*Originally posted by cyzo*

*Originally posted by shortfuse*

wtf?

explain how you 'play very close to nash eq' because i'm not sure what you mean?!

I mean that my play is based primarily on pushing and calling with the handranges which are optimal vs your opponents ranges, having taken into account the $EV of winning, losing, tying, stealing the blinds/ante, folding your blind/ante, folding and letting other players possibly go all-in and give you more $EV and given that your opponents are aware of everyone else's ranges and play perfectly based upon those. Of course, we can only estimate what these ranges might be; even the programs we can use to practice such situations give estimates (with the exception of HU NLHE, for which the equilibrium has been solved). We also make the false assumption that pushing and folding are the only options, though other plays when the blinds are high make you exploitable. Unexploitable strategies with very low that include moves other than pushing/folding AA only have been found to be better in HU play, but the SB is still very much -EV even for those.

When I say that I my play is close to what I have mentioned above, I mean that I am confident that I can come up with a reasonable approximation to the equilibrium strategy. Also, mentioning exploitative play in itself necessitates that the equilibrium is not followed, as such play is always either suboptimal or break-even (when it is suboptimal, it is almost always still profitable). For example, when the blinds and antes are so high that I can push 60% from the SB and the BB should call with 40%, I ask myself whether he really will call with some of the worser hands in that range, call with hands below that range, or call with that range exactly. If he is too tight, I will push wider. If he is too lose, tighter.

I hope this answers your questions. Also, I saw on your blog that you refer to yourself as an "aspiring economist." I am not sure precisely what you mean by that, but that interests me, for much in terms of modern poker theory stems from the intersection of mathematics, economics, and computer science. Perhaps you would like to discuss some of this in more depth.

Well I'm sorry but your pretentious babble still does not justify 'playing close to nash eq'

nash eq for what? The nash eq is result of play, it is only present after discovering and dissecting what players would have done. In which case, you make no sense saying you play close to the nash eq as if this was some magically unexpolitable path.

For a nash eqilibirium, we would need an accurate (I'll let you approximate) payoff matrix, and then we can work out what the dominant strategy would be- what both players would do and hence what the payoff would be.

Once you provide evidence for this, you can say you chose the dominant strategy- NOT you played close to the nash eq which doesn't mean anything. In fact game theory has proven that in many situations it would be benificial for both palyers to cooperate rather than to defect- in which case the nash eq would not the the most optimal.

If you could roughly demonstrate what you mean with a payoff matrix- I'll let yoiu assign arbitary units for relative stregths of hands you think you are facing against. It is up to you to provide a payoff matrix.

If you are still following, you will realise you can only choose YOUR strategy and given the opponent's strategy does not change (which we must assume he/she always takes the dominant strategy) then you can claim you made the least -ev decision. But you cannot claim you somehow 'played close to the nash eq' which means NOTHING- the eq is a resuilt of both players strategy and is not the PERFECT method, it is the RESULT.

Hence, it still leaves me worried that you are unsure of what you are talking about and just randomly throw in some words in play.

To reiterate- the point is you just misused and confused nash equilibrium to the point where it makes no sense (on so many levels)

edit: as for my blog titled 'aspiring economist' it is because this is a subject which is of great interest to me, along with mathematics.