Originally posted by YohanN7
To illustrate my difficulties here: Suppose it is 3-handed, it is player A, player B and me. It is a Nash equilibrium, and I am losing.
- I can't by definition change strategy and lose less.
- In particular, I can't (again by definition) begin playing exactly like A and expect to lose less.
- In particular, I can't (yet again by definition) begin playing exactly like B and expect to lose less.
Has it been proved that these situations exist or is it the case that it has not been proved that they don't exist? There is a substantial difference.
Sorry about nagging on, but I happen to be interested in math, not just poker.
I read examples of these situations in simpler games, but unfortunately I can't recall exact details. It's been a while.
If you start playing like B, you and B will both lose and A wins a lot. If you start playing like A, you and A lose, and B wins a lot. You are screwed either way.
