Texas Hold 'Em Poker is essentially a wagering game with incomplete information. Information is incomplete in the simple sense that you do not know your opponents' cards, and in the more complicated sense that you often do not know what to do with the information at hand (i.e. is that a tell, or does he have a really itchy nose?)
For the novice, the meaning of the cards themselves is often unclear as well. In this variety of poker, there are 169 different 2-card starting hands with which you can begin. Anyone can tell you that AA is the best you can start with, and 72 unsuited is probably the worst. The worth of all those cards in between is less clear however.
A good player will tell you that their worth has as much - if not more - to do with your position at the table, the cards your opponents will play, the type of players your opponents are, and even the last hand that was dealt as it does the cards themselves. This, however, seems to be the same as saying "I don't like the question you are asking - ask the right one, and maybe I'll have an answer for you."
My goal in writing this blog is to try to build up an intuition for Texas Hold 'Em by running a series of Monte Carlo simulations. I believe that if I start with simple - even foolish - questions and gradually make them more complicated I will see directly the importance of position, opponents' card choice and the myriad other factors going into optimal wagering. I'm writing this as a blog with the hopes that other people who have similar interests in math and poker will contribute feedback on current simulations and ideas of what to simulate next.
My first question is: if the game simply involved dealing cards, and there was no opportunity for anyone to fold (ie no wagering), which starting hands would win more often?
No comments:
Post a Comment