Jump to content

Recommended Posts

checking out the latest 2+2 mag today, i noticed two articles with "game theory" in the title. if i recall correctly, card player has also had some recent articles on game theory.this post is a placeholder for me until i can read the articles and post my thoughts. please share your opinions as well. is Mr. Average 2+2er moving up to better games were they need to use game theory as opposed to ABC poker to win? or will game theory significantly increase your profits in micro limit poker?

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK. I've read the both 2+2 articles.One is worthless and one is quite interesting.Don't read this article. It is just a rehash of Theory of Poker's chapter on game theory. Just read TOP instead.The second article is more interesting and should clear up some fuzzy ideas about game theory. I look forward to future articles by this author (not just because he's a fellow economics graduate student).Now for my own thoughts: I'm finding game theoretic concepts help more in short-handed games than in ring games. Why? Short-handed play often involves heads up situations where both players miss the board. I use game theory as a guide to make sure I'm not folding too often or spewing needlessly. It also helps to figure out how to exploit the bad players. In ring games, most pots are contested multiway, and the decisions are usually detemined by weighing outs against the pot odds. In multiway pots, someone usually has a hand and show it down, so you don't have to worry as much about losing bets to habitual bluffers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good read... even though I couldn't help myself and had to click on the "don't read."I don't know much about game theory, only that it's widely misunderstood and it gets lumped into what meta-game theory really is all about.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The way I see it, game theory is a more useful concept in NLHE than in limit poker. Since you never have more than three options playing limit HE, it's hard for your opponents to zero in on exactly what you have just because you're playing predictably. Meanwhile, in NLHE, if you always jam with draws, or always slow-play a set, you're giving too much information to your opponents.Outside of making an occasional bluff on the turn and river to make sure your opponents pay you off, I don't see game theory being very useful at all playing limit hold 'em.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't see game theory being very useful at all playing limit hold 'em.
Except for every time you open from the CO or the Button and every time you defend your blind. etc.But you could be right that game theory is more useful in NL hold'em. I don't know since I haven't studied NL as much.BTW, if you read the second article I linked, you'll see that it's author agrees with your opinion that game theory isn't that useful in limit.
Link to post
Share on other sites
But you could be right that game theory is more useful in NL hold'em. I don't know since I haven't studied NL as much.
Generally speaking, yeah. People will make more "read-based" moves rooted in what they think you'll do.It's greater in NL, but in general you still don't need to deviate from a basic winning game against bad opponents.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Little unsure on how to apply most of this to my poker game. Since you said you used it primarily in SH limit he would you mind posting an example hand and how using game theory you arrived at conclusions?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Post Disclaimer: I am wholly ignorant of game theory outside of the chapter in TOP.Anyone else have a hunch that the benefits of game theory touted in poker are overrated? Andy Bloch is probably a better game theorist than I'll ever be, but from what I've seen (admittedly, limited to TV) of his poker game I'm not overly impressed. And he's not the only one... I honestly think you'd be better off studying psychology.Jeff

Link to post
Share on other sites

it is disturbing how many members of the limit (and micro) forums are past or present economics majors.i'm finishing my fourth year, and considering graduate studies. either that or tax :oops: and by disturbing, i actually mean interesting and telling, though i haven't figured out good explanations yet.danielEDIT: this is a placesaver - will come back to the articles in a bit

Link to post
Share on other sites
sure it could. see how?Nope.Because it's not the case.good luck.
ugh. did you read the post?was a joke. i thought it was pretty funny actually. though if you have to explain your jokes, they're probably not funny.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Zach6668

I can't believe all of the Econ majors here. I'm quite impressed. My school is fairly small (>7000 students), but we only have like 15 Econ majors in my year. I didn't think we were too popular...lol.Good to hear though.Zach

Link to post
Share on other sites
Post Disclaimer:  I am wholly ignorant of game theory outside of the chapter in TOP.Anyone else have a hunch that the benefits of game theory touted in poker are overrated?  Andy Bloch is probably a better game theorist than I'll ever be, but from what I've seen (admittedly, limited to TV) of his poker game I'm not overly impressed.  And he's not the only one... I honestly think you'd be better off studying psychology.Jeff
how about chris ferguson?
Link to post
Share on other sites
Post Disclaimer: I am wholly ignorant of game theory outside of the chapter in TOP.Anyone else have a hunch that the benefits of game theory touted in poker are overrated? Andy Bloch is probably a better game theorist than I'll ever be, but from what I've seen (admittedly, limited to TV) of his poker game I'm not overly impressed. And he's not the only one... I honestly think you'd be better off studying psychology.Jeff
how about chris ferguson?
that guy sucks too. i swear i never even see him at final tables. fish.umm sw
Link to post
Share on other sites
I can't believe all of the Econ majors here. I'm quite impressed. My school is fairly small (>7000 students), but we only have like 15 Econ majors in my year. I didn't think we were too popular...lol. Good to hear though. Zach
It isnt. It's just that we all gravitate towards poker because it's otherwise a worthless field of study. :wink:
Link to post
Share on other sites
how about chris ferguson?
I know Chris has a PhD in computer science, and I suppose he probably has studied game theory. I don't remember him touting it as much as Bloch, Matt Matros, etc though. Maybe he has and I missed it.I think what I was trying to say is that there is plenty of evidence that you don't have to be a game theory expert to succeed in the game, which isn't to say that it won't help (cuz frankly, I don't know). It's just that the game theory examples I've seen are predicated on a specifically "optimal" play, and I'm not sure such a beast exists outside of the fairly simplistic examples proffered.Then again, all that could just be my excuse to be lazy and not read any game theory books :)Anyone here have hands-on experience at a poker table where they have used game theory to their advantage? Jeff
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...