Two Plus Two Publishing LLC Two Plus Two Publishing LLC
 

Go Back   Two Plus Two Poker Forums > >

Notices

Poker Theory General poker theory

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-09-2013, 01:31 PM   #76
yaqh
Pooh-Bah
 
yaqh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: mountain view
Posts: 5,745
Re: Theory terminology

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cangurino View Post
However you seem to suggest that this does not hold for equilibrium strategies in multiplayer games. A few strong players appear to disagree with that.
As long as we're talking about terminology, it bothers me when people use "multiplayer" to specify 3+ player games. Isn't a two-player game also multiplayer?
yaqh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2013, 01:33 PM   #77
Cangurino
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Cangurino's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The Circus
Posts: 13,478
Re: Theory terminology

Three is a crowd
Cangurino is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2013, 01:39 PM   #78
yaqh
Pooh-Bah
 
yaqh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: mountain view
Posts: 5,745
Re: Theory terminology

boom, crowdplayer games it is! add it to OP!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cangurino View Post
I think that this is a smart choice. (Nash) equilibrium and (maximally) exploitive cover all the optima we're interested in and make clear which one we mean, whereas in Jerrod's post, options 1 through 3 can be reasonably called "optimal".
Yea, I mean I like Jerrod/MoP's use of 'optimal' from an aesthetic perspective. I just think it's an unfortunate fact of life that if you're addressing a wide audience of poker players, there are inevitably going to be people who are confused by it. (And who start long, derailing arguments on forums because of this confusion.)

So, if your goal is clear communication to an audience of laypeople, it's probably best to just pre-emptively avoid the issue.
yaqh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2013, 11:13 PM   #79
gedanken
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
gedanken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: <--clowns, jokers-->
Posts: 6,283
Re: Theory terminology

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerrod Ankenman View Post
I now prefer the following terminology:

#1 and #3 are "maximally exploitive" strategies.
#2 are "optimal" strategies.
#4 are "Nash equilibrium" strategies.

Thanks, I think that post clears up a lot. I like the way you are using the terms, which seems to square with the literature going back decades. I honestly don't get why people are so thrown by the word "optimal", but I think there's more worry about confusion than actual confusion. (and all the same, I think the acronym "GTO" works quite well to head off any problems)

for "exploitive" and you and Bill Chen for your work in poker!
gedanken is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2013, 09:13 AM   #80
Jerrod Ankenman
grinder
 
Jerrod Ankenman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Avon, CT
Posts: 679
Re: Theory terminology

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cangurino View Post
However you seem to suggest that this does not hold for equilibrium strategies in multiplayer games. A few strong players appear to disagree with that.
My suggestion in multiplayer games is still to play defensively, but just to be cautious with the results of analysis and not to depend on equilibrium strategies to necessarily be strong.

For example, if you have a decent approximation to optimal in a headsup game, you can basically just blithely play it against anyone, because the guarantees are so strong about how bad things could be against you. But I don't think this is true of an multiplayer equilibrium strategy; also I think this problem can be exacerbated when you have special knowledge unavailable to your opponents that leads you to the NE strategy.

For example, consider lategame NL SNGs. Suppose that the population of these is like nearly 100% people who are using software to calculate some approximation to a NE. Then probably playing the NE along with them is quite right.

Now suppose that it's earlier in time when software wasn't available or whatever. Suppose the NE includes a bunch of looser-than-anyone-expected overcalling along with loosish calling. (I'm just making this up, any resemblance to reality is coincidental). Now if everyone plays a more standard tighter strategy, you'll benefit in small chunks from their tightness, but get hurt badly when you overcall with much weaker hands. In a sense they are implicitly colluding against you without even trying.

