I was thinking the other day about the fact that if you use a broader sense of the word EV that goes beyond the chips that you are entitled to on the average of all possible deck orders (runouts, opponent hands in his range) and instead you define it as just "Chips you're entitled to on the average of all possible instances of a hidden variable", accidental exploiting becomes an absurd concept.

If we think about our opponents actual range as hidden information, then it's as absurd to think about accidentally getting exploited or accidentally exploiting him as it is absurd to think that calling a flush draw can accidentally be a mistake whenever it bricks or a masterful play whenever it hits.

If "who exploits who" is a coinflip, it's EV is 0.
If one player is more likely to exploit the other one, it's not accidental but a skill edge.

Playing better frequencies doesn't change the EV of accidental exploits, but the variance.

Effectively, EV=probability of an outcome occurring×"value" of that outcome occurring. In poker, this is considerably simplified compared to real life, because "value" is money (and measurable in currency). GTO EV is a simplification, compared to EV Vs an opponent whose strategy is not known.

Seen as your and villain's strategy are unknown to one another, the one whose strategy best counters the other's should have the highest EV. But I think it's still possible for accidental exploits. Say, if you have a specific exploit you use based on population tendencies, such as overfolding to a 3bet because population 3bets too tight a range. If you and villain are unknown to each other, and villain over 3bets even though population also overcall 3bets, will they not be accidentally exploiting you, because they aren't exploiting anyone on purpose?

I have to admit, overall, I'm not sure of exactly what the point you're trying to make is. I'm not doubting that there is a point, just that I'm not quite understanding it. I think especially when using population tendencies to exploit populations, it is possible to get accidentally exploited by players who play in a way which counters these exploits, even though these players don't understand how they're exploiting you, or even that they're exploiting you specifically.

However, when exploiting the pool, then yes, I'd say there are no accidental exploits (on average), but Vs individual players, there are.

By frequencies, do you mean like river bluffing/value betting frequencies?

You can get accidentally exploited by an individual player as much as you can accidentally make the wrong play when continuing with a draw that ends up bricking.

The point is just that whenever a variable is hidden it's pointless to think about the individual instance of that variable being the case.

It is pointless to say your play yields +5 chipEV 50% of time and -10 the other 50% (say depending on runout), your EV is -2.5.
By the same token, it is pointless to say your strategy exploits 80% of players by 5 chips and gets exploited by 20% of players by 7 chips. Your strategy exploits every unknown player by 3.6 chips EV.

By frequencies I mean hand freqs, that compound into range freqs. I'm ruling out misplaying individual combos.

It's not a groundbreaking point by any means. Just a change in perspective

It's perfectly valid to differentiate between intentional and unintentional exploits.

• If you intentionally adjust your strategy to exploit your opponent, that is an intentional exploit.
• If you play the same way regardless, and it just so happens that your leaks exploit villain's leaks (e.g. calling station exploiting maniac), that's an unintentional exploit.

Now sure you could reduce the entire player pool to one fixed strategy and just exploit that. However, that doesn't mean you won't be getting intentionally or unintentionally exploited, it just means that it works often enough overall to be whatever EV.

There's also no guarantee that the meta doesn't shift. MDA has a limited lifespan. That's why it's important to study how your exploits can be countered.

This point has nothing to do with MDA, since once you actively try to take a peek at your opponents range with any sort of data, it stops being "accidental".

The point is not that accidental exploits are not something that happens some of the time (I worder the title in that way to spark some emotion lol)
The point is that it provides no value to take them into account. As long as your opponents range is completely hidden from you, the EV (from your perspective, as EV is dependant on which variables you ignore) of "accidental exploits is always going to be 0, and therefor absurd to take into account in any meaningful way.
If the EV of accidental exploits was not 0 from your perspective, then getting exploited wouldn't be accidental, you would be making an EV mistake.

Even your example of the meta changing shows a skewed perspective in how EV should be viewed, in my opinion.
If you're not conciously adjusting to new metas, it is just as likely that the meta changes in a way that exploits you as it is that it changes in a way that you exploit even more. Therefor the EV of "accidental exploits" is still 0, as long as you don't have information about that meta's ranges.

To be clear, I'm not making any prescriptive claim about study or how you should approach the game besides "don't worry about accidental exploits", which I have always stood for anyway. The reason you should study and learn how your strategies could be countered is not accidental exploits, but concious ones.
Also, something being accidental or not accidental depends on what information you have at your disposal, you should always seek to have enough information about villains ranges so that you can make decisions that are better than accidental.

This is kind of confusing. What is your definition of accidental expolits?

EV of strategy is not dependent on perspective, approximation is but not real EV.

Yes, it is. EV is always an approximation because it depends on information you don't have, if you had all of the information it wouldn't be EV but an actual amount of chips that you will definitely win or lose.

If you were playing live poker and you knew the order of the cards due to marked cards, cheating... or took a peek at villains hand, your perspective itself would change the EV of your plays.

To the other player, the EV of both players would be completely different.

Probabilities themselves are based on perspective and what variables you ignore. In reality something will either happen or it wont (ignoring quantum physics at the particle level lol)

My point is that players are correctly applying the concept of probabilities and EV to hands and runouts, but not to other variables, like accidental exploits.

EDIT: My example could've even be more simple. Just from the fact that you know your hand and only villains range, the EV of both you and your opponent is different from each players perspective, even in perfect equilibrium.

When one player gets to see other player's hand ofc that changes ev because that's now different game.

The fact that player 1 would have wrong idea how much EV he is getting doesn't change his real EV obv. Which in this case will be very negative even tho he might thik EV of game is 0 for him.

I don't really see the point you're trying to make. Clearly intentional and unintentional exploits exist, and it's valid to differentiate the two. This is especially true in reg games and HU where you're not trying to "average down" the pool strategy.

To me, the term "accidental exploit" is just a way to differentiate how villain's natural playstyle might end up exploiting you vs specific adjustments they make against you. So bluffing too much into a station means they will unintentionally exploit you, whereas a shark might call down wider than they otherwise would as an intentional exploit. Differentiating these concepts is perfectly valid.

This is a false assumption. Just because you have no information about how the pool will adjust over time doesn't mean you can just assume the chances are 50/50 that your exploit will become better or worse. And even if they were, the upside/downside of most exploits is not even. I've talked about the "exploitability of exploits" before. It's possible that a 10% change in one strategic direction can lose significantly more than a 10% change in the other strategic direction gains. The risk/reward doesn't scale evenly.

I think you're trying too hard to justify that EV/probabilities are based on perspective by defining a bunch of auxiliary concepts when you could just make it easier.

I like anero's posts usually, but reminds me of a time I saw a druggists physics test in college. Instead of equations, he had a paragraph long answer. Teacher wrote "we need to talk" in red ink

I think you're trying too hard to justify that EV/probabilities are not based on perspective by defining a bunch of auxiliary concepts when you could just make it easier.

"[Bayesians] understand that the coin has landed. They understand it just like the frequentist understood it. They're just NOT INTERESTED in that. They are interested in their own perspective, from their own point of view, in their opinion it's 50%. The frequentist on the other hand cares very much about the true answer."

And now let's bring it back to accidental exploits. I understand it juts like you that at all times one player is exploiting the other. I'm just NOT INTERESTED in the involuntary exploits as long as I can't gather any information that tells me which one of the two is the exploitater and the exploited.
I of course care about expanding my own perspective in order to have my point of view EV be closer to the actual answer.

If you're a poker player and you're not a Bayesian, you have an incoherent worldview