Advanced Poker Theory
Poker is a popular card game that combines elements of chance and strategy. There are various styles of poker, all of which share an objective of presenting the least probable or highest-scoring hand. Michael Acevedo, one of the world's leading poker theorists, is a game theory expert who is renowned for creating cutting-edge content for the world's leading players. The production of Modern Poker Theory is the culmination of many thousands of hours of his research work with the most advanced poker software tools available. It is poker theory. So welcome to 15.S50, Poker Theory and Analytics. So this is going to be Monday, Wednesday, Friday from 3:30 to 5:00. I just got a room for a review session on Tuesday, Thursday for anyone who needs to catch up a little bit. Hold 'em Poker For Advanced Players by David Sklansky and Mason Malmuth. Seven-Card Stud for Advanced Players by David Sklansky, Mason Malmuth, and Ray Zee. This book is about the general theories and concepts of poker play, which are operative in nearly every variation of poker from five-card draw to Texas hold 'em.
Advanced Blackjack Theory
Comments
Advanced Poker Theory
Advanced Poker Game Theory
Advanced Poker Theory
- kaspal
Probably you're talking about GTO (game theory optimal). You can find plenty of videos on youtube searching for 'poker gto'. Hope this can help. By the way, I'm trying to learn it as best as I can.
- monkeysystem
David Sklansky's 'The Theory of Poker' is a good introduction to game theory in poker and a must-read for anyone who's serious about the game. Matthew Janda's 'Applications of No Limit Hold 'em' goes more in depth, get ready for lots of math. You can't get away from math if you want to examine game theory with any kind of depth.
- nytider
As I understand it, and I have a very simple mind, GTO for poker basically boils down to playing such that you cannot be easily exploited by your opponents. The practical application of that is balancing your range so that your actions don't reveal your hand strength or your strategy. For example, if a player never limps under the gun with anything but pocket aces, but always limps pocket aces under the gun, observant opponents will eventually catch on and adjust accordingly. Game theory would suggest that such a player should sometimes limp other hands under the gun and sometimes raise pocket aces under the gun. The math comes in when determining an exact frequency for 'sometimes.'
- monkeysystem
Somebody correct me if I'm wrong here. To take nytider's limped AA example further and apply some simple math to it, we can find a Nash Equilibrium. You could balance always limping only AA with always limping 72o with red 7's. AA combos = 72o red 7 combos as they are six combos each and have roughly the opposite expected value if played. One is approximately 80% and the other is approximately 20% (simplifying the arithmetic). If EV (AA) = 1 - EV (72o), the opponent is indifferent to defending or folding. He must first identify what you are doing and then split defending evenly with folding. If he leans too heavily toward either defending or folding, you are gaining EV. There is nothing he can do to exploit you. All he can do is minimize his own cost. If you execute this limping strategy and he counters with a defending ratio that minimizes his cost, a Nash Equilibrium is achieved.
- nytider
I am not by any means an expert on either game theory or math. But that seems right to me.
However, as far as application to poker is concerned, I tend to think of this specific situation as falling into the category of not being worth the effort. My point being that, in my view, I am simply not going to get those hands in that position often enough for an observant opponent to realize what I am doing. And even if my opponent does start to defend/fold in a very balanced way, or in an exploitable way for that matter, I then have to go through another exercise in determining how far I want to go with my naked bluff when he does raise me. I can't just fold the 72 every time and re-raise the aces every time.
I try to think more about GTO in terms of the big plays that are made repetitively, like achieving some balance in my C-betting, check-fold, check-call, and check-raise ranges on the flop.
- monkeysystem
Yeah, this AA and 72o example uses the rhetorical trick of using an extreme hypothetical example to illustrate a point. It's not real-life stuff.
- SamuelADEvans
@kaspal said:
Probably you're talking about GTO (game theory optimal). You can find plenty of videos on youtube searching for 'poker gto'. Hope this can help. By the way, I'm trying to learn it as best as I can.Kaspal - How far along are you with trying to learn GTO? Like yourself, i'm trying to learn it as best I can at the moment, and it seems to be helping me beat KGB's Dungeon (6-Max Cash). You wouldn't fancy sharing thoughts and ideas sometime?
- kaspal
It's 2-3 months I'm trying to learn something more about GTO. I'm watching a series of webinar by three of the best italian cash game players. I'm happy your game had a benefit from studying it. Unfortunately I decided to switch from 6max to spin & go. So at the moment I'm studying a ton of new material about this game. I know GTO can be applied to spin & go too but that part will be object of my study in a second phase. Anyway, if we want to exchange some thoughts about GTO I have nothing to object.