# Game Theory and Poker - Part 1

- Other
- Other
- other gametypes

(5 Votes)
8366
## Description

Enjoy the second part of the Game Theory series with DonTabamsey. In this series, Tabamsey who has recently completed his Ph.D in Economics in relation to game theory, discusses theoretical approaches to poker and games in general. In this video he discusses and presents general GTO play. Enjoy the video!

## Comments (22)

newest first#1

Please leave any thoughts or Feedback you may have for the new Coach!

#2

#3

#4

#5

#6

Is that meant to be "thread" or "threat" because it sounds like threat when he says it.

I'm sure this is a great video I'll watch the other half later.

#7

and yes, it is indeed meant to be threat..

#8

[I certainly don't expect an answer here, that would probably require more PhD theses. But a Part 2 of the video wold be nice.]

#9

/Johan

#10

#11

I've got a couple of vids in the workings based on this but suffice it to say that HUHU is certainly solvable in LHE...it's just incredibly hard and more than a supercomputer can do

Multiplayer games however are infinitely more complex and, as I've been told, there was a reason John Forbes Nash won the Nobel Prize for it!!

#12

#13

But Boomer is probably right that within our lifetime the exact solution will not be discovered. In a practical sense, the term GTO in poker should be used for a strategy against which the scope for exploitation is very limited.

#14

Nice vid, the typos did confuse me though =D

#15

I define a game as an infinite number of hands between two (or more) players. The number of possible outcomes in one hand is a finite number (HU, SH or FR) of course. The number of outcomes in an infinite session is two to the power of aleph-naught. For comparison, a chess game is finite, and a real poker session is always finite.

[The man who convincingly computes precisely what two to the power of aleph-naught is will recieve a very very substantial welcome bonus in the mathematical community.]

Any good links?

For an advanced intro to complexity of the topic, I can recommend this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinacy

The article presupposes some (quite a bit, but don't be put off) set theoretical knowledge. The whole question is really "Does a certain set exist?"

I am sorry that I write too long comments. Won't write for a week. Promise.

/Johan

#16

#17

The definition of a game in the case of poker could be one hand or any finite number of hands.

Differing from the question of determinacy you raised, here the question is only if an equilibrium exists, not who wins in equilibrium. But Nash's argument why it exists also boils down to some non-trivial math using fixed point arguments.

#18

#19

I have, of course, more questions. If we have a Nash equilibrium, then we are playing optimally if our opponents play Nash too. But if our opponents play in any other way, then we aren't playing optimally, or are we? We are unbeatable and unexploitable, yes, but optimal?

I guess what I'm trying to say is that I might have objections againt the terminology some times. What I'd prefer to call an optimal strategy is a strategy that exploits every player type to the maximum.

A simpler related problem is the all-in end game in NL tourneys where one or more players aren't playing Nash, but are too loose or too tight.

I think an article is called for. At least, we could have a forum thread. I'll start one if I manage to formulate a first post;)

/Johan

#20

#21

#22