|
mb2447
|
01-06-2006, 06:31 AM
Post subject: what wikipedia has to say on poker strategy...
|
#1 (permalink)
|
|
Straight
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: NYC
Posts: 122
|
|
"From a game-theoretic optimal point of view, a perfect strategy is a minimax one that cannot expect to lose to any other player's strategy; however, optimal strategy can vary in the presence of sub-optimal players who have weaknesses that can be exploited. In this case, a perfect strategy would be one that correctly or closely models those weaknesses and takes advantage of them to make a profit."
I looked up "minimax," and the definition was: A method in decision theory for minimizing the maximum possible loss.
I know this concept(s) has been stated before (I remember Fnord in particular), but I thought it was expressed particularly well here.
wikipedia is fun.
|
|
|
Play for FREE and practice your game at...
Join the FTR Poker Forum to disable these banners and start posting!
|
|
AHiltz
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Coldbrook, NS
Posts: 1,589
|
|
My old dog used to lick his balls.
|
|
|
|
Rondavu
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 3,053
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by AHiltz
My old dog used to lick his balls.
|
I feed my dog once in the morning, and once at night. If he gets hungry in the afternoon, he licks his own ballz. I feed him two square meals a day, but sometimes I catch him licking two round ones.
|
|
It's not what's inside that counts. Have you seen what's inside?
Internal organs. And they're getting uglier by the minute.
|
|
BankItDrew
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Losing Prop Bets
Posts: 2,789
|
|
My cat is in heat, so she rubs herself up against everything and moans at night. I researched solutions and one was to use a Q-tip on her.
|
Girlfriend: Why are the werewolves more important than living life?!
Girlfriend: Are you on the forums doing the werewolves again?
Girlfriend: Soo... you forgot to run that errand, but you had time to werewolf? Wtf?
|
|
EricE
|
|
Full House
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 894
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by BankItPayette
My cat is in heat, so she rubs herself up against everything and moans at night. I researched solutions and one was to use a Q-tip on her.
|
Oh god. That is an image I didn't want. Someone take me back to 5 minutes ago. PLEASE?
|
|
Stakes: Playing $0.10/$0.25 NL
|
|
Dunk
|
|
01-06-2006, 07:00 PM
Post subject: Re: what wikipedia has to say on poker strategy...
|
#6 (permalink)
|
|
Straight
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Metrowest Massachusetts
Posts: 131
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by mb2447
I know this concept(s) has been stated before (I remember Fnord in particular), but I thought it was expressed particularly well here.
wikipedia is fun.
|
Okay, I'll be nice since I'm still a newb too.
Wikipedia is fun, but pretty useless outside of specialized geeky realms and occaisonal spots of focus - and very inaccurate in places, as recent wiki-scandals have shown. Looking for poker info on wikipedia is more likely to be misleading that useful. In my reading, the definition they've said is "use the strategy that results in winning because such a strategy wins better than others that don't win as much." with more helpful advice in "if you know how your opponents are weak in a particular way, then use a strategy that exploits those weaknesses."
Duh.
If you want to look up "minimax" here, use the forum search - first hotlink on the left under the forum banner. I think looking up discussion on what EV is will be more useful to you, as will such discussions in The Theory of Poker. Just pick it up from your local library and if you like it, buy it cheaply online.
|
|
Note: new guy and very open to constructive criticism, so go ahead and weigh in! I'm here to learn.
|
|
mb2447
|
|
Straight
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: NYC
Posts: 122
|
|
the wikipedia entry was not meant to be comprehensive nor a learning tool. It just expressed the idea nicely that there is no "perfect" strategy, and that an optimal strategy varies according to the particular weaknesses of your opponents. I wasn't looking to gain any useful knowledge from the article, I was just interested in seeing what they had to say.
As for the accuracy of wikipedia, NYTimes did a study and found that on average there were 4 errors per article in wikipedia, and 3 in encyclopaedia britannica. Of course, "errors" are hard to define (they could be omissions, or disagreed-upon dates or places), but as a whole I don't see a reason to discount wiki's accuracy.
Lastly, I do own Theory of Poker, as well as a bunch of other books. Working my way through it now, it's quite good.
And very lastly, I don't see any reason not to be nice, newb or not.
|
|
AWOL.
|
|
Dunk
|
|
Straight
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Metrowest Massachusetts
Posts: 131
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by mb2447
And very lastly, I don't see any reason not to be nice, newb or not.
|
Ooh wrath of the egos coming in 3 ... 2 ... 1
|
|
Note: new guy and very open to constructive criticism, so go ahead and weigh in! I'm here to learn.
|
English
Deutsch
Español
Français
Italiano
Nederlands
Pусский
Svenska
05-26-2012, 03:08 PM Australia Legalized Online Poker coming up in next 6 to 12 Months
Linear Mode
