1 There is a generic unexploitable game style vs. the sum of all players which can be calculated but is useless because there will constantly be adjustments from other players vs. you and you vs. others. So this "play 22/18/2,5" and have this predetermined ranges and frequencies always is not a solution and can even be -EV way to play.

2 Because of this the "solution" is actually a function of other players involved, which should also incorporate shifts in their tendencies as they adjust to your game.

So this ideal play for the ever changing solution equilibrium can be theoretically calculated and is more or less only a mathematical problem. Practically:

- It is impossible since we don't have the hardware required, and no geniuses to derive the end solution around the brute force computer approach.

- Even if you could calculate/derive it, it is still not so usefull vs. a human opponent since the solution would be a perfect non-exploitable game for every single moment in the game where as a slightly exploitable solution could be much more +EV, because no human will detect the flaw in your game.

- It would still be only a math solution but you could incorporate psychology in it by analyzing opponents play and general tendencies of all poker players when they were faced with all the possible situations (which is still THEORETICALLY possible if you are willing to round some stuff, the pure solution would be unattainable though brute force approach though)


So only an infinitely powerful computer can completely solve the game.

Insanity, cockyness, misinformation and easy money are taking over this great game and it is sad.
A few necessary considerations regarding the ultra-stretch of math in Poker (especially in NL).
- POKER IS A GAME OF LIMITED INFORMATION
No math formula is ever going to tell you any solution when an equation is incomplete, unless you want to settle for mere probabilities or ranges (and go broke or not be able to count on it for a living).
- THE "HUMAN FACTOR"
You are playing against people and their emotions or finances will play a big enough factor to destroy any possible bare-math analysis.
- POT SIZE and POT ODDS
The importance of Pot Size is not regarded enough (playing with a "formula" regardless of the pot size related to your roll is crucial) while Pot Odds are stretched to insanity making you take decisions which are plain wrong.
- DARWIN
As per the evolution theory, players will adapt to unrelented aggression and math and figure how to beat it.

In conclusion, I believe that the new generation of players have been succesful only because of the huge amount of money brought to the game by people who are now broke and by the fact that they have ben playing an enormous amount of hands being staked by endorsements. Once their celebrity-status will wear out they will find theirselves at the 1-2 tables grinding a few bucks to enter a$100 tourney (I've seen quite a few already).
I am so tired of people arguing about percentages and suckouts... But I want them in the game

maybe tom dwan knows something we dont

Nah...
Just a lot of money (bullets) at disposal and media-established image.
In fact he doesn't even attempt to be a regular in the circuits. If he starts with the same amount of chips and no chance of reload, he'll fall back in the average. That is why tournaments are coming back as the real instrument to judge a player (even with the chance playing a bigger role than in cash games).

I'm going to disect your argument bit by bit.

cool story, bro

Well, whilst this may be true, I find it more likely to be untrue. Saying such a statement like this to which you don't know the truth is stepping into the unknown- not most true mathematician's styles. Most mathematicians do not try to compare themselves to others because they do not deem necessary. When someone says "I am way better than you" at something often suggests that this is not the case because if it were true, they would not want that person to feel bad without some sort of motive. Saying "I am better than you at math" is a suspect statement at best, because it is hard to quantify how "good" someone is at math. Is it because you have more knowledge than me? That might not mean you are "better" than me. Two different things.
Moreover, if you were "better" than me at math, well...most mathematicians I have met tend to be modest. Don't just blurt out "I am better than you", but the best mathematicians can teach well, and so try to help that person, not demean them.


Well, I don't "know" you. A lot of people are "like" you in the sense that they like to argue, but then this is a forum.
Whether or not you are good at maths than me is a completely radically different statement to "people like me".

Please, I like to be proven wrong. This is how I learn.

This only puts further doubt in my mind that you are a "mathematician" of any sort. I have respect for people who try and help me, not people who try and put me in my place when they don't know me.

Well, FLT play's a fundemental role in number theory, yes. But if anything, it contributes to one's understanding of Beal's conjecture, which I'm sure you're aware is important to money-hungry mathematicians.

You're kind of right, but I think math is far more important than you think it is.
There are a huge number of aspects of math, and many really can be applied to our every day lives. Admittedly, most of these arrise in physics and the natural sciences, but that is to be expected. Differential equations and stats also are the basis for stock broking, population modelling (so that there's no overpopulation etc), and even in food (growth).

Almost certainly, there are areas of math which we can apply, but simply do not know what to apply them to yet. This can only be dealt by luck of discovery, or by some revolution. Who knows.

