Author 
Topic: Arimaa variant to appeal to Poker players (Read 2491 times) 

dpalmer
Forum Full Member
Arimaa player #4712
Gender:
Posts: 15


Arimaa variant to appeal to Poker players
« on: Mar 26^{th}, 2016, 7:08am » 
Quote Modify

In looking back over games, sometimes I like to reverse the path that the winning rabbit took. Often it is pretty straightforward, other times it can get convoluted. But it got me thinking about the following variation. In the initial setup, one of your rabbits is highlighted in some way that is only visible to you. (Same for your opponent). That is the rabbit that you must goal in order to win. Now a serious bluffing element comes into the game. You have to take every opponent's goal threat seriously, but it could be meaningless if it's not the special rabbit. Of course, if you lose that rabbit, the game is over. (Immobilization still applies as a winning option, but only as long as the special rabbit is on the board.) We'd also have the strange situation of the back row potentially getting clogged with nonwinning rabbits. For games between players with large differences in ratings, the higher player gets one highlighted rabbit, and the weaker player could get multiple ones depending on the size of the difference. It would be interesting to see how differently a game is played under these conditions.


IP Logged 



Lion
Forum Senior Member
Arimaa player #9500
Gender:
Posts: 28


Re: Arimaa variant to appeal to Poker players
« Reply #1 on: Jan 12^{th}, 2018, 11:23am » 
Quote Modify

From a gametheory perspective, an optimal strategy against optimal opponents calls for bluffing around 2025% of the time in NLHE. The math can be very complicated, but at the end of the day it's still all math and can be calculated. Once you realize this and understand the math, bluffing ceases being gambling and becomes just one point drawn from an infinite probability space.


IP Logged 



browni3141
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #7014
Gender:
Posts: 379


Re: Arimaa variant to appeal to Poker players
« Reply #2 on: Jan 22^{nd}, 2018, 3:14pm » 
Quote Modify

on Jan 12^{th}, 2018, 11:23am, Lion wrote:From a gametheory perspective, an optimal strategy against optimal opponents calls for bluffing around 2025% of the time in NLHE. The math can be very complicated, but at the end of the day it's still all math and can be calculated. Once you realize this and understand the math, bluffing ceases being gambling and becomes just one point drawn from an infinite probability space. 
 The optimal bluffing frequency depends very heavily on bet sizing and composition of each player's range. In NLHE scenarios can be constructed where the optimal bluffing frequency on the flop may approach 100%, depending on how you define a bluff. Even if you define a bluff rather strictly as a hand that will never win without getting the opponent to fold, bluffing frequency on the flop can approach 87.5%. Other scenarios can be constructed where the bluffing frequency should be 0%. Also, the term "bluff" itself is a human construction. It's not always clear which hands qualify as bluffs vs. value bets. It's quite common, especially on early streets, for bets to get better hands to fold and worse hands to call.


IP Logged 



