Strategy Content

Adam WheelerAdam Wheeler Red Chipper Posts: 2,659 ✭✭✭✭
edited February 2017 in General Concepts
As i keep looking for answers i gather some materials on strategy. Sometimes it's links to articles, books, videos, blogs etc.

I thought i would create a thread where we could post "strategy" content to help those who seek and try to develop a solid one.

It seems that the very concept of Strategy is often tied with economy and it's very hard to find materials strictly on games.

So feel free to add interesting stuff and i'll do also along the way.

Cheers !
«1

Comments

  • kageykagey Red Chipper, KINGOFTAGS Posts: 2,241 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Toward Your Own Poker Strategy blog is pretty good

    Plus you can dig through the multiple back post that have been tagged Strategy as well
  • Adam WheelerAdam Wheeler Red Chipper Posts: 2,659 ✭✭✭✭
    I found this that i thought was so true.
    ndni4qcfan1a.png
  • Adam WheelerAdam Wheeler Red Chipper Posts: 2,659 ✭✭✭✭

    I would be really interested to learn more about this so if you guys have great content to recommend on the subject i would really appreciate.
  • SplitSuitSplitSuit RCP Coach Posts: 4,082 -
    Not sure if it's helpful, but I spoke a LOT about minimax in my first book Dynamic Full Ring Poker.
    📑 Grab my custom poker spreadsheet pack right now.
    📘 Start the Preflop & Math Poker Workbook today.
  • Adam WheelerAdam Wheeler Red Chipper Posts: 2,659 ✭✭✭✭
    @SplitSuit

    I'll check this out thx.
  • Christian SotoChristian Soto RCP Coach Posts: 2,195 ✭✭✭✭
    edited March 2017
    MiniMax is a hypocritical concept. And incorrect in my opinion.

    How can we build a strategy that wins the maximum with X hands and then in the same breathe lose the minimum with those same hands?

    It leads to a huge flaw in strategy IMO.

    It's also an old concept so that's that.
  • Adam WheelerAdam Wheeler Red Chipper Posts: 2,659 ✭✭✭✭
    Would you say that it is meaningless in Poker since even if we start from River to analyse a hand for example, minimax need to have perfect information which we'll never have in poker.
  • Christian SotoChristian Soto RCP Coach Posts: 2,195 ✭✭✭✭
    Would you say that it is meaningless in Poker since even if we start from River to analyse a hand for example, minimax need to have perfect information which we'll never have in poker.

    It's meaningless because it's impossible to accomplish & build a strategy around it.
    Ideally, I would want to win the max and lose the minimum also.

    But for my strategy to allow me to win the max, I have to also be OK with losing the max.
    How can we win the maximum with top pair and then lose the minimum with top pair?

    It's just impossible.

  • kageykagey Red Chipper, KINGOFTAGS Posts: 2,241 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Would you say that it is meaningless in Poker since even if we start from River to analyse a hand for example, minimax need to have perfect information which we'll never have in poker.

    I like the concept of backward induction though... I often hear Matt talk about playing the hand from the river backwards... like in his hand with J Tilly when he had JJ... makes sense to anticpate runouts and play accordingly.
  • YoshYosh Red Chipper Posts: 580 ✭✭✭
    edited March 2017
    I'm certainly out of my depth mathematically, but I think Christian means that it is a contradictory concept, but it doesn't necessarily seem so if you think about it. The minimax strategy as I understand it is the unexploitable optimal strategy. This implies that it is half of an equilibrium strategy pair. You seek to minimize your maximum expected loss (aka your co-optimal opponents maximum expected win). You could also state it as attempting to maximize your minimum expected win, which might sound more pleasing to Soto.
  • SplitSuitSplitSuit RCP Coach Posts: 4,082 -
    Would you say that it is meaningless in Poker since even if we start from River to analyse a hand for example, minimax need to have perfect information which we'll never have in poker.

    It's meaningless because it's impossible to accomplish & build a strategy around it.
    Ideally, I would want to win the max and lose the minimum also.

    But for my strategy to allow me to win the max, I have to also be OK with losing the max.
    How can we win the maximum with top pair and then lose the minimum with top pair?

    It's just impossible.

    Minimax just simply states that minimizing loss is the same thing as maximizing value. If you bet the turn with TP and villain shoves, and you think villain would only shove a range that you cannot call profitably against, then folding minimizes your loss and thus maximizes your value.

    Minimax is true there AND your fold exploits their strategic leak (not having a properly balanced shoving range).
    📑 Grab my custom poker spreadsheet pack right now.
    📘 Start the Preflop & Math Poker Workbook today.
  • Adam WheelerAdam Wheeler Red Chipper Posts: 2,659 ✭✭✭✭
    @Christian Soto

    What do you think of this hand example:

    100BB effective.