Yeah ok.

Ummm, maybe it is. I, for one, think solving Physics is more important.
The only consequences I know of the RH is cracking credit cards and stuff online and disrupting the banks and electronics in general I guess. But if you really think that's important compared to the truth behind our universe, and what we can achieve if we know the truth, then you go ahead and think that.

Well, that's true for some aspects of math, but Mathematical Physicians, for example, can test their hypotheses in real life using ideas from abstract algebra.

And by "theories", I think you meant "theorems" there. A theory is an unsolved theorem. And people who are able to make new theorems are incredibly clever people. I thought I made a new theorem last year in number theory, but it turned out that that theorem has been covered by a much larger, more significant one, that had actually only been solved a few years ago! There are thousands of mathematical theorems. If someone finds a new one (not a corollary or whatever), then that's amazing if you ask me.

If I really said that, then that came out wrong. It's not the most important thing in math, quite obviously. However, it would be nice to find a full solution (or set of solutions) that accurately model the fastest route (either per person or for everyone) either from A to B or for the most efficient way everyone can travel together.

Why is it dead, if I'm learning it at university?
Or rather, why am I learning it at university if it's dead?

Ha! Solving Physics, or more formally "Axiomatize all of Physics" is one of Hilbert's problems for the 20th Century. But there is of course debate as to whether this is even possible. But it probably is.

Please don't patronize someone you don't know.

I don't remember saying that, but if I did I apologize. Didn't mean to offend you or anything. Boring? Why is it boring? I'd say it's pretty exciting trying to optimalize paths and model flow. I find it's like playing God with cars, to try to get them as quickly as possible to their destination. But I don't know much about it so I might be wrong I guess.

And of course I find maths beautiful, that's why I'm studying it.

And you seem to assume a lot about me, without asking any questions. You're just trying to demean me by the sounds of it...you don't sound like much of a mathematician to me. Most mathematicians wouldn't argue the way you have. But then again I only know a few mathematicians, so maybe I'm wrong

Such a silly argument, everybody plays different even if they are playing a similar style.

I'd be happy to have a truce over this. No need imo to keep badgering each other.

The reason I keep responding is first of all because your attitudes remind me a lot of myself when I was an undergraduate; and second of all because you sound fairly motivated, and I am always happy to try and work with/teach a motivated math/physics student however I can.

I apologize if I demeaned or insulted you. My intention was to try and get your attention because I did not think you were giving my arguments sufficient consideration.

As for fluid mechanics being dead, well let's think about a subject like nuclear physics. Nuclear physics is even more dead than fluid mechanics, but they still have undergraduate courses on it! A subject being "dead" means that there is not cutting edge research being done on the subject, and that there is a consensus that there is not much left to discover. So for nuclear physics, once you learn about quarks and the strong and weak force, the interesting area's of research are in high energy particle theory/experiment. For fluid mechanics, there is actually still interesting cutting edge research being done, but it's highly specialized.

I think you will find that the more disconnected a subject in math is from physics or the real world, that the more personality problems the people who professionally study that subject have! It's just a sad fact that lots of brilliant mathematicians have strange personalities, many physicists do too. I have found that the most down to earth people are the biologists and experimental physicists, and the most bizarre people are the pure theoreticians and mathematicians. It's certainly not unusual for a brilliant mathematician to have a huge ego, and to go around doing things like talk down to students etc... actually, there is a tradition in physics of mentors being extremely strict and very very rude to their students, simply as a way of getting the best out of them. One famous example is L.D. Landau. If you haven't gotten into Landau yet, then you should! He litterally wrote the book on every subject in theoretical physics, he approaches every subject in a very deep and fundamental way, and his proofs are often rigorous and beautiful. For the record, I own and have read multiple times every volume of landau except numbers 8 and 10.

As for the subject of mathematical theories. There is a large difference between a "theory" and a "theorem". A theory contains within it many theorems. For example, the subject of differential equations is a theory, which contains many theorems (such as existence and uniqueness, for example).

As for "solving physics". I don't want to get into semantics, but even if you axiomatized physics, this wouldn't solve all of physics. There would still be plenty of problems left to solve involving, for example, systems with large numbers of particles. Obviously it would be nice to know the truly fundamental laws of nature, and there would be lots of applications. Part of the problem for me is that I got really really turned off by string theory. High energy physics is a subject with a lot of ego, a lot of conjecture, and very little reference to experiment. "Solving physics" therefore means different things to different people, depending on what branch of high energy physics they like the most.