Posted Mon Nov 06, 2006 1:13 pm GMT by lwestatbus
This post is actually the text of my reply to a pretty old post I stumbled across in the Poker Literature Forum. I'm taking the liberty of reposting it here as a new post because I think it is interesting and I'd be interested in comments. (Based on the dates of the Lit Forum posts I don't think it gets a lot of traffic.)
The original thread can be found here: http://www.texasholdem-poker.com/forum/t16331/game-theory#160510
The text of my reply is:
| lwestatbus wrote: | I've had just enough exposure to game theory to be dangerous to myself and to others. This is really doctoral-level economics stuff (where I covered it) and there is a problem with applying it to poker.
Game theory casts different situations where participants in a 'game' (or situation) make a sequence of decisions. It uses the payoff structure for different outcomes of the decisions and the nature of the game (one-time vs repeated, etc.) to attempt to select an optimum course of action (sequence of decisions) based on the circumstances. So far so good in its applicability to poker.
The problem (in my opinion) is that in some (most?) 'games', you have the incentive to take suboptimal action since the optimal action is predictable to your opponent who can then take his optimal action based on your optimal action. Except that your opponent can also realize the dilemma you are in and your incentive to take sub optimal action and adjust accordingly. But you also realize this and so should then take the original optimal action.....
I believe that the whole thing boils down to a rock-paper-scissors (Rochambeau) game where you just flat have to guess. And, in poker, everything from slow playing to mixing up your game to bluffing are strategies designed to disguise the true nature of the world (your hand) from your opponent and to interfere both with his decision making and, most importantly, with his confidence in his decisions.
I would guess that understanding game theory helps to cast the situations you encounter in poker into a familiar context but doesn't really help you with your decisions unless your opponent is unbelievably predictable. But it is probably better to study the application of these techniques directly in their poker context rather than going out and studying game theory.
A final for what it's worth: I actually find that attitudes and strategies I learned in other aspects of my life are much more applicable to poker than game theory. My experience with strategy as an Infantry company commander along the Fulda river, facing a Soviet Guards Tank Army, are very applicable to multi-table tournaments. My study of guerrilla warfare has a lot of bearing on the conduct of a single table game, whether ring or SnG. And my college fencing background is particularly applicable to heads up play. But I don't recommend that anyone go out and join the Marines or buy a sword so they can play better poker.
|
Did you know that participating in a poker forum can help you improve your own game? Be it by sharing experiences or simply asking for help, participation in a forum helps you focus and keep 'on topic' which will help you improve your game. You can learn from other players feedback and from their experiences. Why the THP poker forums? We offer one of the best managed texas holdem poker forums available, and the community within is far more friendly than those typicaly found on other sites. We've made a 'lurkers edition' of the poker forum available here on Holdem Poker Online, but we encourage all visitors to register and join in on the conversations on TexasHoldem-Poker.com
Posted Mon Nov 06, 2006 2:15 pm GMT by khaosanroad
Does he know that I know that he knows that I know what he knows.
Posted Mon Nov 06, 2006 2:34 pm GMT by lwestatbus
| khaosanroad wrote: | | Does he know that I know that he knows that I know what he knows. |
I wish I didn't know now what I didn't know then.
Posted Mon Nov 06, 2006 10:03 pm GMT by xDiamond_CutteRx
But wisest is he who knows he does not know.
Posted Tue Nov 07, 2006 1:56 pm GMT by snoogins47
I'm gonna spend some time on a lengthy reply to this, but that'll probably have to wait until this evening, when I get back to my apartment. Also note that as opposed to having exposure to Game Theory in a post-graduate program, I have about one semester of state college under my belt. Also, I'm not necessarily talking to anybody in particular.. so lwest, if I say something painfully obvious, I'm not trying to inform you, I'm just trying to have it all out there for everybody/myself.
However, the thing that jumps out at me instantly: a game-theoretically optimum strategy isn't going to be affected by predictability... it's unexploitable. Predictability also is kind of a weird thing to be worried about, when the optimum strategy is going to be a mixed strategy that actually hinges on randomness.
I think the real problem of attempting to play Nash optimal poker (I'm coining the term Nash-optimal, if it hasn't been used before.) is quite simply that there is never (or at least, very close to never) the strategy that is going to win you the most money. For the most part, we're much better off exploiting our opponents than trying to avoid exploitation.
The psychological guessing-game thing is fun though, and pretty spot on. What really shocks me is that people think that extrapolating out to 12 levels of thinking actually helps them. They don't realize that it's almost akin to eeny-meeny-miney-moe... it's just silly. Did I happen to settle at an even 'level' or an odd one?
Usually when I see people talking about life 'up there' I just mutter something about fighting land wars in Asia.
Posted Tue Nov 07, 2006 3:25 pm GMT by UrAteUp
lwest...an enjoyable read. I know you have learned more now then you knew then.
As far as theory goes...I once read...
| Quote: | For the most part, we're much better off exploiting our opponents than trying to avoid exploitation.
|
(Note I did not say a wise man once told me...Snoo is neither wise nor old.)
This to me is the best theory and strategy there is.
Posted Tue Nov 07, 2006 3:47 pm GMT by khaosanroad
| snoogins47 wrote: | For the most part, we're much better off exploiting our opponents than trying to avoid exploitation.
|
Such a great quote and great philosophy about poker.
Posted Tue Nov 07, 2006 4:43 pm GMT by tame_deuces
Basically it gets interesting in poker:
1.) The less tendencies there are to exploit (to borrow the above terms).
2.) The less time you have for discovering tendencies to exploit.
An example of number 1 could be in shortstacked poker situations where the amount of choices are narrowed down so much that game theory gets interesting when the competition get stiffer.
An example of number 2 could be when multiplaying alot of tables. I have always noted a tendency for online multitablers of the biggest stakes to be somewhat casual with overbetting semi-bluffs and sets, which at some level probably comes close to being an 'optimal' playing style which is hard to counter.
|
|
