2012. augusztus 28., kedd

Shame of poker education #3 - Game Theory Wisdom?

Poker education found a new buzzword for itself - just in the last week I heard it 3 times in videos and stuff: game theory-wise. (Not sure about the grammar tho.) Since jungleman's awesome (see one of the later editions of shame...) video about game theory, more and more people started to build this into their game. Also, since that video we can safely say, that most bigbet players have absolutely no fucking clue what game theory (optimal play) means, and misunderstand the concept.

Just an example: if you flop top set on a board, where it is the nuts (at least in your range) I'm quite sure game theoratically check/calling as a slowplay is awful, unless you for some reason decide to a) never have a cbetting range and b) never have a c/r-ing range (against a 1/4 potbet), which seems awfully wrong to me in a NL game with a potbet left on a wet board. I'm pretty sure since it's the nuts it has to be part of a polarized range that needs to be played in an agressive manner so that we could get the max from his bluffcatchers. Although I'm not a bigbet-GTO-expert I strongly believe that it is the case. (Also the main reason "it's not good game theory-wise" is that there is just a small part of his range that can call our check/raise.)

So please, if you're not sure what it means (or you think you're sure and you're an overconfident idiot - you know who I'm talking about), don't use game theory-wise. Cheers.

Nincsenek megjegyzések:

Megjegyzés küldése