overadjusting

[Imthenewfish]

what do you mean by underadjust and perfect adjustment? other than that, i'm very familiar with the 'concept' of 'adjusting', and i'm pretty sure those examples aren't really related to what i was trying to get at.
i always thought an overadjustment was just taking an adjustment that was +EV in a vacuum, and taking it further. This should be +++EV, but i thought we don't usually do it because doing it is very exploitable, and will cause villains to adjust very quickly.
cliffs: Do you go batshit insane with adjustments and just rely on readjusting to how your opponents adjust, or do you gradually adjust and just focus on getting some eevees out of it without your opponent adjusting?

[Penneywize]

Newf you should know I wasn't trying to lecture you, I was really just posting up my own thoughts on the concept. Sorry if it came across otherwise!

What I meant by underadjusting was that, assuming we decide to adjust one way given an opponent's tendencies, say by widening a calling range, we actually do not widen it enough. So we've adjusted, but not quite enough as we should have. Say our opponent raises 50% in a given position in the long run but our stats on him indicate 30%, and we adjust by widening our continue range somewhat, while we should probably widen it considerably more.

By perfect adjustment I just mean the type of adjustment we could make had we had perfect information on the opponent, all else being equal (i.e. either ignoring or completely taking into account their own propensity to adjust). Again it's kind of a mythical thing and probably not very useful in actual analysis and play.

By the way I'm glad to see you're back on the forums!

[Penneywize]

cliffs: Do you go batshit insane with adjustments and just rely on readjusting to how your opponents adjust, or do you gradually adjust and just focus on getting some eevees out of it without your opponent adjusting?

I basically believe that there exists an optimal amount of adjustment for each and every opponent, i.e. an exploitation 'sweet spot' that enables us to get the maximum expectation out of them at a given point in time. So, to liken this to the two scenarios you mentioned 1) adjusting drastically, hoping to exploit the opponent maximally and in short order, and 2) adjusting more gradually, the trade off, it seems to me, is as follows:

The first method may allow us to make the maximum amount in the short term, however we are A: more likely to be adjusted against, and B: more likely to get the adjustment wrong.

In the second case, we are less likely to be immediately adjusted against, and less likely to make an overly erroneous adjustment, however we may give up some value in the short term.

Thoughts?