The Golden Rule of Game Theory (Applied)
Posted by AF3
Posted by
AF3
posted in
Mid Stakes
The Golden Rule of Game Theory (Applied)
When deciding how to play an individual combination, we always take the line which maximizes our EV.
I'm having a very hard time understanding how this relates to certain strategies that rely on information hiding, though.
For example, the common consensus among good players is that limping the Small Blind after it is folded to you in six-max is a very good idea when your opponent is playing close to how they "should" be. The argument goes as follows:
1) We are getting immediate odds of the following to call: .5BB/2BB
2) We need to 25% equity to make the immediate call profitable (assuming this equation holds, which it doe not, but the general concept seems valid). Thus, we should be calling very wide.
3) If we only call our weakest hands, though, then the Big Blind will raise quite wide and we will be forced to often fold or play out of position with a very weak range.
4) To counter, we limp all of our continuing range. This hides our information, protects our weakest holdings, and so on.
However, this seems to violate the Golden Rule:
For example, AA is always worth at least + 1.5 BB's to shove AA pre-flop, and so anything we do with AA pre-flop must be greater than or equal to 1.5 BB's in EV. This should imply that we never limp AA pre-flop, since Villain can simply improve their expected value against our Aces by checking any two cards.
Is the idea that they are somehow forced to raise a certain percentage when we limp, or else we have improved the expected value of our weakest holdings by limping?
This would counter the "AA" example in a rather hand-waving manner, but it seems it could be valid.
Loading 64 Comments...
Be the first to add a comment