I disagree with a huge amount of this, the stats stuff is fine but you have almost no idea about GT or balancing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lewialex
I also feel that the majority understand the concept of balancing, that in theory, one must have equal combinations of value hands and bluff hands.
|
Why equal combinations? In almost all situations an equal combination of value and bluff hands would leave you unbalanced. You've also forgotten semi-bluffs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lewialex
However, in on single isolated situation, the Hero who three barrels may decide to not bluff at all after getting called twice! So he has nearly 90 value combinations that Hero is just owning a bluff catching range. Here the OOP would be making a huge mistake my calling down with his 88, all because he knows that there are missed draws and that the three barreler is 'capable of 3 barreling in this spot'.
|
A river call may be an exploitative mistake but the turn and flop calls would become significantly better since villain is checking down the river with a huge portion of his range. You can't just analyze one strategy point in isolation without considering the overall effect.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lewialex
There are dozens of parallel situations where a player's value/bluff range can be extremely skewed in any one given isolated incident, just like one's call/fold range can be extremely skewed. I think by this point you get the idea, and it is clear that HUD stats are completely irrelevant, just as the game theory optimal play can be horrid, and how in isolated hands through the flow of a session, balancing your range and playing accordingly against a balanced range can be catastrophic.
|
The GTO play can never be horrid and balancing your range will never be catastrophic. Almost by definition you have positive expectation by balancing your range. What is catastrophic however, is 4bet/folding 100% of your range when your opponent has decided to never 3bet bluff. What is horrid is folding 100% of your bluff catching range when your opponent is always bluffing. These are massive mistakes and just because you sometimes make more when you guess correctly, it doesn't make balancing bad. In fact, unless you have some special ability to guess better than your opponent, balancing your range will always net you a higher expectation than essentially clicking buttons.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lewialex
The main challenge that arises out of the thesis of this post is knowing WHEN. When and how and in what way is my opponent's range imbalanced. This is something that I am in the process of mastering, and this is something I'm sure high stakes crushers have mastered in games when the majority of players are relatively fundamentally sound.
|
You've pretty much just summed up the entire problem with your approach. How can you even know WHERE your opponent is imbalanced if you don't know where balanced is to begin with? Sure, it's obvious against the 62/30 maniac or the 17/14 nit but against anybody remotely competent you have absolutely nothing to benchmark their play to if you don't know what an optimal strategy is. How can you say that somebody is, for example, cbetting too much if you don't know where too little ends and too much begins?
It seems strange that you'd dismiss game theory and balancing when you haven't even worked out when people are adjusting to an exploitable strategy, that's like the whole point of that approach right, you have some sick soul reading ability that allows you to know when your opponent is exploitable?
Rather than trying to master the WHEN, why not make it irrelevant?
