Posts Tagged ‘game theory’

My latest poker strategy article, Balance, addresses a pet peeve of mine that I see often in the tournament forums:

Balance is one of the most misunderstood concepts in tournament poker. Many players believe that playing in a balanced way matters only when dealing with players they encounter on a regular basis. In a tournament setting, where they expect to play a few hours at most with a given opponent, they see no reason to worry about balancing their ranges.

This logic gets it backwards. Balance matters more when playing against unknown opponents with unknown tendencies. It is the best way to play when you don’t know what to expect. After examining what exactly balanced play means, this article will consider situations in which it is and is not useful.

Hopefully this article helps to clarify a frequent point of misunderstanding. Please let me know what you think!

My latest poker strategy article, What Are You Afraid Of?, is now appearing in the July 2011 edition of the 2+2 Magazine. The article uses a single hand to look at a larger point about game theory and exploitability:

Being “underrepresented” or “too weak” are not bad things in and of themselves. And before acting on feelings like these, you should articulate exactly how they could end up costing money. In other words, what would your opponent need to do to take advantage of this “mistake” that you are considering?

I’m always curious to know what you think, so please read the full article and leave me a comment!

Now that the WSOP is in full-swing, many players will be taking a shot or two at events well above their usual buy-in levels. This can be a great opportunity, because the $1000 and $1500 NLHE events attract hundreds of players weaker than what you’d see in an average $20 MTT on PokerStars.

What sets these tournaments apart is that, unlike the $20 donkament, they also attract some of the best tournament players in the world. This means that if you run bad at table drawing, you could end up with David Baker or Tony Dunst on your left. Understandably, this is a stressful thought for less experienced players considering these events. I have a couple of pieces of advice for these players:

1. Take Advantage of the Opportunity. Presumably part of the reason you are playing this tournament is for the experience of playing at the WSOP. Well, part of that experience is butting heads with the best of the world. Of course you’d rather watch them from afar than from their immediate right, but you can’t control that now. Observe them closely and try to pick up a few things that you can add to your own game. Even if they end up taking your chips, at least you’ll have learned something in the process.  Read the complete post...

This hand is a good example of being aware of your own range and what your hand will look like to Villain. I had recently folded to a triple barrel from this same Villain, who generally exhibits very aggressive tendencies. I had no idea whether that history would make him more or less likely to try to bluff me here.

Consequently, I made the decision to call down based on the fact that the board came out very badly for my range. I think Villain would (correctly) expect me to bet flush draws on the flop, and the check-call probably indicates either a pair of T’s or a pocket pair to him. QT isn’t the absolute top of my range here- that would be something like AT or KdT, but it’s close enough to the top that I think it needs to be in my calling range against a Villain capable of triple barreling on a run-out that’s bad for my perceived range. The fact that draws missed on the river should also increase his bluffing frequency, as he may expect me to be on a pair + draw planning to fold if I don’t improve.  Read the complete post...

Edit: As several commenters pointed out, I screwed this up in multiple ways. I’m getting ready to start up a session, but I’ll be making a new post with a corrected equation soon. In the meantime, you can disregard this post unless you’re curious to see whether you can spot the errors (there are hints in the comments section). In my defense, I was addled with fever at the time that I posted this.

One of my students and I were recently discussing a common situation: You open with AQs in the CO and get 3-bet by an aggressive player on the button. Assuming 100 BB stacks, I don’t like any line that results in you folding pre-flop. I think your options are either to 4-bet-call if you think his shoving range will be wide enough or just to call the 3-bet if you think you’d have to fold to a 4-bet.

He then asked me what would be the cut-off, in terms of the BTN’s 3-betting range, for 4-bet-calling vs. just calling the 3-bet and taking a flop. I wasn’t prepared to give an answer off the top of my head, and as I started working it, I figured it would be an interesting blog post.  Read the complete post...

The first video in my new four-part series about HUD-based decision making and using statistics to exploit opponents has just gone live at Poker Savvy Plus. In conjunction with that, I’ve got a twist on the old “What’s Your Play?” series. In this hand, calling or folding are your only options, and it’s an extremely read-dependent decision.

Take a look at the hand, and then sound off on the question I’ve got for you at the end:

Full Tilt No-Limit Hold’em, $10.00 BB (5 handed) – Full-Tilt Converter Tool from FlopTurnRiver.com

UTG ($1570)
MP ($1124)
Button ($2200)
Hero (SB) ($1000)
BB ($1017)

Preflop: Hero is SB with 7, K
3 folds, Hero bets $40, BB calls $30

Flop: ($80) 6, 8, 6 (2 players)
Hero bets $55, BB calls $55

Turn: ($190) K (2 players)
Hero checks, BB bets $150, Hero calls $150

River: ($490) 3 (2 players)
Hero checks, BB bets $772 (All-In)

Suppose that you were going to have to make this decision. I tell you that he is a winning regular at these stakes, and I offer to give you just ONE of the following statistics that I have on him, based on a sample size of 397 hands played in 6-max games. Which would you choose and why?  Read the complete post...

Yesterday’s post mentioned the “honor system” method that is becoming increasingly popular as an enforcement mechanism on public transportation. The idea is that both weekly/monthly passes and single use tickets are sold by machines at the train stations, but in most cases passengers will never need to use their ticket or show it to anyone. Rather, enforcement is randomized, with officers occasionally boarding cars and handing out fines to anyone who can’t produce a ticket. Ideally the fines are sufficiently larger than the cost of a ticket, and also proportionate to the odds of getting caught, such that it is considerably -EV to risk riding without a ticket.

I believe the idea is that this method is less expensive to enforce relative to the traditional system where there are machines and turnstiles at every station. As an instance of applied game theory, I find this system very interesting.

Berlin uses this system, and when I was visiting friends there over the summer, they told me that the city had recently announced it would be moving to a pure honor system. That is, there would be no turnstiles and also no enforcement officers. Apparently it was costing more to pay the officers than they were bringing in in fines.  Read the complete post...

A friend recently sent me a link to an article entitled “Big Game Theory” in Discover magazine. It’s about the phenomenon of physicists getting interested in, and having success at, poker. Author Jennifer Oullette cites Michael Binger, Michael Piper, Liv Boeree, and Marcel Vonk as examples and offers some interesting speculation as to why this might be. She compares chess to classical physics and poker, with its indeterminate outcomes and mixed strategies, to quantum physics. Unlike most poker articles written by non-players, this one actually demonstrates a reasonable understanding of the game and its complexities, and I found it to be an interesting read.