[x]

A game theory problem

Reply to Thread
Page 4 of 42 3 4
  1. jhill3535 jhill3535 is offline

    Russellville, AR
    United States

    Posts: 2,163
    Joined: Feb 06

    Oct 20th, 2006 (10/20/2006 2:03pm) in reply to Dunce

    Dunce,

    Why would you willing take the worst of it if you have a hand that is below average against a random hand?

    Also, you must win more than 52% of the time to cover rake.
     
  2. phish42O phish42O is offline

    Houston, TX
    United States

    Posts: 4,549
    Joined: Jun 06

    Oct 20th, 2006 (10/20/2006 2:41pm) in reply to jay_shark

    Theoretically wouldnt you call when you have a pair or the mean of your 2 cards is = or > 8.
  3. ace1won ace1won is offline

    Port Alberni
    Canada

    Posts: 2,414
    Joined: Jul 05

    Oct 20th, 2006 (10/20/2006 2:45pm) in reply to jhill3535

    After the 3rd allin in a row I'd be going WTF and calling with any ace, king. pair, or 2 broadways.
  4. Dunce Dunce is offline

    Posts: 1,153
    Joined: Mar 05

    Oct 20th, 2006 (10/20/2006 3:12pm) in reply to relativity_x

    I disagree.

    If you wait even one hand, any bet you make can now break you but won't break him. You no longer have an even proposition, so you need better than even odds to compensate for the added risk your bet represents.
  5. Dunce Dunce is offline

    Posts: 1,153
    Joined: Mar 05

    Oct 20th, 2006 (10/20/2006 3:17pm) in reply to ace1won

    Your range is only 3:2 against a random hand. You're not getting enough of a premium to justify the wait. Especially since you now need to beat him more than once to get all of his chips.
  6. relativity_x relativity_x is offline

    Blacksburg, VA
    United States

    Posts: 1,686
    Joined: Jun 06

    Oct 20th, 2006 (10/20/2006 3:20pm) in reply to Dunce

    all you ahve to do is push back on him. This way you get your blind back.
  7. Dunce Dunce is offline

    Posts: 1,153
    Joined: Mar 05

    Oct 20th, 2006 (10/20/2006 3:24pm) in reply to jhill3535

    That's the thing. There is no hand that is below average against a truly random hand.

    Statistically, two truly random hands have exactly the same chance to win. You may have two specific cards that have a better ( or worse ) than 50% chance to win against a random hand, but your random two will never be less than 50% to win against another random hand, HU.

    The deck is as likely to hit you as it is him. Unless you have reason to expect that he has a better than average hand ( Q 7 ) his two are every bit as dependent on the Board as your two.

    For all you know, he's Pushing with 3 2 offsuit, and your 6 4 is good as gold. For all you know the Flop will come 6 5 4, and his 3 2 offsuit trumps your A A. Or, your 3 2 trumps his A A.
  8. Dunce Dunce is offline

    Posts: 1,153
    Joined: Mar 05

    Oct 20th, 2006 (10/20/2006 3:42pm) in reply to relativity_x

    You've already waited three hands, and lost 50 chips in Blinds. You only win his 20 chip BB. You're still down 30 chips.
  9. pokernut pokernut is offline

    Ithaca, NY
    United States

    Posts: 8
    Joined: Sep 06

    Oct 20th, 2006 (10/20/2006 3:43pm) in reply to jay_shark

    Remember, Jay said to have fun with it....everybody seems to be offended by the question lol...relax...personally, no clue...enjoy! pokernut
  10. Dunce Dunce is offline

    Posts: 1,153
    Joined: Mar 05

    Oct 20th, 2006 (10/20/2006 4:11pm) in reply to jhill3535

    There is no such thing as a "standard rake." How much vig you get gaffed is going to vary from game to game; casino to casino. It's fruitless to try to discuss any general policy if we need to take into account covering the vig.
  11. trplthrt trplthrt is offline

    Bedford, NY
    United States

    Posts: 153
    Joined: May 05

    Oct 20th, 2006 (10/20/2006 5:54pm) in reply to pokernut

    This isn't game theory. It's statistics. A complex ones that probably requires a computer to figure out to balance out folding and having less chips to double up with next time (since end game you need all chips) vs the % win of a showdown given two random cards.

    Game theory involves some reaction to action, this is playing statistical odds.
  12. trplthrt trplthrt is offline

    Bedford, NY
    United States

    Posts: 153
    Joined: May 05

    Oct 20th, 2006 (10/20/2006 5:59pm) in reply to phish42O

    Repeat: This is not game theory. It is statistical.

    I think I echo'd Jeff.. twice now that I realized my first post went to the wrong page.

