From a sheer math and logic point of view poker is a game of mistakes. He who makes the fewest wins the most $$. Constantly putting decisions on your opponents puts them in a position to make a mistake. That's the essense of succesful poker whether you're a live player or a bot. Matters little whether you hold the nutz or bluff ... constant pressure will force errors.
i am kinda following you. But isn't EVERY hand dealt 'putting a decision' on? Does simply playing the ODDS impeccably dictate success in the long run? (certainly the 'long run' or "$ at end of game' is all that 'pays the bills')
I don't know how you can hold someone accountable for falling for a bluff since, how could you know what they're holding given an incomplete accounting of cards unturned. Maybe knowing the style of a given player but that player would know that his style can be known and would make adjustments. Then his opponent knowing he might know, adjustments would be made based on that, would account for it by playing with that in mind. Its the old he knows that I know that he knows etc. ad infinitum.. Sounds like trading, doesn't it, esp. since the uptick rule was eliminated.
Your assumptions are entirely incorrect. The question is and remains can playing only PROBABLE hands insure success in the long run? Not only insure success but DEMAND IT! (If so, computers will soon ruin poker) BUT how important is READING your opponent to the ultimate outcome? How significant is a little knowledge of your opponent's playing style to your successful decision making? You assume once read adjustments will be made, that's simply not true. Take LIFE for example, do you realize all the 'non-verbal' information that emanates or is exuding from your being?? of course not
I take it you're not for the uptick rule. And, you mean like your aura? How do you know what some poker star is thinking? Once your opponent loses all his chips its over and a strict mathematical odds approach might, in the long run, come out on top but again not necessarily before your opponent loses all his chips. I once read about how it is that chess masters had been able to beat computers that had billions of historical moves to refer to. They said the answer wasn't arrived at by scrolling thru all that history since a mind can't do that the way a computer does. They said the answer just POPPED into their head, the source of it being just a mystery of the mind. Notwithstanding the not yet equaled computing power of the brain with a permutation quotient from 10 billion neurons, how we make that power work for us and extract an answer is filtered thru natural selection and the evolution of our need to survive ...I think. I'll give you that statistics are very powerful but not when its power is cut short by pulling the plug.
Yes every hand puts a decision on every player. When *I* bet or raise I am in effect putting a decision on my opponent thus giving him the opportunity to make a mistake. If he folds to my bluff he's made a mistake whether he is aware of the bluff of not. If he calls my made hand he's made a mistake. This is why properly applied aggressive action is generally more successful. Not knowing when you make a mistake is still a mistake.
Playing only probable hands leads to long term failure or break even at best. Example: Game is 5 - 10. Tight player raises to $30 from mid position. I have 6-8. I call knowing he has a large pair, A-K and the like. Flop comes 4-5-7. He leads out with a continuation bet thinking who calls a raise with 6-8. I call. Turn is A. He bets I call. River is K. He goes all in I call and felt him. I win a huge pot. He complains that only a donkey plays 6-8 but I have his chips. Play the same hand where I call with 6 - 8. Flop comes k - 4- 2. He bets I fold. He wins a small pot. Fact is big hands win small pots and lose giant ones. Thats an example of an edge in poker. There are many. So the guy waiting for big hands to trap or slow play is at a disadvantage.
Of course a mistake is a mistake, but only in hindsight since when the player folded or called he couldn't have known what the right call to make was. Thing is doesn't the opportunity to put decisions to an opponent go around to make that point moot? I think its possible to use someones aggresive play against them as in calling. I respect that you used the term generally in describing aggresive plays success but it seems to me there's a very subtle feeling out going on that accuracy might describe better than precision.
Maybe mistake is not the most accurate term because it assumes a conscience poor decision. Example: I'm in the small blind and action folds around to me. I have 3 different decisions - fold, call and raise. The big blind has 2 decisions - check or raise. If I raise, which I will almost always do, I introduce another variable and another way for me to win (if he folds) and a possible wrong choice for him if he calls and loses more or folds - a decision or chain of events that was not available until I raised. I did say aggressive *generally* because you are correct - it can backfire if not aplied properly. My game is mostly agressive. It gives me an edge. I am usually the villian. Thats an edge. My play will tighen up most players and loosen up others which introduces more poor decisions. It takes players out of thier comfort zone. Thats an edge. I will raise with 7 - 8 and know that most people will only call with premium hands to try to make the nutz and trap me. If they dont hit I take the pot. If they do hit they will bet or check raise me (which I'm used to) and I get away from the hand cheap. On the other hand some guy with AA will find it almost impossible to get away and lose his whole stack if I hit big on the flop. Thats an edge. Aggressive players like me get just as many big hands like AA or KK as tight players but unlike them who'll drag a small pot with AA I'll take a large one as most will not give me credit for a real hand after seeing that I'll raise just as easy with 7 - 8. I get paid when I hit big hands. Thats an edge. After seeing me raise and limp with AA as well as 7 - 8 my opponenets will have a very hard time putting me on a hand. Thats an edge. The way to beat me is for my opponents to change the way *they* play. Thats an edge. Maybe they'll succeed in getting me to not put so much pressure on them but I'll still pick on the other 8 players until they wise up. Thats an edge. If the whole table wises up I'll switch gears and play tighter while they start playing looser. Advantage goes to me for the most part because they will try to play like I was which is not thier natural game and still not give me credit for a hand and I'll continue to get paid. For sure there are aggressive players who suck and play like a maniac and will win big on occasion but for the most part they'll lose because unlike me they are not effectively using the edge that aggressive play provides.