Yohans observations

    • YohanN7
      YohanN7
      Bronze
      Joined: 15.06.2009 Posts: 4,086
      So, I have a whinery, and I have a brag factory. This is a very polarized range of blogs. In the interest of balancing, I need a blog to (pretend to) present neutral thoughts as well. (The other ones reflect my personality better :D .)

      Observation of today: There really is a (at least one) GTO strategy for each and every form of poker.

      Another observation: I have gone to Nash himself to get the real statements and proofs. The OP is wonderful. There is nothing like original sources. I have skimmed the prof only so far. An interesting technicality is that the proof seems break down if the domain of the functions that are involved in what constitute "strategies" is not compact. Unless you are a total math nerd, you aren't going to have a clue here about what I mean. Thus: If the stacks (and allowed bet sizes) of the participating players include the very last chip, then the proof holds. It may break down if allowed bets B are in the range 0<B<stack excluding endpoints, while every real number in between is allowed. This is a technicality, and the theorem may still be true, but harder to prove. [Simplical Complexes and the Brouwer Fixed Point Theorem are involved, as are compact convex subsets. Most theorems in this area need compactness for their simplest proofs, and Browers theorem isn't true without the compactness hypothesis.] I may be wrong, particularly since I have skimmed only.

      So much for a "normal" blog, huh? ?(

      /Johan = :f_confused:
  • 9 replies
    • metza
      metza
      Bronze
      Joined: 28.01.2012 Posts: 2,220
      I don't know much about this sort of thing but want to. :f_biggrin:

      On a related note, are you doing/know about the Coursera Game Theory course online? I think its run by Stanford and should be quite interesting. Starts in a month or so I think.
    • YohanN7
      YohanN7
      Bronze
      Joined: 15.06.2009 Posts: 4,086
      Hi metza! No, I didn't know about Coursera Game Theory course online. From what I can see on the web page, it is probably as good as it gets online.

      It may depend on how much math knowledge you have at the outset. The prerequisites (probability theory, undergraduate level calculus) seem modest, and are certainly less than what is required for understanding Nash's approach in his paper. For that you need general topology, somewhat advanced vector space theory, together with some general theorems.

      I suggest that you get the Nash paper. It's more or less legally freely available. Then you would know where you stand.

      /Johan = :f_confused:
    • YohanN7
      YohanN7
      Bronze
      Joined: 15.06.2009 Posts: 4,086
      The beginners strategy over at Tradimo is kind of fun. You sit there and observe the market going up(down) hoping that something terrible happens so that it changes to go down(up) passing a point where you know that those speculating in the market going up(down) will panic and sell(buy) to cut their losses pushing it further down(up). Quite exploitative. But boring. By definition, trading opportunities will be sparse since you are in reality waiting for down(up)ward movement in up(down)ward moving market.

      /Johan = :f_confused:
    • YohanN7
      YohanN7
      Bronze
      Joined: 15.06.2009 Posts: 4,086
      A couple of time varying lists to follow:

      The most awful games of poker
      1. FR FLO8 - The game of zero action.
      2. PLO - At least if played with shallow (<200BB) stacks.
      3. Badugi - Because it belongs on every list of this sort.
      4. PL 7-Stud - Because not even Ivery has the right roll for it.
      5. Tournament NL Holde'm - Is it played for real online (without tools?) at all anymore?


      The most fun games of poker
      1. 2-7 Triple Draw - Because I'm learning it.
      2. Seven Card Stud - Because it belongs on every list of this sort.


      /Johan = :f_confused:
    • YohanN7
      YohanN7
      Bronze
      Joined: 15.06.2009 Posts: 4,086
      The randomness of this game is, well, nothing new.

      Yesterday I had the perfect table with position on a Romanian maniac. Yes, you heard it right. He was a maniac and Romanian. Result? For me, a slight net loss of perhaps 15BB over 350 hands. The Romanian maniac, on the other hand, he finished up 180BB. (The worst thing you could do was to reraise him. He'd only get mad and blow you off the hand somehow.) He wasn't entirely crazy. Well, he was, but he wanted to win. The thing was that if he decided to bluff, then he stuck to it. Would be scary to play him in deep stack NLHE. (This was FL.)

      Today I played awful poker. This includes at least 7 wasted BB on pure misclicks, failure to bet nuts on the river, etc. Still, up 40BB over 50 hands, mostly due to suck-outs.

      /Johan = :f_confused:
    • YohanN7
      YohanN7
      Bronze
      Joined: 15.06.2009 Posts: 4,086
      How confusing for the enemy wouldn't it if we uploaded a user image to Stars looking exactly like "Seat Open" does?

      I think I'll try :D

      EDIT: Or "Fold" haha

      /Johan = :f_confused:
    • staktas
      staktas
      Bronze
      Joined: 28.03.2011 Posts: 1,346
      Not everyone uses theme, where images are round. Round image of seat open or fold, in square looks so dumb.
    • YohanN7
      YohanN7
      Bronze
      Joined: 15.06.2009 Posts: 4,086
      Incredible performance :]



      /Johan = :f_love:
    • YohanN7
      YohanN7
      Bronze
      Joined: 15.06.2009 Posts: 4,086
      Home sick today. Didn't feel like playing poker. Thus I'll grind High Stake Poker Season 2.

      Here's a treat: Episode 7



      Poor Esfandiari. Harman was in good shape that day. (They all seemed half drunk b t w, including Harman and esfandiari).

      What a classy TV show :]