I agree with you to a large extent. Except for some basics like pot odds, reading your opponent is more important than math (without some basics, I have my doubts that you can get by, although it is possible just to memorize certain situations that you like/are willing to stack off, but I know you don't do that). Obviously, if the specific betting sequence shows you to be ahead, then there's no problem with calling however large a bet or pushing.
At least with some of the more game-theoretical stuff I've been doing lately, really on almost every street it presuppposes that you can put your opponent on some range. So, again, if you're not fairly good at interpreting that range, then you're not going to get very far. But I think understanding that stuff gives you a definite edge over some quite good players (most of whom don't understand that kind of thing) as well as increasing your edge over bad ones.
In all honesty, though, I think it's really about having fun while at the same time playing a winning strategy. It's fun for me figuring out these precise betting, raising, re-raising ranges in various situations, and it's obviously not fun for many others. And I should add that the game-theory I've been doing doesn't presuppose anything more than algebra. You can also do most of them with calculus (maximization problem), but it's usually more complicated and unnecessary. It's really not higher math that's involved here--just takes a little getting used to to learn to set up the equations. But that's a completely different subject.
Anyhow, I think understanding the math can increase whatever edge you have, but you can clearly get a very long way without an excessive amount of it. I doubt that Doyle Brunson has delved very deeply into game theory (although I could be wrong there), but I know Chris Ferguson has and would expect that players like Negreanu or Barry Greenstein have as well.Statistics: Posted by Aisthesis — Wed Apr 09, 2008 10:44 pm
]]>