MPT vs "traditional poker (4 Viewers)

[ekricket]

I’ll give it a go, here is my understanding of GTO:

GTO doesn’t mean optimal in terms of always making max profit. Playing perfect GTO would simply make you unexploitable and nothing more - no matter if you’re playing the T4s guy, Daniel Negreanu or Phil Ivey, you won’t lose (theoretically). But you won’t make the max either.

Anyone who does not play perfect GTO (which is every human) is exploitable in some way though. So in order to make max profit one would deviate from GTO to exploit any given player’s in-game tendencies.

Naturally, players do this regardless of whether they’re knowledgeable in GTO or not, just by feel e.g. ”this guy never bluffs big on the river, so I can fold my top pair”. But having a theoretically sound understanding of the GTO baseline and why and how it makes sense to deviate from it in any given situation is probably helpful in order to get as close to max profit as possible.

And since GTO play is unexploitable it makes sense to try to play as close to it as one possibly can when facing unknown opponents. As soon as their tendencies are known we can start to deviate.

I just play as random as possible. You can’t know what I have if half the time I don’t either.

 

[Eriks]

I just play as random as possible. You can’t know what I have if half the time I don’t either.

I have edited my post

 

[Jers28]

I’ll give it a go, here is my understanding of GTO:

GTO doesn’t mean optimal in terms of always making max profit. Playing perfect GTO would simply make you unexploitable and nothing more - no matter if you’re playing the T4s guy, Daniel Negreanu, Phil Ivey or Kevin playing randomly, you won’t lose (theoretically). But you won’t make the max either.

Anyone who does not play perfect GTO (which is every human) is exploitable in some way though. So in order to make max profit one would deviate from GTO to exploit any given player’s in-game tendencies.

Naturally, players do this regardless of whether they’re knowledgeable in GTO or not, just by feel e.g. ”this guy never bluffs big on the river, so I can fold my top pair”. But having a theoretically sound understanding of the GTO baseline and why and how it makes sense to deviate from it in any given situation is probably helpful in order to get as close to max profit as possible.

And since GTO play is unexploitable it makes sense to try to play as close to it as one possibly can when facing unknown opponents. As soon as their tendencies are known we can start to deviate.

This! Well said.

 

[DrStrange]

Whatever it is called, there isn't a way to promise Hero he can play poker and never lose.

Variance is a bitch or the love of your life depending on how the night goes. GTO or MPT or Super System, it doesn't matter. Some sessions aren't going to go your way. In the long run - - L O N G run, perhaps it all evens out. Really, it never evens out because we die before reaching that fabled place.

Also of note is the rake / seat fee / door charge / etc. Costs are incurred before finding out about wins or losses. If we all played perfect poker, in the long run everyone loses to the house.

To be sure, Hero can play in ways that increase his expected value. He can play to limit or eliminate the risk of exploitation. All good things.

But even then, there will be times that try your faith -=- DrStrange

 

[Taghkanic]

I believe most if not all of the common GTO solvers take rake into account.

 

[Dbxela]

Consider 3 strategies:
1. LAGFish
2. Noughties Pro exploiting LAGfish
3. GTO

Obviously 1vs1, 2vs2 and 3vs3 are ties because they are symmetrical.

2 loses a lot to 3 by making large fundamental mistakes.

1 massively loses to 3 by making huge fundamental mistakes.

1 loses a lot to 2 as well, because 2 is actively spotting 1's most obvious mistakes and adapting as best they can.

The interesting question in the thread is who wins more from 1; 2 or 3. In reality it's probably 3. Old school fundamental mistakes were so big its unlikely exploitation netted off the loss when compared with an optimised solve.

The modern pro is using 2, but patching up all the leaks they can learn by studying 3, which is very powerful. They may even try to do as much 3 as possible and not bother much with 2, and probably still win more from 1 than 2 ever did. Always note that no-one can ever show a profit vs 3.

 

[jeffb1517]

Hello - new here. Played a lot of poker in the early 2000's when traditional poker was more reading people and "feel" with some math (pot odds, rough odds to make hands etc) mixed in.

Now I see a whole bunch about Modern Poker Theory and "solvers" that maximize play/return over time.

Curious, has anyone studied MPT, do you use it, how does it work for you?

First off this really makes a difference against opponents who are paying attention. So for most home games and low stakes the MPT, GTO strategy and the more classical strategies will match. I think it is a pure upgrade from the sorts of strategies one saw 20 years ago. The goal of most good plays in poker is to try and find situations where you force the opponent into uncomfortable choices where they are forced to make calls with negative EV or surrender pot equity. That is, you are not concerned about their fold, call, or raise, but they lose disastrously if they pick wrong and they don't have good information to go on.

You want to make easy decisions you want them to be making hard decisions. To accomplish this you need to have betting sequences and ranges of hands utilizing those sequences which are hard to respond to. Constructing those was very difficult. Via. computer solvers we've been able to construct excellent collections of sequences and ranges. That's all MPT is.

 

[Coyote]

I studied this a bit when it was first coming up—Bill Chen's Mathematics of Poker primarily—before anyone had developed "solvers." That is to say, I understand roughly how it works and why it's a powerful strategy. It was interesting to read and learn about.

Since then, my feeling is that it absolutely ruins the game of NLHE.

In theory, it ruins the game because it equips players with an effectively unbeatable, computer-generated strategy. Obviously this is far worse for online poker than live poker; it effectively nukes online poker forever by enabling the game to be beaten by players directly using solver output or coding it into bots. Even if they're forbidden, it's at best a game of cat and mouse, and any player not doing it would be well-advised to avoid public online poker. Even private online games, you'd be extending a lot of trust.

In practice, it ruins the game in ways like the Tamayo scandal. It was already advisable to ban devices at the table prior to solvers. Now it's practically mandatory, and any cardroom that doesn't ban devices will have to worry about people using solvers to cheat live. (Yes, cheat. Gaining an advantage by using a device to do math for you at the table is cheating, outright, no question.)

Looking at the long run, if enough players use a solver strategy, it turns NLHE into a chance game. Everyone's paying rake to basically gamble on the outcomes, not on skill, because there is no longer any skill differential—except for people who aren't using solvers, who will get fleeced with no (theoretical) chance to win.

TLDR: NLHE is a dying game. Play Double Board Omaha.

Would you ever consider playing the unexplored "Double Board Mammoth"? (pot split between the 2 boards)
Three hole cards, and just a three-card board, single-card flop, turn, river.
Self-imposed rule is either 2 hole cards and 3 board cards or vice-versa!

 

[Jimulacrum]

Would you ever consider playing the unexplored "Double Board Mammoth"? (pot split between the 2 boards)
Three hole cards, and just a three-card board, single-card flop, turn, river.
Self-imposed rule is either 2 hole cards and 3 board cards or vice-versa!

Of course I would.