I found a way to beat Nash's Equilibrium. But no-one understands...

[yadi]

I'm a poker player, and in the poker world it's well known that GTO, or Nash's Equilibrium, is unbeatable. I've found a way to beat it in certain games without the co-operation of any other players. Without their deliberate co-operation, at least. This logic is new to the poker world and I do believe it's new to the world in general. I have just posted it on Reddit and am being dismissed by everyone as though I have no idea what I'm talking about. If nobody before me has worked this out, I suspect it will be very important to the world in general, but I am being dismissed without the logic being given any consideration.

The way it works is very simple - You use the imperfect opponents to give you an advantage over the NE player. Using NE is not the best way to make money from imperfect opponents. And so, if we are in a tournament with a mixed field of players, we can make more money from the imperfect opponents than our GTO opponent can. We exploit the weaker opponents and take their money before the GTO player gets it. We then have a bigger stack than the GTO player. We have more chips than him. And so when we come to play a hand against him we hold the advantage.

In one individual hand, if both the imperfect opponent and the NE player were involved, this logic does not work. The only reason it works is because the cards are reset at the end of each hand, but during a tournament, the chips are not reset. I play a hand against the weaker player. Take his money. Then in the next hand I play against the NE player and, as I hold more chips, I hold the advantage. Do you see?

It is simple logic, and so I wouldn't be surprised if someone had worked it out before. However, we poker players are usually on par with the rest of the world in such things. So I wouldn't be surprised if this is new. So far I haven't even been able to engage anybody in a conversation about it. They all just dismiss this as nonsense because they "know" Nash's Equilibrium cannot be beaten unilaterally.​

 

[stapel]

I'm a poker player, and in the poker world it's well known that GTO, or Nash's Equilibrium, is unbeatable. I've found a way to beat it in certain games without the co-operation of any other players. Without their deliberate co-operation, at least. This logic is new to the poker world and I do believe it's new to the world in general. I have just posted it on Reddit and am being dismissed by everyone as though I have no idea what I'm talking about. If nobody before me has worked this out, I suspect it will be very important to the world in general, but I am being dismissed without the logic being given any consideration.

The way it works is very simple - You use the imperfect opponents to give you an advantage over the NE player. Using NE is not the best way to make money from imperfect opponents. And so, if we are in a tournament with a mixed field of players, we can make more money from the imperfect opponents than our GTO opponent can. We exploit the weaker opponents and take their money before the GTO player gets it. We then have a bigger stack than the GTO player. We have more chips than him. And so when we come to play a hand against him we hold the advantage.

In one individual hand, if both the imperfect opponent and the NE player were involved, this logic does not work. The only reason it works is because the cards are reset at the end of each hand, but during a tournament, the chips are not reset. I play a hand against the weaker player. Take his money. Then in the next hand I play against the NE player and, as I hold more chips, I hold the advantage. Do you see?

It is simple logic, and so I wouldn't be surprised if someone had worked it out before. However, we poker players are usually on par with the rest of the world in such things. So I wouldn't be surprised if this is new. So far I haven't even been able to engage anybody in a conversation about it. They all just dismiss this as nonsense because they "know" Nash's Equilibrium cannot be beaten unilaterally.​

​

Looks to me like the replies to your Reddit thread very clearly outlined the problem with your logic. Again, perhaps "GTO" is defined differently in poker. But, mathematically, what you propose does not fall within the parameters (the definition and required conditions) of a Nash equilibrium. Sorry.

P.S. Announcing that anybody who disagrees with you (especially people who do this sort of math for a living) is too stupid to understand the topic isn't likely to convince many to put any effort into trying to "understand" your new definition of a Nash equilibrium, let alone do the product-testing that you seem to be wanting.

 

[JeffM]

Why don't you start by defining a Nash-equilibrium strategy? I am not sure you know what it is.

 

[yadi]

​

Looks to me like the replies to your Reddit thread very clearly outlined the problem with your logic. Again, perhaps "GTO" is defined differently in poker. But, mathematically, what you propose does not fall within the parameters (the definition and required conditions) of a Nash equilibrium. Sorry.

P.S. Announcing that anybody who disagrees with you (especially people who do this sort of math for a living) is too stupid to understand the topic isn't likely to convince many to put any effort into trying to "understand" your new definition of a Nash equilibrium, let alone do the product-testing that you seem to be wanting.

