spoonitnow's 5000th Post: Game Theory and Poker

Interesting. It requires a slight shift in mental perspective (for some reason the two-variable way makes more sense to me), but I can definitely see how this would make the math much easier. Just ignore absolute bet and pot sizes, and relate everything to the bet size (limit) or pot size (no limit).

I was too hung up on being able to plug in absolute sizes for the pot and bet. Which doesn't make sense, since we don't care about absolute sizes, we only ever care about relative sizes anyway. So it makes the math easier, and fits with the concepts of the game. OK, I'm sold.

Originally Posted by NightGizmo

Interesting. It requires a slight shift in mental perspective (for some reason the two-variable way makes more sense to me), but I can definitely see how this would make the math much easier. Just ignore absolute bet and pot sizes, and relate everything to the bet size (limit) or pot size (no limit).

I was too hung up on being able to plug in absolute sizes for the pot and bet. Which doesn't make sense, since we don't care about absolute sizes, we only ever care about relative sizes anyway. So it makes the math easier, and fits with the concepts of the game. OK, I'm sold.

Also note that in a big bet game when you set the pot to be 1 and the bet size to be a variable, usually B or s, then the bet size itself is the percent of the pot you're betting.

In fixed-limit games we can't change the size of the bet, so it makes sense to keep it static. Additionally, in fixed-limit games you describe the pot as the number of bets that are in it, etc.