    We are BTN with :Ac:KS:

    We open 3x SB fold BB call.

    Flop : :Kc:7h:2d

    SB check.

    Now following minimax theory we should check here.


    A) BTN will have more often than not the best hand with his range here. He is only worried about 22-77-K7.

    B) If BB call multiple streets there thin chances that he got worst than KQ-KJ.

    Applying minimax here by checking Flop give the option for BTN to save money in fact.

    If we check we open a whole new spectrum of options.

    BB can see the check as weakness and decide to bluff Turn.

    BB can hit a hand Turn and think he now have the best hand.

    BB can have PP 88-99 and would have folded Flop but now thinks he is stronger than he is in reality.

    So the use of minimax here is clear. BTN maximize gain if he got the best hand and minimize lose if it's not the case.





  • Christian SotoChristian Soto RCP Coach Posts: 2,195 ✭✭✭✭
    SplitSuit wrote: »
    Would you say that it is meaningless in Poker since even if we start from River to analyse a hand for example, minimax need to have perfect information which we'll never have in poker.

    It's meaningless because it's impossible to accomplish & build a strategy around it.
    Ideally, I would want to win the max and lose the minimum also.

    But for my strategy to allow me to win the max, I have to also be OK with losing the max.
    How can we win the maximum with top pair and then lose the minimum with top pair?

    It's just impossible.

    Minimax just simply states that minimizing loss is the same thing as maximizing value. If you bet the turn with TP and villain shoves, and you think villain would only shove a range that you cannot call profitably against, then folding minimizes your loss and thus maximizes your value.

    Minimax is true there AND your fold exploits their strategic leak (not having a properly balanced shoving range).

    I guess it's still just a bad statement IMO. Finding a Fold cannot be value. And it's just confusing.

    Under @SplitSuit explanation the concept is saying "I lost the minimum so I won the maximum"
  • Christian SotoChristian Soto RCP Coach Posts: 2,195 ✭✭✭✭
    @Christian Soto

    What do you think of this hand example:

    100BB effective.

    We are BTN with :Ac:KS:

    We open 3x SB fold BB call.

    Flop : :Kc:7h:2d

    SB check.

    Now following minimax theory we should check here.


    A) BTN will have more often than not the best hand with his range here. He is only worried about 22-77-K7.

    B) If BB call multiple streets there thin chances that he got worst than KQ-KJ.

    Applying minimax here by checking Flop give the option for BTN to save money in fact.

    If we check we open a whole new spectrum of options.

    BB can see the check as weakness and decide to bluff Turn.

    BB can hit a hand Turn and think he now have the best hand.

    BB can have PP 88-99 and would have folded Flop but now thinks he is stronger than he is in reality.

    So the use of minimax here is clear. BTN maximize gain if he got the best hand and minimize lose if it's not the case.





    But we cannot win the Max by checking the Flop. What if he has KQs? Are you winning the max then?
    Are our bluffs winning the pot at the maximum rate they should by us checking the Flop?

    Btw BB is never folding 88-99 on the Flop.
  • persuadeopersuadeo Red Chipper Posts: 4,382 ✭✭✭✭✭
    That is a perfect example above because a minimax theory minimizes "regret," in other words, you are not playing for the max with this decision rule. It is a highly conservative strategy. Its analog Maximin plays for the most of what poker players call "value."
  • Adam WheelerAdam Wheeler Red Chipper Posts: 2,659 ✭✭✭✭
    edited March 2017

    But we cannot win the Max by checking the Flop.

    We can lose the minimum though.

    Maybe we can't win the max but we can't lose the max. Both are equally strong don't you think?
  • Adam WheelerAdam Wheeler Red Chipper Posts: 2,659 ✭✭✭✭
    It reminds me an old conversations I had on a hockey forum when peoples were arguing about "Is it more important to score goals or to not being scored on in hockey" if you score you'll maybe win but if your not scored on even if you don't score you can't lose.
  • Christian SotoChristian Soto RCP Coach Posts: 2,195 ✭✭✭✭
    edited March 2017

    But we cannot win the Max by checking the Flop.

    We can lose the minimum though.

    Maybe we can't win the max but we can't lose the max. Both are equally strong don't you think?

    Absolutely not equally as strong.
    This is exactly my opening point. You can't lose the minimum and win the maximum.
  • Adam WheelerAdam Wheeler Red Chipper Posts: 2,659 ✭✭✭✭
    edited March 2017
    If i was asking you this, do you prefer (gaining half the max and losing max) or (gaining max and losing max) what would be your answer ?

