote:

Originally Posted by zplusz

You are wrong

Quote

02-24-2017 , 05:13 PM

#34

Darkfangs

grinder

Join Date: May 2015 Posts: 540

Quote:

Originally Posted by zplusz

The chance of playing unexploitable GTO poker in the future for complicated forms of poker is much higher than the chance that such a solution doesn't exist. It may take 5 more years, it make take 100 years but with the increase of computational power, and programming it is only a matter of time until it is "solved". Limit HU hold'em was the first one solved because it has the least amount of variable and hidden information.

Quote

02-24-2017 , 05:50 PM

#35

NMcNasty

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 3,990

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darkfangs

The chance of playing unexploitable GTO poker in the future for complicated forms of poker is much higher than the chance that such a solution doesn't exist.

The chance a solution doesn't exist is exactly 0%. Again, its been proven that a solution exists (at least one), but it hasn't been proven as to what that solution actually is, and due to the amount of computing power required no one should be holding their breath. Even HUFLHE is merely *virtually* solved. Its relatively easy to calculate a counterstrategy to a given strategy, so when the edge that counterstrategy has is extremely small, the game is considered "solved" even though the original strategy is technically still beatable (though completely unrealistic for a human to do so).

Quote

02-24-2017 , 05:56 PM

#36

NMcNasty

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 3,990

Quote:

Originally Posted by SolarAU

Can someone explain how my earlier example ITT doesn't apply to the concept of GTO aka an unexploitable strategy?

I don't think you said anything particularly wrong but "GTO aka unexploitable" can be misleading, because again, its only true for a symmetrical situation.

In game where one player gets the small blind every hand and another player gets the big blind every hand, there is a Nash equilibrium, but the big blind will still be losing money on average.

Quote

02-24-2017 , 06:22 PM

#37

Mindead

adept

Join Date: Jun 2011 Posts: 1,030

Quote:

Originally Posted by NMcNasty

Not if the big blind get the position in every hand too

Quote

02-24-2017 , 06:32 PM

#38

tofurocks

adept

Join Date: Sep 2015 Posts: 870

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mindead

Not if the big blind get the position in every hand too

I could be wrong but I believe in a GTO equilibrium position has no value?

Quote

02-24-2017 , 06:37 PM

#39

gay_on_tse

grinder

Join Date: Apr 2011 Posts: 612

Quote:

Originally Posted by SolarAU

What you described was a river bet unexploitable by villain. There are many more strategies that are unexploitable but not GTO. Ie foldind every hand preflop.

Since you went to 3 years of university, a more formal argument would be unexploitable is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for GTO.

Quote

02-24-2017 , 06:44 PM

#40

NMcNasty

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 3,990

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mindead

Not if the big blind get the position in every hand too

Pretty sure if BB is in position every hand it still loses money. Being forced to post is huge.

Quote

02-24-2017 , 06:45 PM

#41

NMcNasty

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 3,990

Quote:

Originally Posted by tofurocks

I could be wrong but I believe in a GTO equilibrium position has no value?

You are wrong

Quote

02-24-2017 , 07:20 PM

#42

gay_on_tse

grinder

Join Date: Apr 2011 Posts: 612

Position has value and was easily apparent in the AKQ game.

Hey McNasty, nice to see this side of you! No idea you are a GTO expert.

Quote

02-25-2017 , 01:17 AM

#43

illiterat

veteran

Join Date: Mar 2011 Posts: 2,485

Quote:

Originally Posted by gay_on_tse

There are many more strategies that are unexploitable but not GTO. Ie foldind every hand preflop.

Ya'll heard it here first, GoT's unexploitable 20bb shoving ranges are to fold every hand. Bookmark this thread, his best theory post to date.

Quote

02-25-2017 , 01:56 AM

#44

gay_on_tse

grinder

Join Date: Apr 2011 Posts: 612

Quote:

Originally Posted by illiterat

Ya'll heard it here first, GoT's unexploitable 20bb shoving ranges are to fold every hand. Bookmark this thread, his best theory post to date.

Hmmm that's not what I wrote. Maybe read it again, Mr illiterate?

Quote

02-26-2017 , 01:46 AM

#45

Hero Value

BBV Series Inaugural Champ

Join Date: Apr 2011 Posts: 9,258

Quote:

Originally Posted by NMcNasty

You are wrong

So if this is the case, then how does GTO quantify or assign a value to having position?

I assume this is also applicable/transferable to other scenarios. LIke in a HU draw game (2-7), it's difficult to quantify the value of being 1-2 cards ahead of your opponent. So I wonder how GTO does it exactly.

Last edited by Hero Value; 02-26-2017 at 02:06 AM.

Quote

02-26-2017 , 02:42 AM

#46

illiterat

veteran

Join Date: Mar 2011 Posts: 2,485

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hero Value

So if this is the case, then how does GTO quantify or assign a value to having position?

From the Cepheus paper:

Quote:

The strategy reaches an exploitability of 0.986 mbb/g, making HULHE essentially weakly solved. Using the separate exploitability values for each position (as the dealer and non-dealer) we get exact bounds on the game-theoretic value of the game: between 87.7 and 89.7 mbb/g for the dealer, proving the common wisdom that the dealer holds a substantial advantage in HULHE.

Quote

02-27-2017 , 10:12 AM

#47

MartinK1979

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 3,576

PLO can't be solved because human still making some mistakes...

Quote

02-27-2017 , 12:37 PM

#48

Kozat

centurion

Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 138

Wait i'm confused, are we taking a GTO approach or a GoT approach? Cause iI can see the link between sleeping with your twin sister and playing PLO. You gotta be kinda ****ed up.

Quote

02-27-2017 , 06:33 PM

#49

tofurocks

adept

Join Date: Sep 2015 Posts: 870

Quote:

Originally Posted by MartinK1979

PLO can't be solved because human still making some mistakes...

once again Martin ignores all previous posts and sticks with his instincts

Quote

02-27-2017 , 06:50 PM

#50

Darkfangs

grinder

Join Date: May 2015 Posts: 540

Quote:

Originally Posted by tofurocks

once again Martin ignores all previous posts and sticks with his instincts

He had to waste a post for his big 3k post count, give him a break.

Quote

Page 2 of 3

First

1 2 3

Last

Post Reply Subscribe

...

Page 2 of 3

First

1 2 3

Last