Game Theory 101 (#83): Single Raise Poker

[@cherry.berry2]

I just discovered this series, and I really love how simple everything is presented. Sad to see not much people have lasted, not that I absolutely will. But good work! Since every video is bitesized, this is really enjoyable!

[@mesplin3]

This is an incredible series. Never studied game theory, but I think I am learning a lot.

[@CapHim]

1) Ace always bets 2) Queen mixes according to semi separating equilibrium (I guess sth like 1/2 of the time betting but haven't calculated it) 3) Player two updates believes about type in response to bet and mixes his betting strategy (exact numbers have to be calculated)

[@hotbuzz5325]

@12:03 - I think you should mention that P2's posterior belief conditional on P1 betting rather than just P2's posterior belief.

[@REcloudnest]

finished all lectures in this series. Excellent teaching! Looking for the next one. Would you like to talk about the intuition criterion?

[@dixonyamada6969]

i would say: ace type's strategy is raise every time bc raising is strictly dominant to folding. queen type's strategy is fold half the time, and raise half the time. if you fold each time, you lose 1 all the time, so that can't be good. if you call each time, with queen, assuming player 2 calls, you lose 2 every time. but let's assume player 2 is going to fold half the time because of the probabilities 50% ace 50% queen. then there should be instances of a forced 'bluff' where you raise with a queen type and player 2 folds. therefore, you can call with a queen some of the times, soo...say 50% of the time. player 2's best strategy: i would say, assuming player 1 is not making any threats, player 2 should fold if player 1 raises. if player 2 calls all the time, he will gain 0, because im assuming he'll lose 50% of the time and win 50% of the time. if player 2 folds all the time, he'll lose 1 each time. if player 2 folds only when player 1 calls, then there are cases when player 2 will gain 1 (when player 1 folds), and the losses are also smaller (losing 1 from folding against a raise vs calling the raise and then losing because ace beats a king), and i think the payoff from this strategy is bigger than just calling all the time.

[@PunmasterSTP]

Single raise? More like “these days” have flown by, as lately watching your videos has had me captivated and losing track of time! I’m really sad that I’m running out of videos in this series. 🙁 Next stop: Logic 101!

[@Gametheory101]

There's still one more in the series!

[@PunmasterSTP]

@@Gametheory101 Oh yeah the chain store "paradox"; I just about finished it but I had to leave to do something else. I fully intend to watch the last few minutes and leave a pun.

[@Markd315]

I've studied NLHE and the heuristics players use are similar! The game is much more complicated but minimum defense frequency, pot odds (calculated the way you showed) and creating indifference conditions to bluffs are important.

[@ArwenAreYouOK]

Your prior belief that poker players use heuristics needs updating. I apologize but couldn't help myself. MDF is also misapplied (Minimum continuation freq. is really what it should be called) In NLHE, MDF is just a frequency determined by the deck, flop, sizing (nature, randomness, properties of NLHE essentially) & is usually optimized if opponents are not even close to meeting their MDF. Don't have to bet 2x pot if you see (quantitatively) that opponents fold with close to if not the same frequency as they do with any large bet - let's say 1.1x pot. It should be called MCF because MDF implies passiveness. Your strategy is not just limited to meeting a cutoff condition & then only performing one action. Think of a bad player. Mostly, they are too wide when they should be tight & too tight when they can be any two napkins. Their strategy works out not because of having one, but the deck doesn't distinguish between losing vs winning players and whether it be regret minimization or the deck handing them a nice cooler spot to dish out, they are mostly random. They don't understand the value of chips properly, do not have a handle on EV of doubling up, importance of ladders, most don't know that deviation from optimal responses 'so called exploitative' play is driven by 1. What is driving my EV in a certain point during a tournament - example - 9To from BTN or CO might be an open but at BB250 (early-middle stages of a tournament say) one might fold because opening it barely makes antes worth in EV & only when players fold frequent enough. Vs population who will station a lot & since NLHE requires a lot of bluffing anyways (not easy to flop gin) they should not follow GTO ranges/GTO bluffs etc. etc. 2. A lot of -EV folds (the fold is -EV so it's more like edge passing & not to be confused with -EV play) sub-optimal play (min open A9o from Cut-off at 12bb into 25bb BTN, 40BB+ stacks is preferable and logical say 4 from ITM than jamming & sticking your neck out.) Tournament life is far more important if you consider FGS. Leveraging other player's tourney life under the right conditions is far better. I like to think of this as - in flat payout satellites is it better to call for all your chips with KK if you are very close to bubble & a steal away from guaranteeing a seat (KK certainly yields a better pay off) compared to jamming KXo (high card blocker which has ~30% even vs QQs IF called) into similar shallow stacks from your Button? Surely the former wins you more chips but what you gonna do with 20bb or 40 if satty is over after an orbit of hands? 3. When I have TT, 12BB & is folded to me otb w/ 10bb stacks behind me for SB and BB resp. I'd min-open almost as a pure strategy & open rip AKo. I have compared the EV but it's more logical right? Opponents will shove what they want to, we will usually be ahead. TTs though crushes hands they will defend with & any ardent follower of MDF should never pass up those odds in the BB vs the only other range as wide as BB's (quantitatively, not qualitatively, of course. BTN open & BB defend can both be exactly 50% of combos but the range parity ends at quantity. If I have As you can't). Anyways, I'd do this because of the equity vs their defend range but AKo i might always jam because it doesn't do as well as TTs vs 98. 99s and lesser pairs obv block that defend range so should just jam for the sake of denying equity realization for opponents at such SPRs. There is a false dichotomy between gto vs expo strategies. Poker players/coaches tend to agree that at low stakes a more exploitative strategy should be deployed. Going back to the mind-reader problem ----> to me it implies that vs opponents who you can't outsmart, GTO driven strategies are important so they don't get a leg up on you. Vs opponents you can outsmart - I don't think it is particularly true that one strategy fits all. One thing that is obviously true is that non-linear solvers are never wrong, only our inputs are. Yet, poker players tend to blame GTO solvers / or the math within their algorithm. I find this very lame. All software have algorithms & I don't see anyone berating the solver/App known simply as 'Calculator'. TLDR; Cliffs - MDFs, GTO solvers, though powerful enough to create rich strategies for players, are simply second rate to rational & logical thinking. However, 2nd rate only cuz a lot of players who stick to GTO do it because "it says so" Sure, solvers do come up with strategies in a sort of cut-off manner & tend to include combos likely to make better hands on future streets, but so do most of us. There are only two sort of players who I worry about most & it's never the 'best' poker players. I worry most about illogical players - who will just hit you so left field, they defy the definition of the phrase 'from left field' & splashy players - this is a player type most people get wrong. They are splashy but somewhat linear (at least up to preflop) They have suited connectors/beautiful looking hands, KQo, QT etc etc. but to them TP is as good as a draw so their actions are similar with most classes of hands they have & the run-out has no affect on pre-conceived notions. AAs is an overpair to them & all over pairs do equally well on all run-outs according to them. TP on all boards is just as stack off worthy as overcards with wrap arounds or say 8 TP W/ Ace kicker vs Ace TP with 8 kicker. BTW - @William Spaniel - this series is super fun!

[@BS33875]

One problem is if we are always doing the mixed strategy, would that be a problem that we can always get even results? even we know more than the opponents, but since we are doing the mixed strategy which means no matter how the opponent plays, the payoff for them are all the same?