    I was saying both are "equally strong" as monetary gain.
  • Adam WheelerAdam Wheeler Red Chipper Posts: 2,659 ✭✭✭✭
    That's what I'm trying to explain. Gaining Max IS losing minimum. We are saying the same thing. They are the same thing as @SplitSuit was saying earlier.
  • SplitSuitSplitSuit RCP Coach Posts: 4,082 -
    That's what I'm trying to explain. Gaining Max IS losing minimum. We are saying the same thing. They are the same thing as @SplitSuit was saying earlier.

    Not quite. I simply defined minimax. I agree with Soto that using it as the pure cornerstone for a strategy would create too large of a focus on minimizing loss. And I also agree with persuadeo that too many people use it as a crutch to focus on "minimizing regrets"

    I think minimax is important to understand conceptually. I don't think minimax is the end-all/be-all of poker strategy though.
    Under @SplitSuit explanation the concept is saying "I lost the minimum so I won the maximum"

    That's correct. It's just an economic principle.
    📑 Grab my custom poker spreadsheet pack right now.
    📘 Start the Preflop & Math Poker Workbook today.
  • Adam WheelerAdam Wheeler Red Chipper Posts: 2,659 ✭✭✭✭
    edited March 2017
    @Christian Soto @SplitSuit

    Than I'll have to revised the definition of it to see where I misunderstood.

    Correct me if I'm wrong but I thought that (Gaining Max and Losing max) is the same as a pure economic outcome as (losing minimum and gaining minimum) but far apart in terms of practical strategy.
  • Christian SotoChristian Soto RCP Coach Posts: 2,195 ✭✭✭✭
    it's different in poker because people can fold their respective equity share in a strategy that revolves around winning the max.
    When you check AK to "lose the min" sometimes you now lose the max because they don't have zero percent to win the hand and actualize their equity.
  • Adam WheelerAdam Wheeler Red Chipper Posts: 2,659 ✭✭✭✭
  • kenaceskenaces Red Chipper Posts: 1,589 ✭✭✭✭
    Just want to add that anytime poker players start talking about poker using game theory terms everyone gets confused(including me). I am no theory expert but I think the minmax has a specific theory definition that isn't the same as the more common GTO(nash equilibrium). So we wind up using the same word and each meaning different things.

    Putting all the fancy words aside it seems pretty bad to not have AK in our CB range on K72r - we have range advantage, we are at the top of our range, we need to have AK in our betting range so we can protect all our bluffs, we will often want to bet 3 streets, because PIO always bets AK......
  • Christian SotoChristian Soto RCP Coach Posts: 2,195 ✭✭✭✭
    kenaces wrote: »
    Just want to add that anytime poker players start talking about poker using game theory terms everyone gets confused(including me). I am no theory expert but I think the minmax has a specific theory definition that isn't the same as the more common GTO(nash equilibrium). So we wind up using the same word and each meaning different things.

    Putting all the fancy words aside it seems pretty bad to not have AK in our CB range on K72r - we have range advantage, we are at the top of our range, we need to have AK in our betting range so we can protect all our bluffs, we will often want to bet 3 streets, because PIO always bets AK......

    I feel like this is a high level troll. It's pretty good tho lol
  • kenaceskenaces Red Chipper Posts: 1,589 ✭✭✭✭
    kenaces wrote: »
    Just want to add that anytime poker players start talking about poker using game theory terms everyone gets confused(including me). I am no theory expert but I think the minmax has a specific theory definition that isn't the same as the more common GTO(nash equilibrium). So we wind up using the same word and each meaning different things.

    Putting all the fancy words aside it seems pretty bad to not have AK in our CB range on K72r - we have range advantage, we are at the top of our range, we need to have AK in our betting range so we can protect all our bluffs, we will often want to bet 3 streets, because PIO always bets AK......

    I feel like this is a high level troll. It's pretty good tho lol

    I was just posting my thoughts/rant but - Not sure how this is a troll on any level?
  • Christian SotoChristian Soto RCP Coach Posts: 2,195 ✭✭✭✭
    Haha it was a by mistake troll.. it was funny tho
  • RTLHPokerRTLHPoker Red Chipper Posts: 88 ✭✭
    Some people work really hard on their troll game but this guy's a natural.

    I'm actually jealous.

Leave a Comment

BoldItalicStrikethroughOrdered listUnordered list
Emoji
Image
Align leftAlign centerAlign rightToggle HTML viewToggle full pageToggle lights
Drop image/file