1) I'm not trying to play poker like a computer would.

2) I agree that poker is too complex to solve and that the solution would be impossible to remember if a huge computer could calculate it.

3) That's why I've restricted these analyses to very simple contexts that are pretty easy to remember once you work through them.

I think what tends to make people think it's complicated is the reasoning behind some of these strategies, where I did go through a lot of (for me) fairly difficult calculations to get there. But the solutions themselves are fairly simple, and I also feel kind of ridiculous just throwing something out there without any real reasoning behind it.

I also regret that excession hasn't gone any further on the line he took. I really do feel like the perspective of post-flop play and the ability of poker hands to catch up really enriches the analysis I did based on the [0,1] game. I think that game-theoretical perspective can provide a kind of basic platform that usually should be more or less correct, but there are lots of important dimensions that it doesn't adequately deal with.

[edited by Ex as this may not have been a genuined GLR comment...]