Quote:
Originally Posted by meale
In game theory, yes. In practicality, no.
It's a conflicting statement.
If theory holds true but doesn't happen in practice, it simply means that your execution is erred.
Quote:
Originally Posted by meale
The very best players are defined by winrate and not high stdv. e.g. you can have a higher stdv than another reg but have a lower winrate over a million hours.
Then you do not agree with the theory that best players have higher stdev.
Quote:
Originally Posted by meale
The reason is because maximising winrate in live poker does not require high variance plays in general because most opponents aren't playing optimally.
Well, it kind of does.
Take for example a table full of calling stations. What do you think is the best way to optimize WR in such scenario?
Quote:
Originally Posted by meale
An exploitative strategy will typically involve very little bluffing against a population who make way too many calling mistakes.
An exploitative strategy and one that maximize value are not the same. Certainly to max value, it has to be exploitative, but there are obviously different levels of exploitation.
To never or rarely bluff can be exploitative against majority of LLSNL population, but you are leaving a lot of value by rarely bluffing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by meale
Bluffing is probably the biggest contributor to a high stdv and when the best strategy involves rarely bluffing, this means the best strategy is a lower stdv approach.
See above.
FWIW, it's pretty easy to lose a ton of hands when making +EV decisions. 55/45 is +EV, and yet you are losing 45 out of 100 times.
Quote:
Originally Posted by meale
Ofc all this is completely dependent on the tendencies of our opponents. If we were in a game with perfect players, the correlatory stdv would be different to LLSNL in its current state.
Way too vague.