That guy tried to discredit my logic by mocking me pretending that he didn't know anything about Poker. And yes, you mathematicians may come up with theories like N.E., but we Poker players use these strategies whilst making 10's of thousands of strategic decisions every day. On Reddit I have come to realise that we are miles ahead of you. You dont even know how to use your own strategies. But we know them inside and out. You should have some respect for us.

N.E. is a strategy that is usually considered unbeatable. It was created by John Nash, have you seen the film "A Beautiful Mind", that was about John Nash finding this equilibrium. It's a strategy which we can apply to make us the most profit regardless of the opponents action. It is the perfect defensive strategy. Aims to make the most profit whilst defending against the opponent making more profit. It works by balancing deception and value. We balance pretending to be strong, with actually being strong, in accordance to the risk/reward of continuing.

Exploitative strategies have one goal - To make profit.
N.E strategies have a different goal - To stop the opponent making more profit than them.

If two perfect players using these different strategies were to face each other, the GTO player would stop the exploitative player from taking profit from him and the interaction would end in a stalemate. Nothing can beat the perfect N.E player and so it is usually deemed the perfect strategy. Unbeatable. However, if we add another player into the fold, a weaker player, the exploitative mentality of aiming for profit enables them to make far more money from the weak player than the N.E. player. If these three are in a tournament, the exploitative player will take the money from the weak player and will then hold an advantage when he faces the N.E player.

Nash's equilibrium strategies can be beaten unilaterally. The only reason this really simple logic hasn't been discovered before now, is because the human mind has an exploitative strategic method already built into our minds. We naturally exploit. And so, when I come to explain this simple logic to people they suffer from cognitive dissonance and will do anything to dismiss what I say as unimportant.

 

[yadi]

There is only one Nash Solution to a game like Poker?
If I were to face a player who is using this Nash Solution, I cannot deviate from Nash myself with any benefit to myself?

If we are playing in a single game, the nash player, a weaker player, and myself. There is still no way that I can deviate from Nash to gain any advantage over the nash player. Unless, I co-operate in some way with the weaker player? I get this.

Now my bit... When the Nash player is not involved in the confrontation, I can gain more from the weaker player by not applying Nash. By exploiting his weaknesses. Then, in the next game, when the Nash player returns, I will hold an advantage over him.

 

[Deleted member 4993]

I'm a poker player, and in the poker world it's well known that GTO, or Nash's Equilibrium, is unbeatable. I've found a way to beat it in certain games without the co-operation of any other players. Without their deliberate co-operation, at least. This logic is new to the poker world and I do believe it's new to the world in general. I have just posted it on Reddit and am being dismissed by everyone as though I have no idea what I'm talking about. If nobody before me has worked this out, I suspect it will be very important to the world in general, but I am being dismissed without the logic being given any consideration.

The way it works is very simple - You use the imperfect opponents to give you an advantage over the NE player. Using NE is not the best way to make money from imperfect opponents. And so, if we are in a tournament with a mixed field of players, we can make more money from the imperfect opponents than our GTO opponent can. We exploit the weaker opponents and take their money before the GTO player gets it. We then have a bigger stack than the GTO player. We have more chips than him. And so when we come to play a hand against him we hold the advantage.

In one individual hand, if both the imperfect opponent and the NE player were involved, this logic does not work. The only reason it works is because the cards are reset at the end of each hand, but during a tournament, the chips are not reset. I play a hand against the weaker player. Take his money. Then in the next hand I play against the NE player and, as I hold more chips, I hold the advantage. Do you see?

It is simple logic, and so I wouldn't be surprised if someone had worked it out before. However, we poker players are usually on par with the rest of the world in such things. So I wouldn't be surprised if this is new. So far I haven't even been able to engage anybody in a conversation about it. They all just dismiss this as nonsense because they "know" Nash's Equilibrium cannot be beaten unilaterally.​

While you were playing the weaker player and winning money (and presumably getting ahead of the NE player) - what was this NE player doing? Why wouldn't s/he also win money from an inferior player and be at the same level (as you are)?

 

[tkhunny]

Essentially: "I can do better than NE because other players can be exploited."

Well: This is not a significant statement. It's not new. It's not thoughtful. It's not remotely insightful. It's certainly not mathematical. No kidding you can prey on the unsuspecting victim! Unscrupulous people have been doing this for millenia.

If you played yourself, could you beat yourself and NE?