Unexploitable Vs Optimal Play

[jmbreslin 0]

Anyone have any good links to articles on this topic, or would anyone be willing to indulge me with a discussion here in this thread? I'm thinking about it primarily in the context of tourney play, specifically with shoving ranges. In another forum someone was talking about the shoving ranges recommended in Kill Everyone as being unexploitable, which led to a debate about whether they are truly unexploitable ranges (which I understand as being correct, regardless of your opponents) or optimal ranges (which I understand as being dependent on opponent tendencie- i.e, correct given certain assumptions).Help?

[looshle 6]

Anyone have any good links to articles on this topic, or would anyone be willing to indulge me with a discussion here in this thread? I'm thinking about it primarily in the context of tourney play, specifically with shoving ranges. In another forum someone was talking about the shoving ranges recommended in Kill Everyone as being unexploitable, which led to a debate about whether they are truly unexploitable ranges (which I understand as being correct, regardless of your opponents) or optimal ranges (which I understand as being dependent on opponent tendencie- i.e, correct given certain assumptions).Help?

It terms of open shoving they are pretty much the same thing. I will cut some of the bottom of myrange out, say from the button, if I feel the blinds are really good players who will call optimally. That doesn't really mean that shoving my entire standard shoving range isn't opimal in terms of chip EV, it's just so tiny vs really good players that it's not worth risking my stack.

[antistuff 0]

if my memory of kill phill is even vaguely correct what they present in that book is not (gt)optimal.

[jmbreslin 0]

My understanding is that the ranges are unexploitable, but not optimal. To turn them from unexploitable into optimal, you'd have to adjust them based on the calling ranges of your opponents. So as I understand it, the idea is that the shoving ranges are +ev regardless of opposition tendencies, but can be made even more +ev by tightening or widening the ranges in response to your opponents. Does this make sense, or am I misunderstanding the concepts?

[antistuff 0]

optimal in this context usually means the same thing as unexploitable, as in game theoretic optimal. this is because you can't (i dont think) prove you are playing in the most +ev exploitative way possible. a better way to say it would be you can have a chart of optimal ranges and then tweak it to your opponents tendencies to exploit mistakes they make in not playing optimally. i may be splitting hairs with the terminology here as i think you are saying the same thing as me, but i posted this anyway in case you aren't.

[Vtlaxer09 4]

sometimes i fold AJ-A2 from the small blind when the BB will call with a really loose range and I dont want him to suck out with KT vs. my A9 and stuff.

[jmbreslin 0]

sometimes i fold AJ-A2 from the small blind when the BB will call with a really loose range and I dont want him to suck out with KT vs. my A9 and stuff.

I can't tell if you're being serious or not.

[GWCGWC 83]

I can't tell if you're being serious or not.

His fold is unexploitable and the opposite of optimal and stuff.

[DinkDonk 1]

My understanding is that the ranges are unexploitable, but not optimal. To turn them from unexploitable into optimal, you'd have to adjust them based on the calling ranges of your opponents. So as I understand it, the idea is that the shoving ranges are +ev regardless of opposition tendencies, but can be made even more +ev by tightening or widening the ranges in response to your opponents. Does this make sense, or am I misunderstanding the concepts?

This is correct. Very well stated. Optimal means the most +EV decision possible at a given point. Unexploitable means that no matter what your opponents do, they can not make your decision -EV. Unexploitable play is generally only optimal if your opponent is also playing unexploitably.

[BaseJester 1]

Optimal means the most +EV decision possible at a given point.

In game theory, it doesn't mean that. It means that it cannot be exploited.I understand your meaning, but if unless you want to confuse the game theory people (or get their panties in a bunch), I'd suggest you use the word "best" instead.

[DinkDonk 1]

In game theory, it doesn't mean that. It means that it cannot be exploited.I understand your meaning, but if unless you want to confuse the game theory people (or get their panties in a bunch), I'd suggest you use the word "best" instead.

I understand your meaning as well, but no one terribly knowledgeable in game theory would have a problem with the way I stated it. Game theoretically optimal generally is used to describe an entire set of actions (i.e. having more bluffs in a flop-raising range than is GTO) , whereas optimal is usually used to describe a singular action in comparison to another action. What's more, I'd say that those who lazily use optimal to describe unexploitable actions in all senses (or the ones who's panties you fear for) are the ones who are bastardizing the word, not myself. I've seen players like Hoss, Terrence Chan, and others use this definition and so I can neither call it my own nor agree that "best" is a more apt definition.

[BaseJester 1]

I understand your meaning as well, but no one terribly knowledgeable in game theory would have a problem with the way I stated it. Game theoretically optimal generally is used to describe an entire set of actions (i.e. having more bluffs in a flop-raising range than is GTO) , whereas optimal is usually used to describe a singular action in comparison to another action. What's more, I'd say that those who lazily use optimal to describe unexploitable actions in all senses (or the ones who's panties you fear for) are the ones who are bastardizing the word, not myself. I've seen players like Hoss, Terrence Chan, and others use this definition and so I can neither call it my own nor agree that "best" is a more apt definition.

I guessed a shoving range was a whole strategy. Maybe I'm missing some context.I don't really know those guys, but googled Terrance Chan and saw that he cited Chen. So . . .

We can discuss Strategy pairs; that is, a combination of a strategy for the first player and a strategy for the second player. In a zero-sum game, a strategy pair is optimal if neither player can improve his expectation by unilaterally changing his strategy. A strategy for one player is optimal if it part of any optimal strategy pair.Imagine playing against a super-opponent. We call this super-opponent the nemesis. The nemesis always knows your strategy and always plays the maximally exploitive strategy against it. If you change strategy, the nemesis changes instantly to counter, always playing the strategy that maximally exploits yours. An optimal strategy is the strategy that has maximum EV against the nemesis [emphasis added]. Another way of stating this is:An optimal strategy pair consists of two strategies that maximally exploit each other. Please note that the term "optimal" in this context is carefully defined - many disciplines use this term, sometimes with varying definitions or meaning. We use the term only in the narrow sense given above and only in reference to strategies.

I think this means that the word "optimal" is reserved for references to an ideal opponent (the nemesis). Or I could be having a stupid day. [shrug]

[DinkDonk 1]

I guessed a shoving range was a whole strategy. Maybe I'm missing some context.I don't really know those guys, but googled Terrance Chan and saw that he cited Chen. So . . .I think this means that the word "optimal" is reserved for references to an ideal opponent (the nemesis). Or I could be having a stupid day. [shrug]

Optimal in this case is used in the discussion of strategy pairs (optimal strategy pairs are two separate strategies which can not be unilaterally improved). I actually remember this exact chapter in MOP. I didn't mean to assert that optimal was only used in the way that I did.It can be confusing because of how many different ways the word is used, but like I said, no one terribly knowledgeable in game theory would have a problem with the way I used it. It's really just important to know what context you're using or hearing it in and apply it as such.Oh and Hoss (Matt Hawrilenko) and Chan are both nosebleed HULHE players with strong ties to the writers of MOP.Also, FTR, I'm not a game theory expert by any means.Edit- I don't think you're being stupid; I've found the discussion interesting.