I think this kind of stuff happens often in practice in multiway games, especially those games where analysis hasn't mostly converged the basic strategy. So I like to draw a distinction between the strong guarantees of HU strategies and the weaker ones of NE. None of this is to say that the strategies themselves will necessarily be weak. They will often in fact be quite strong.
Jerrod Ankenman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2013, 09:51 AM   #81
pasita
adept
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,100
Re: Theory terminology

Quote:
For example, consider lategame NL SNGs.
It's easy (I guess?) to come up with these scenarios in tourney settings, and yes, you can come up with cash scenarios also. The cash examples I've seen tend to be pretty much tailored to illustrate the possibility, such as the KKKKvsAAAAvs 4 to straight flush in MoP.

Are there any realistic, everyday, real poker like (toy game) examples out there that show the problems of NE strategies?
pasita is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2013, 10:54 AM   #82
Cangurino
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Cangurino's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The Circus
Posts: 13,478
Re: Theory terminology

A better (and realistic) example would be pushing at the bubble; NE would be to push very wide, and call very tight. If they make loose calls they hurt both themselves and us, so even without collusion we lose by playing NE.
Cangurino is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-22-2014, 04:51 PM   #83
Bob148
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: takin it to the streets
Posts: 8,949
Re: Theory terminology

I'd like to propose some definitions:

wet board or dynamic board: a board which allows the player who is facing a bet to call at a rate higher than that which would cause indifference.

dry board or static board: a board which allows the player who is facing a bet to fold at a rate higher than that which would cause indifference.
Bob148 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-22-2014, 06:00 PM   #84
Jerrod Ankenman
grinder
 
Jerrod Ankenman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Avon, CT
Posts: 679
Re: Theory terminology

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob148 View Post
I'd like to propose some definitions:

wet board or dynamic board: a board which allows the player who is facing a bet to call at a rate higher than that which would cause indifference.

dry board or static board: a board which allows the player who is facing a bet to fold at a rate higher than that which would cause indifference.
Indifference to what? Call with what? What does "allows" mean here?

Maybe a definition of these terms can be made, but more precision is needed for sure.
Jerrod Ankenman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-22-2014, 10:46 PM   #85
Bob148
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: takin it to the streets
Posts: 8,949
Re: Theory terminology

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerrod Ankenman View Post
Indifference to what? Call with what? What does "allows" mean here?

Maybe a definition of these terms can be made, but more precision is needed for sure.
I agree that more precision is needed. Any refinements are welcome, of course. I'll try:

wet board or dynamic board: a board that dictates that the player facing a bet or raise will call or raise at a rate higher than that which would cause the opponent to be indifferent to bluffing on a particular street.

dry board or static board: a board that dictates that the player facing a bet or raise will fold at a rate higher than that which would cause the opponent to be indifferent to bluffing on a particular street.
Bob148 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-22-2014, 11:11 PM   #86
yaqh
Pooh-Bah
 
yaqh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: mountain view
Posts: 5,745
Re: Theory terminology

Don't conflate wet with dynamic/volatile and don't conflate static with dry.

Also this might not be the right thread for random musings.
yaqh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-29-2017, 02:13 PM   #87
leavesofliberty
self-banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: probably busto
Posts: 6,146
Re: Theory terminology

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cangurino View Post
A better (and realistic) example would be pushing at the bubble; NE would be to push very wide, and call very tight. If they make loose calls they hurt both themselves and us, so even without collusion we lose by playing NE.
You may be able to find a nash equilibrium that uses collusion in the case. For example, there's a strategy that everyone folds to the big blind, unless someone deviates from that strategy, then everyone else colludes against the person deviating from this strategy. This continues until someone from another table bubbles. This is, correct me if I'm wrong, NE among equal stack sizes because there's no incentive to break the strategy, and they have gained by not being bubbled.

NE in multi-player games frequently use collusion. I'm currently on this chapter in an online class.

Oh, just looked, this is several years old.
leavesofliberty is offline   Reply With Quote

Reply
      

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:12 PM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2008-2017, Two Plus Two Interactive
 
 
Poker Players - Streaming Live Online