Playing optimal strategy vs unknown - bring profit no matter what he does?

    • SPeedFANat1c
      SPeedFANat1c
      Gold
      Joined: 04.01.2009 Posts: 5,071
      I have heard this thing that if you dont have stats, playing vs unknow using optimal strategy always bring you profit.

      But I dont get it yet.

      Lets imagine such situation.

      We flat prefloop in BTN with some range vs UTG.

      UTG is unknown.

      He cbets 1 pot on flop and lets say he always has 100% equity, otherwise he does not cbet. We dont have stats so we dont know it but he does that.


      So our EV of calling is always minus 1 pot size bet vs him when we call? Or I am thinking something is wrong?




      Some might argue - that that is not real and every player will have some bluffs or something and even if he has value we usually have equity.

      But this example is just for easier math and ilustration.

      And of course overtime we will have stats and we can adjust. But I assume that guy says even if I dont adjust but play optimal strategy I make profit (he agrees that less profit than if I would adjust).
  • 5 replies
    • metza
      metza
      Bronze
      Joined: 28.01.2012 Posts: 2,220
      Well, if UTG is only betting when he has 100% equity, then yes our strategy will make some calls that are losing, however this will be more than compensated by use betting the flop vs a missed cbet (which will be the vast majority of the time if he is only betting w 100% equity which is super rare) and he will probably almost always be check/folding.

      Basically it revolves around playing balanced so that opponent is breakeven if he calls you with balanced ranges/bets with balanced ranges against you. Because you are balanced when you are betting, if he folds too much or calls too much you either make bluff profit or value profit and win if he is making mistakes/being unbalanced in his play.
    • SPeedFANat1c
      SPeedFANat1c
      Gold
      Joined: 04.01.2009 Posts: 5,071
      Well, if UTG is only betting when he has 100% equity, then yes our strategy will make some calls that are losing, however this will be more than compensated by use betting the flop vs a missed cbet (which will be the vast majority of the time if he is only betting w 100% equity which is super rare) and he will probably almost always be check/folding.

      Basically it revolves around playing balanced so that opponent is breakeven if he calls you with balanced ranges/bets with balanced ranges against you. Because you are balanced when you are betting, if he folds too much or calls too much you either make bluff profit or value profit and win if he is making mistakes/being unbalanced in his play.


      But if we dont count bets when he does not cbet, we can agree that in this spot we are always losing one pot.


      Yea this might compensate as his leak to letting me get free cards or bet and get valuye if he x/c or if he x/f. (Assuming also that we dont know that he x/f too much or x/c too much).

      Btw he will have very strong x/c range by not cbeting anything else and by not knowing that and playing optimal strategy I could still loose or not loose, I am not sure how to calculate.
    • FFRRAANNKKIIEE
      FFRRAANNKKIIEE
      Silver
      Joined: 30.12.2010 Posts: 3,107
      that's why we 3bet BU vs random :coolface:
    • mbml
      mbml
      Black
      Joined: 27.11.2008 Posts: 20,694
      we are talking about overall strategies here. for you just to compare one single spot is simply incorrect. Overall strategies take into account action all the way up the decision tree

      If villain somehow has 100% equity in a particular spot, it means that he might be playing too tight on an earlier street.

      Best example I can think off is in a HU game, where villain plays only AA. Sure on every flop he has your range crushed, but the other 99.5% of the time he folds preflop.
    • SPeedFANat1c
      SPeedFANat1c
      Gold
      Joined: 04.01.2009 Posts: 5,071
      we are talking about overall strategies here. for you just to compare one single spot is simply incorrect. Overall strategies take into account action all the way up the decision tree


      Maybe he meant this and I as usually think what I can to best in specific spot and so I did not understand :) and then I am guessing - what the unknown most likely do.