    Anyway, zzzzzzz

    Do we get to play an all-in bot ever?
  13. betbrett betbrett is offline

    United States

    Posts: 2,343
    Joined: Apr 05

    Oct 20th, 2006 (10/20/2006 6:03pm) in reply to trplthrt

    I wish I could go back in time before I read this whole thread.
  14. Dunce Dunce is offline

    Posts: 1,153
    Joined: Mar 05

    Oct 20th, 2006 (10/20/2006 10:13pm) in reply to trplthrt

    No, it isn't.

    This is a one hand scenario. There are no reliable statistics for any one-time trial.

    In a one hand scenario, 3 2 offsuit is as likely to win as AA. AA only becomes a BIG favorite if you can conduct infinitely many trials.
  15. psychodog psychodog is offline

    Bryan, TX
    United States

    Posts: 10
    Joined: Mar 06

    Oct 20th, 2006 (10/20/2006 10:52pm) in reply to Dunce

    You are kidding right? 32o is 32% to win against a random hand vs 85% for AA.
  16. FlyingSumo FlyingSumo is offline

    Bergen
    Norway

    Posts: 121
    Joined: Aug 06

    Oct 20th, 2006 (10/20/2006 10:55pm) in reply to trplthrt

    Please input number of hands pr level.

    Please input levels.

    If I am that maniac, call with any two, you will win.
     
  17. FlyingSumo FlyingSumo is offline

    Bergen
    Norway

    Posts: 121
    Joined: Aug 06

    Oct 20th, 2006 (10/20/2006 11:21pm) in reply to psychodog

    TAKE THE BLUE PILL FOR CHRISTS SAKE!
     
  18. StIcKyFiNgErS StIcKyFiNgErS is offline

    Posts: 1,242
    Joined: Sep 06

    Oct 20th, 2006 (10/20/2006 11:27pm) in reply to FlyingSumo

    that's what she said
  19. Davio Davio is offline

    Antwerp
    Belgium

    Posts: 505
    Joined: Sep 05

    Oct 21st, 2006 (10/21/2006 12:22am) in reply to Dunce

    Well, the problem is you have to respond to him and have to look.

    If he pushes and you see 32o, you're an underdog no matter what (unless he has 32o obv.), so your theory is only correct if you tape your monitor so you can't look at your cards.
  20. Dunce Dunce is offline

    Posts: 1,153
    Joined: Mar 05

    Oct 21st, 2006 (10/21/2006 11:13am) in reply to psychodog

    That only applies if you conduct infinitely many trials. Not if you're just playing one hand... and this is a one hand scenario.

    If you were to run 5000 trials of 3 2 off vs any random hand, 32 would only win about 32% of the time. But, you're not running 5000 trials, you're just running one. Is this one of the 68% or one of the 32%? There is no way to know.

    If you run 5000 trials with AA, it'll win about 85% of those. But, is this single hand one of the 85% it wins or one of the 15% it doesn't. Again, there is no way to tell until you play the hand out.

    Relying on odds that are only valid after many, many trials in a one time trial is a really good way to go broke with confidence.
  21. psychodog psychodog is offline

    Bryan, TX
    United States

    Posts: 10
    Joined: Mar 06

    Oct 21st, 2006 (10/21/2006 11:39am) in reply to Dunce

    The observed outcome will approach the theoretical outcome when enough trials are performed. The a priori probabilities do not change if you have just a single trial. But hey if you want to call off all your chips with 32o nobody is going to stop you.
  22. Askesis_ Askesis_ is offline

    Tampa, FL
    United States

    Posts: 3,066
    Joined: Jan 06

    Oct 21st, 2006 (10/21/2006 12:44pm) in reply to jay_shark

    JJ+, maybe TT.

    People are saying all kinds of ranges.....but i dont understand why.

    Yes, calling with KT might grant you 60% chance to win....but why would you wan't to get your money in wih that much of a chance to lose? I want to be in a situation where i am most likely dominating him....I don't want to leave it up to a coin flip.
     
  23. relativity_x relativity_x is offline

    Blacksburg, VA
    United States

    Posts: 1,686
    Joined: Jun 06

    Oct 21st, 2006 (10/21/2006 12:48pm) in reply to Askesis_

    well if he has aq and you call with JJ that's what you'll have.
  24. jay_shark jay_shark is offline

    NY
    United States

    Posts: 2,633
    Joined: Oct 05

    Oct 21st, 2006 (10/21/2006 12:54pm) in reply to relativity_x

    This problem is actually pretty difficult to solve .

    I'm still working on an optimal range for the first hand .

    I believe it should be the top 20 % of hands .
    Thread Starter
Reply to Thread
Page 4 of 42 3 4

Similar Threads