First off, if you're unfamiliar with Texas hold 'em poker, let me tell you how it's played. First, each player is dealt two cards and there's a round of betting. Next, 3 cards are put on the table that belong to all the players and another round of betting, then a fourth card on the table and another round of betting. Finally, a fifth card on the table and another round of betting and the player with the best 5 card combination of the cards in his hand and the cards on the table wins.

Now I have created a database with 400,000 simulated games (minus the betting. I have no idea how to simulate that). What I'm trying to determine is what is the optimum strategy for when to fold after the first two cards are dealt.

So I have a table with a criteria id and 5 parameters, I apply these parameters to the simulated games to determine whether or not that person folded and whether or not they ended up winning the game. There are two ways to measure success. How many times did I fold when I shouldn't have? You want that number, let's call it A, to be as low as possible. Or How many times did I do the right thing by folding? You want that number, B, to be as high as possible.

What I found is that strategies that scored very low on A also score very low on B and strategies that score high on B also score high on A. So the optimum would be measured by some formula using A and B. I tried B - A and that seemed to favor the low A scores. I thought that since there are 3 losses for every win (average four players per game), try B*3 -A which heavily favored the high B strategies. I feel in my gut that the optimum strategy is one in the middle, but I can't figure out what it is.

Thoughts anyone?

Now I have created a database with 400,000 simulated games (minus the betting. I have no idea how to simulate that). What I'm trying to determine is what is the optimum strategy for when to fold after the first two cards are dealt.

So I have a table with a criteria id and 5 parameters, I apply these parameters to the simulated games to determine whether or not that person folded and whether or not they ended up winning the game. There are two ways to measure success. How many times did I fold when I shouldn't have? You want that number, let's call it A, to be as low as possible. Or How many times did I do the right thing by folding? You want that number, B, to be as high as possible.

What I found is that strategies that scored very low on A also score very low on B and strategies that score high on B also score high on A. So the optimum would be measured by some formula using A and B. I tried B - A and that seemed to favor the low A scores. I thought that since there are 3 losses for every win (average four players per game), try B*3 -A which heavily favored the high B strategies. I feel in my gut that the optimum strategy is one in the middle, but I can't figure out what it is.

Thoughts anyone?

Last edited by a moderator: