General Discussion Poker Forums

Funny you should mention this as he also mentions you in the same article.
Its the atricle he wrote for January's Bluff mag.
Titled 'The Professional'

Although the article space has Jay's name on it (as it will do every month), as he kindly provides the space for DC authors to submit work, the article was written by myself. That's why my name is at the bottom The editing in the online version is a little messed up which makes this fact a little less clear than the print version. The reason I noticed your quote is because I remember writing it.

Well it means that we can't define what a solution really is and that's super important. There are several equillibria, but the players have different EV in the different ones. So which equillibria is the solution? This means we can't solve 6max poker. And that is pretty imortant point considering what OP was asking?

'Solving' a game (of imperfect information) just means finding Nash equilibria. Or at least that's how the word is used in publications.

I don't get ur angry tone .

I'm not angry, I just don't really make an effort to be nice or come across as a likeable person

Although the article space has Jay's name on it (as it will do every month), as he kindly provides the space for DC authors to submit work, the article was written by myself. That's why my name is at the bottom The editing in the online version is a little messed up which makes this fact a little less clear than the print version. The reason I noticed your quote is because I remember writing it.

Wow it was you who wrote it.
Appolagies,and congrats on a great article.(dont give up the writing dream imo)
The editing was a little confusing towards the end alright, and I didnt think KRANTS had a daughter...plus the Oxford Masters ... ups should have been obv it wassnt him I guess.I feel like a total noob now for thinking it was KRANTS.
But, no matter who wrote it, I agree with it 100%.
I think you have a very refreshing outlook on poker and seem to make it work well for you.

All I can say is nice work sir, This article was inspiring to me, as the reasons behind 'What Poker means to you' are exactly what I want poker to mean to me. I'm reasently married and have a four month old baby and would do anything for the kind of freedom poker has given you.

Wish you all the best with your future endeavors Tim.

'Solving' a game (of imperfect information) just means finding Nash equilibria. Or at least that's how the word is used in publications.

My guess is that most papers treats HU poker.

For me a solution is a strategy that gurantees at least not losing.

For me a solution is a strategy that gurantees at least not losing.

Don't play. BOOM. Can't lose

All I can say is nice work sir, This article was inspiring to me, as the reasons behind 'What Poker means to you' are exactly what I want poker to mean to me. I'm reasently married and have a four month old baby and would do anything for the kind of freedom poker has given you.

Thank you for your kind words, this is very encouraging to hear and I wish you all the best in obtaining your goals.

OP: Apologies for any derailment of what is a compelling thread.

My guess is that most papers treats HU poker.

For me a solution is a strategy that gurantees at least not losing.

I'm not necessarily talking about poker. 'Solving' a game really means finding the equilibria; it doesn't matter whether or not it's a multiagent game, or what the expected returns are or if it's even zero-sum. Looking for a strategy that has a minimal expected value of at least 0 is only sensible for 2-player zero-sum games. It's not for you to decide what the word solving means

Lol u are stubborn ! Now we have left game-theory and entered the world of semantics. Finding all Nash-equillibria is a solution to a problem. But I don't see how it could be a satisfying one if the strategy u get from this "solution" can be beaten.

I think that in the way people usualluy interprets "solution" the case is that multi-way poker doesn't have one.

Also u are wrong that solving a game always means finding all Nash-equillibria. It's the easiest solution concept, but for reasons as the one I have explained in this thread it is not a satisfying one for some problems. In GT there are other solution concepts (see for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equilibrium_concept).

Lol u are stubborn !

What the hell?

Now we have left game-theory and entered the world of semantics. Finding all Nash-equillibria is a solution to a problem. But I don't see how it could be a satisfying one if the strategy u get from this "solution" can be beaten.

It doesn't matter if it satisfies you or not. Nobody cares.

I think that in the way people usualluy interprets "solution" the case is that multi-way poker doesn't have one.

And you base that on what exactly? Your extensive contact with game theorists? You read a book and googled some stuff -- how the hell would you know how people interpret a certain piece of terminology

Also u are wrong that solving a game always means finding all Nash-equillibria. It's the easiest solution concept, but for reasons as the one I have explained in this thread it is not a satisfying one for some problems. In GT there are other solution concepts (see for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equilibrium_concept).

Yes there are other solution concepts, but the default concept is Nash equilibrium. If you're gonna talk about "solving" poker, a game theorist is certainly going to think you mean finding the Nash equilibria. If you actually mean to talk about finding the Aumann correlated equilibrium -- you better make that very clear.

Take it easy Clickty. No need to get all defensive and emotional for what used to be a good debate which has now turned into you being very condescending.

I'm posting in this thread for god knows what reason - surely nobody asked for it - but my posts are informative and clear. It seems, though, that you'd rather have someone like sushiglutton, who once read a book about this subject, but, more importantly, makes a real effort to be nice by slamming his posts with exclamation marks and constantly asking if his explanation is still easy to follow.

I am definitely not doing that, but don't mistake that for getting emotional (I wish I could, honestly) or deliberate condescension.

I don't doubt that you are providing good information, but if you choose to provide that information in the manner you have chosen, I would rather not have the information at all. DC is a community where we respect others and if that isn't your thing then twoplustwo sounds like more of a fit for you. I don't care what you have to say if you can't say it nicely.

The same goes for anyone on here, not just you CC.

I don't doubt that you are providing good information, but if you choose to provide that information in the manner you have chosen, I would rather not have the information at all. DC is a community where we respect others and if that isn't your thing then twoplustwo sounds like more of a fit for you. I don't care what you have to say if you can't say it nicely.

The same goes for anyone on here, not just you CC.

The Tribe Leader has spoken.

The Tribe Leader has spoken.

lol, just trying to keep it civil up in this piece