[luke warm]

jtfanclub, on Jul 31 2007, 04:29 AM, said:

I don't know much about pattern theory, but I believe that it works on last hand pattern. ie., if he's been conservative the last few hands, bet that he stays conservative. If he's been free, bet he stays free. If he's been alternating, bet he keeps alternating. Yes, he'll catch you when he switches patterns, but he remains constant far more often than he switches, so you'll win more often than you lose.

does it seem fairly evident to you that if it was that simple you (or me) might find it more profitable to play poker than do whatever it is we're doing... now some people do just that, but none of the ones who do so have ever commented on the simplicity of the game... even mathmatical poker players like c. fergerson or d. sklanskey have said it's a complicated game

helene said:

I never understood why it's sometimes said that writing a computer program that could play at expert level is more difficult than the same task with chess. Either there's something fundamentaly wrong with my ideas about poker, or with my ideas about game theory, or else poker is a rather trivial thing from a game-theoretical point of view.

As I learned poker, it can basically be reduced to:
- both players draw a number from the uniform [0;1] distribution.
- the dealer choses to lose the ante or to raise to twice the ante.
- if the dealer raises, the non-dealer choses to lose the ante or to raise to twice the ante. In the latter case, the one with the highest number wins.

because in chess, making certain moves at certain times leads to loss *every* time... the same isn't necessarily true about poker... it's possible to 'bluff' in chess, but nowhere near the same degree... if you get called in chess, you'll lose... in poker, you might win

Quote

Note my earlier comments about trying to exploit suboptimal play by your opponents (and the complexities involved).

yes, but my point is that suboptimal play at poker is not as easily quantified as subotimal play at chess (for example)... last night on 'high stakes poker' the UTG player opened for $10,000 (the blinds were, i think, $2,000 and $4,000)... he had a suck hand, i think it was a 9/4 offsuit, and was just fooling around... everybody folded to the button, who made it $30,000... the blinds folded and the UTG player raised all-in... the button had AK... what would you have done? what's the "optimal" thing to do? how do you know that?

as far as tight vs. loose, all the big money players are tight and loose depending on several factors, changing tempo based on their own criteria

[hrothgar]

luke warm, on Jul 31 2007, 08:20 PM, said:

yes, but my point is that suboptimal play at poker is not as easily quantified as subotimal play at chess (for example)... last night on 'high stakes poker' the UTG player opened for $10,000 (the blinds were, i think, $2,000 and $4,000)... he had a suck hand, i think it was a 9/4 offsuit, and was just fooling around... everybody folded to the button, who made it $30,000... the blinds folded and the UTG player raised all-in... the button had AK... what would you have done? what's the "optimal" thing to do? how do you know that?

I have no idea what "optimal" play is in this situation. I don't play Hold'Em. I don't watch Hold'Em. I haven' done an exhaustive search to look for game theoretic solutions to Hold'Em. As I noted earlier, its not even clear whether traditional concepts from game theory can necessarily be applied to a real world example like this one.

My comments have been directed towards a fairly specific set of propositions:

1. Texas Hold'Em is not a particularly complicated game to analyze. This proposition is based on the rules set to the game.

2. If Texas Hold'Em has not been solved, the problems are (probably) related to the size of the linear programming problem involved.

Since making my original posts, I found a couple interesting academic articles which back up my intuition. In particular, you might want to look at

http://www.cs.cmu.ed...exas.aaai06.pdf

This paper preserves the same distinction between game theory type approaches and opponent modelling. It also addresses issues related to the size of the linear programming problem. (From the sounds of it, they still haven't managed to munge the large matrixes)

I think that this discussion is boiling down to a difference in nomenclature between folks with an academic interest in the problem and those whose primary concern is winning at the table.

[jtfanclub]

luke warm, on Jul 31 2007, 12:20 PM, said:

does it seem fairly evident to you that if it was that simple you (or me) might find it more profitable to play poker than do whatever it is we're doing... now some people do just that, but none of the ones who do so have ever commented on the simplicity of the game... even mathmatical poker players like c. fergerson or d. sklanskey have said it's a complicated game

Quote

does it seem fairly evident to you that if it was that simple you (or me) might find it more profitable to play poker than do whatever it is we're doing...

Well, running the 100 meter dash is pretty simple too....

If I had the brains and the endurance for it, yes, I believe that if I spent a couple of years reading books and playing Hold 'em on the Internet as a full time job, and it didn't drive me insane, I could be as good as the 100 or so people who have done it and have the aptitude for it. Which I guess would give me the same 1% chance of winning that they have. People have certainly done this, and I don't think they're savants, so I guess I don't think I'm going out on a limb by saying that. Of course, I probably don't have the endurance or the brains, so I'd be wasting my time and money.

[luke warm]

hrothgar, on Jul 31 2007, 12:40 PM, said:

I think that this discussion is boiling down to a difference in nomenclature between folks with an academic interest in the problem and those whose primary concern is winning at the table.

i think that sums it up nicely... the link you provided is well over my head, but i did try to read it