4 ms·

It seems there's a lot of deception around how to play poker, so this is the real meta-game of poker: convincing others to play poker badly! (cue the often use

It seems there's a lot of deception around how to play poker, so this is the real meta-game of poker: convincing others to play poker badly! (cue the often useless, recursive aspects of pop-culture game theory)

auspex 6y ago
Actually the entire point of poker is to make your opponent make a mistake or play poorly. A mistake being if you had perfect information a move you would not make. Clarification: If you played with cards face up no one would ever make a mistake. You could calculate the odds and the math would be perfect. The goal of poker is to make an opponent make a mathematically incorrect play.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- st1x7 6y ago
  This isn't quite correct although that's how poker was taught in the 90s. The goal of the top players these days is to play as close as possible to optimal poker (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nash_equilibrium https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nash_equilibrium) and not worry about the individual hand their opponent might have in a given moment.
  - milesvp 6y ago
    This is only true when playing with others attempting to play optimally. If you only play optimal poker it may be difficult to take advantage of sub optimal players without modifying play. A simple example is a rock paper scissors tournament. The nash equilibrium says you must always simply pick each with 1/3 chance. But if you play this you are almost gauranteed to finish in the middle of the pack. The winner is going to be someone who can take advantage of other players. There used to be a rps AI tournament years ago (UofAlberta I think), and this is why they wouldn’t take submissions that only played nash equilibrium play. But you are right, in that usually the first step in getting good at poker is to simply play the strength of your cards based on your position. And this becomes more amd more important the higher the stakes since players tend to be better there.
    - st1x7 6y ago
      > This is only true when playing with others attempting to play optimally. It's also true against someone who is playing an exploitative strategy.
im3w1l 6y ago
I don't think this is true. It's a better strategy to keep bad players in the game by giving them real advice. To ensure they grow and have fun. But not so much advice that they surpass you. That's their own responsibility to seek out.
- jack_pp 6y ago
  When those bad players stop playing badly the games die. It is super boring to play live poker with players that don't make mistakes. I know from experience
  - im3w1l 6y ago
    If people are just folding and folding maybe try playing shorthanded? Then optimal play is much more aggressive and fun.
    - jack_pp 6y ago
      Nope, even heads-up is boring live with people that play well because you are wasting more time shuffling than playing. Even on-line heads-up challenges are played on 2 tables in order to not be boring and that is 500-600+ hands per hour

auspex 6y ago

Actually the entire point of poker is to make your opponent make a mistake or play poorly. A mistake being if you had perfect information a move you would not make. Clarification: If you played with cards face up no one would ever make a mistake. You could calculate the odds and the math would be perfect. The goal of poker is to make an opponent make a mathematically incorrect play.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
st1x7 6y ago
This isn't quite correct although that's how poker was taught in the 90s. The goal of the top players these days is to play as close as possible to optimal poker (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nash_equilibrium https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nash_equilibrium) and not worry about the individual hand their opponent might have in a given moment.
- milesvp 6y ago
  This is only true when playing with others attempting to play optimally. If you only play optimal poker it may be difficult to take advantage of sub optimal players without modifying play. A simple example is a rock paper scissors tournament. The nash equilibrium says you must always simply pick each with 1/3 chance. But if you play this you are almost gauranteed to finish in the middle of the pack. The winner is going to be someone who can take advantage of other players. There used to be a rps AI tournament years ago (UofAlberta I think), and this is why they wouldn’t take submissions that only played nash equilibrium play. But you are right, in that usually the first step in getting good at poker is to simply play the strength of your cards based on your position. And this becomes more amd more important the higher the stakes since players tend to be better there.
  - st1x7 6y ago
    > This is only true when playing with others attempting to play optimally. It's also true against someone who is playing an exploitative strategy.

im3w1l 6y ago

I don't think this is true. It's a better strategy to keep bad players in the game by giving them real advice. To ensure they grow and have fun. But not so much advice that they surpass you. That's their own responsibility to seek out.

jack_pp 6y ago
When those bad players stop playing badly the games die. It is super boring to play live poker with players that don't make mistakes. I know from experience
- im3w1l 6y ago
  If people are just folding and folding maybe try playing shorthanded? Then optimal play is much more aggressive and fun.
  - jack_pp 6y ago
    Nope, even heads-up is boring live with people that play well because you are wasting more time shuffling than playing. Even on-line heads-up challenges are played on 2 tables in order to not be boring and that is 500-600+ hands per hour