New things learned.

Firstly, I must thank Meteoric poker (follow the link down the side to his blog) for making me look into this further. I found an awesome thread on 2p2 link: http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/15/poker-theory/simplified-heads-up-nlhe-toy-game-617129/ discussing game theory and the value of toy poker games particularly regarding jam or fold games sub ten big blinds. The last time I browsed 2p2 the discussion wasn't particularly interesting but if they've got research like this in there I clearly don't read that forum enough! Firstly, I assumed that the nash tables created and published in 'the mathematics of poker' were optimal. They're only close to being optimal in real life. The SB actually has a game value which is small -ev. Why? Because the BB gets to act second - in other words he has the preflop positional advantage. I don't remember ever seeing position being quantified mathematically before, but now I have. Firstly, if this is true at small stacks, this edge must be more significant for deep play. Another interesting thing is that although the jam fold stuff isn't optimal - it's close. So I still believe, that while it's impossible to beat position we can definitely negate some of the edge it grants by attempting to play a more balanced out of position strategy. Again, this might only gain us some small portion of equity back, but it is likely some improvement from not playing oop at all. I guess this is the future of NLHE, the game will eventually converge upon the game theoretical solution.
So what have I learned? 1/ That position is a mathematical edge, not just a conceptual one - as I'd stupidly thought. 2/ That we should be able to improve our oop play to negate some of this edge - although this is going to be hard to do. I intend to try none the less.
I discovered something else at the same time. That it's possible to make a bluff catching type hand indifferent to calling down three pot sized bets on three streets versus a range of hands that has mostly bluffs but a few very strong hands. Even an imbalance like 70% bluff, 30% made hands. I've never seen a situation where the bluff range has been larger than the value bet range and still been OK. This explains alot of things from my time in cash; why those players who always 'float' and then beat the hell out of you in position actually do OK and don't spew as much as I thought. Anyway, so many thoughts swirling around at the minute, there's so much I need to learn. Let's get to it. Thanks again to Meteoric, and also to Adam (poker-for-fishes, link on right) for pointing him in this direction. My poker knowledge is moving in the right direction. GL all :)