Decision Making
Вставка
- Опубліковано 27 тра 2024
- MIT 15.S50 Poker Theory and Analysis, IAP 2015
View the complete course: ocw.mit.edu/15-S50IAP15
Instructor: Matt Hawrilenko
In this session, guest Matt Hawrilenko discusses game theory, value betting and bluffing, how to maximize the value of the entire set of hands, and exploitive strategies.
License: Creative Commons BY-NC-SA
More information at ocw.mit.edu/terms
More courses at ocw.mit.edu
This was explained really well, good job hoss xD
very good lecture
Sounds interesting, but the fact that the projector screen is rarely shown makes it hard to follow.
+Brian Newman Lectures notes are available for the course at ocw.mit.edu/15-S50IAP15. Hopefully these will help.
Lol, whoever is in charge of the MIT OpenCourseWare UA-cam channel must be having a lot of fun responding to that same comment in the same way on every video multiple times. That has to be like half the day's work. I respect the commitment that leads them to reply to all of these comments on all the videos though.
ocw.mit.edu/courses/sloan-school-of-management/15-s50-poker-theory-and-analytics-january-iap-2015/lecture-notes/MIT15_S50IAP15_L8_Decisions.pdf
Or is balancing itself the exploit? Or does that just make us harder to exploit? Is it better to exploit or not be exploitable? These are some of the questions I'm interested in hearing your response to.
Chris Wilson this is covered in the last 10 minutes of lecture
How that hand ends???? What he did?
What would he bluff with here, 78, 910? There's more value hands in his range, maybe he bets this much with trips or a full house to make it look like a bluff to get calls from AA ,QQ or a J..
they had an old guy teaching the same lecture before, anyone knows where to find him explaining this stuff ? would highly appreciate
It's number 6 in the series from mit. Poker economics.
I don't get it at 24:16 or page 22 of the PDF.
For me they dont lose juste the valuebet (1), they lose the value bet only when you're not bluffing so they lose (1-%Bluff) . bet
So in my mind it should be b ( P + 1 ) - ( 1 - b ) = 0
And in the end b = 1 / ( P + 2 )
Could someone explain me where I got wrong?
Same here... However, b = 1 / (P + 2) implies 1-b = (P+1)/(P+2) so ratio bluffs/value bets as it is written is 1 / (P+1). But we were looking for b...
Vicent Vicent, I have the same doubt. I guess (I'm not sure) it's because you value bet 100% of time.
If you bluff 40% of time, that does not mean that the other 60% you value bet (you can just check);
In oposition to call%, where if you call 40% of time, the other 60% you fold.
I wondered this! Have you figured it out yet? I am so confused
I had NO IDEA that this was on the internet! Super like! Love HOSSTBF!
Double like.
Youre surprising for a Game Theory Jujitsu man.
At 46:00 he says that you should call with 40% of hands that beat a bluff. This is incorrect, because it would come down to a conditional probability. Given these odds you should call in 40% of the cases overall. With polarized betting on earlier streets, you should usually end up with enough strong hands on the river to do so, but it can be tricky. This one of the examples, where things look much easier in a theoretical model, like the [0,1] game.
Same at 32:38 isn't it? I don't get why calling with x% hands "that beat a bluff", where does that come from?
I think it's just wording; you have a certain % that you must call to prevent villain from exploiting you with ATC. Of course the hands that you call with = beat a bluff... Not "X% of hands that beat a bluff". Blockers can be considered when figuring out which hands to bluff catch with or fold with afaik.
Engaging with this content is enlightening. A book I read that shared these ideas shifted my entire mindset. "Game Theory and the Pursuit of Algorithmic Fairness" by Jack Frostwell
Who was the genius camera man?! 🙄
What if to exploit requires us to unbalance our range? Do we not balance or do we not exploit?
exploiting does require you to unbalance
but good luck being balanced as a human being
Not checking any Kx flop or turn makes checking range weak against overbets and also if some Kx or stronger check the river range gets slightly weaker (as was proven here Hero just has it too often as played). Also given the board ranges are not at all symmetrical on the river (due to very different preflop distributions Hero has strong Kx hands but not as many king high full houses or straight draws). When considering river bluffcatches or reraise bluffs blockers are extremely important, for example here your range is so strong villain shouldn't value overbet anything less than full house so if you want to call or raise without K blocker Jx works better than AA.
Why are KK and KJ part of your 40%? These are not bluff catchers, they are the nuts. Why not ask what is his value bet range, and then draw a line for the hands that still beat that range? That will open up calling with your KT and K9s.
Wtf did he fold or call 😁
So how can the idea of optimal game theory play alone actually turn a profit. If you are leaving your opponent with only equal ev options, then doesn't that mean that it is impossible for your opponent to make an unprofitable play, no matter how bad they are?
GTO is EV0 against GTO. It's EV+ most other strategies.
But isn't the point of GTO that is leaves all of your opponents options as equal EV meaning that any move by them would be GTO? Is the only error that your opponent can make bet sizing in that case?
If the other person deviates, the person following GTO gains. There is no strategy to exploit the GTO. A deviation from GTO always gives an opportunity to exploit.
GTO is BS, bet sizing can beat GTO players for the fact they go by figures to determine if they should fold or call.
Legend has it to this day the speaker still needs a glass of water
I respect this, but this often, but only applicable to rational players.
since u recognize the opponent is irrational,u can shift your strategy then
So, wthat did the villain hold? :O
I am so mad that they never show that. I kept waiting for it and waiting, wondering what he would do and loving the example but it was left unanswered. I assume he folds there and never sees the result.
It is not important....
Karim Maassen No answer in the notes either. I am curious as well.
interesting points ,if anyone else is searching for best online online poker course try card crusher fixer (just google it ) ? Ive heard some extraordinary things about it and my work buddy got cool results with it.
I'm gonna go with his AA's were good, because of the bet sizing
Why are you reaching the MIT college fish?!?
ANYONE ELTS?
*GULP*
I am so lost
I dub thee, KarateDork
😅😅
Mombo Jumbo
Omfg. His gulping is killing me......
Why MIT is teaching poker
From the IAP About page ( web.mit.edu/iap/about/ ), "The Independent Activities Period (IAP) is a special term at MIT that runs from early January until the end of the month....
IAP provides members of the MIT community (students, faculty, staff, and alums) with a unique opportunity to organize, sponsor and participate in a wide variety of activities, including how-to sessions, forums, athletic endeavors, lecture series, films, tours, recitals and contests.
During IAP, students are encouraged to set their own educational agendas, pursue independent projects, meet with faculty, or pursue many other options not possible during the semester. Faculty are free to introduce innovative educational experiments as IAP activities. All members of the MIT Community, are encouraged to create offerings aimed at sharing a particular talent, expertise or interest with others at the Institute."
This is Game Theory instruction using Poker as a framework. That is why MIT is teaching Poker.
This lecturer talks more about himself, his favourite things in life and random stuff, than about the subject. lol
worst camera action eva
That's MIT? Seriously? Sklansky wrote about this stuff like 40 years ago. I mean some college dropout got it better than 6 MIT guys and their fancy degrees.