3 ms·

Actually this is not correct. The perfect unbeatable game theoretical model actually doesn't take into consideration the history of the other player. There's ma

by dejb 18y ago

Actually this is not correct. The perfect unbeatable game theoretical model actually doesn't take into consideration the history of the other player. There's maths and stuff by John Nash to prove this. The game theory perfect model will always play as if it is playing a perfect opponent. In way you could say that the mathematically perfect player is so on guard against tricks by an opponent that even after 20 consecutive raises by an opponent it still doesn't alter its strategy. Of course the strategy will not lose just because a player raises once and consequently it also won't lose to a player who raises all the time. However by doing this the algorithm will miss out on substantial chances to exploit an imperfect opponent's weaknesses (in this case being way too aggressive). As a poker pro there is a (small) chance this 'perfect' player wouldn't even beat the rake against fish. However it would not lose (on average) to the best player in the world (and would probably win). This might all seem to go against your intuition and experience as someone who is probably a really good poker player but it has been mathematically proven as part of game theory. Of course finding/creating this 'perfect' playing strategy is probably more complicated than 'solving' chess which most people believe to be impossible.

gizmo 18y ago
You're right. History doesn't matter and cannot possibly matter in a perfect game. After all, by using the same strategy for more than few hands the player gives information away unnecessarily. So in a perfect game people will switch tactics at any moment, which removes the history element altogether. So the reason why changing tactics every hand is ineffective in the real world is because people believe that the way you played hands before gives information about your play in the future: your table image. But you only work on your table image in the first place so you can exploit it later. When playing against a perfect opponent you won't sacrifice opportunity to maintain an image, because the opponent will always play in the same way (the opponent knows you can change tactics at any moment). However! The perfect strategy is still absolutely useless in a tournament and most other games. Because exploiting weakness and amassing chips is the objective for the first hours, and the perfect model is bad for that. Still, it's all fascinating. Appreciate your explanation.

by dejb 18y ago

gizmo 18y ago

You're right. History doesn't matter and cannot possibly matter in a perfect game. After all, by using the same strategy for more than few hands the player gives information away unnecessarily. So in a perfect game people will switch tactics at any moment, which removes the history element altogether. So the reason why changing tactics every hand is ineffective in the real world is because people believe that the way you played hands before gives information about your play in the future: your table image. But you only work on your table image in the first place so you can exploit it later. When playing against a perfect opponent you won't sacrifice opportunity to maintain an image, because the opponent will always play in the same way (the opponent knows you can change tactics at any moment). However! The perfect strategy is still absolutely useless in a tournament and most other games. Because exploiting weakness and amassing chips is the objective for the first hours, and the perfect model is bad for that. Still, it's all fascinating. Appreciate your explanation.