3 ms·

I am pretty sure you are trying to level people, nobody can misunderstand a simple concept to this extent.

• andrewprock 10y ago
  Not at all. Their strategy has almost no practical level in any existing poker game. They've come up with a solution to a variant of poker that no one actually plays. It's a great solution, and at that stack size, I'm sure it's better than nearly every human competitor. But until they solve all stack sizes down to one big blind, their strategy is practically incomplete.
  • poikniok 10y ago
    You do realize that the deeper the effective stacks are the harder the game is to solve? It is far easier to approach GTO the closer we get to push fold games, and thus your suggestion is akin to acknowledging that they have landed on the moon, but how about they climb this tree over here. If your username suggests you are who you are, this is a bit bizarre to me that an apparently intelligent engineering manager who has played poker before can be so woefully misinformed. If you want to learn more I suggest posting your thoughts on 2+2, they will gladly explain why your thesis makes no sense.
    • andrewprock 10y ago
      Yes, I am who I am, and I've done a little more than "play poker before". While it is true that solving a smaller stack size is cheaper, you have to solve many stack sizes from 1 to N to get good coverage across the space of all play. I've been following this work for over 15 years, and they certainly deserve credit for what they did. But what they have done falls short of the banner headline.