Anyone tried GTO Wizard? (1 Viewer)

[Legend5555]

Anyone tried GTO Wizard. I signed up for the free version and even that seems like a hell of a deal for what you get. Subscriptions allow you to import hand histories you can playback and see how you did compared to GTO. It's pretty cool for what it is.

 

[Stufflymcstuff]

haven’t yet but have Been meaning to try it out.

That said there are some major limitations in that it’s only solving for 2 way action (to be expected) and more importantly that you can’t play with ranges or tendencies of players. Would be a ton of work for them but would step it up big time if they allowed you to modify ranges and had 3-5 preset player types to reflect common tendencies and presenting a modified solution.

Maybe this is just wishful thinking…

 

[Legend5555]

haven’t yet but have Been meaning to try it out.

That said there are some major limitations in that it’s only solving for 2 way action (to be expected) and more importantly that you can’t play with ranges or tendencies of players. Would be a ton of work for them but would step it up big time if they allowed you to modify ranges and had 3-5 preset player types to reflect common tendencies and presenting a modified solution.

Maybe this is just wishful thinking…

To be fair, modifying ranges makes it no longer GTO. At that point you are solving for exploits. Most solvers don't do multiway either because of the immense complexity.

For a quick way to explore some GTO stuff on the super cheap though, it's pretty good.

 

[boltonguy]

I have never seen it before - looks cool Thx!

 

[ninedeuce]

After using the free beta and then paying month to month, I bit the bullet for an annual subscription a few months ago.

I play 2-3 nights per week consistently in online .5/1 and 1/2 games with lots of action, so the price is worth it for me.

The part I use most is the GTO training mode, e.g., practicing spots like BTN v BB, single raised pot.

The developers are also constantly improving the product, it's a great team.

That said, the HH analysis doesn't work too well for me since it assumes 100bb eff for cash and most of the games I play in are much deeper. E.g., it thinks you've shoved once you've put 100bb in the hand and does no further analysis.

 

[boltonguy]

I played with the trainer for an hour last night and it is pretty cool. I use Snowie a lot but since I have my Preflop ranges nailed I fold 78% of hands so this tool lets me focus on postflop play and specific configurations. Liking it.

 

[boltonguy]

One thing I have noticed is that if I choose an option like check and bet 1/4 pot has 0.05 more EV it will be wrong. It would be nice to set and EV regret threshold to allow for Strategy simplification. So if my EV loss is less than the regret value don’t ding me.

 

[Legend5555]

 

[boltonguy]

Boy I'll tell you - I played a lot of hands on snowie and then had to wean myself off calling rivers/bluff catching at GTO frequencies owing to the fact that the Ignition/ACR pool is value heavy on the river. I'm failing on the river here as I'm still playing tighter

 

[Jimulacrum]

Boy I'll tell you - I played a lot of hands on snowie and then had to wean myself off calling rivers/bluff catching at GTO frequencies owing to the fact that the Ignition/ACR pool is value heavy on the river. I'm failing on the river here as I'm still playing tighter

In theory, I understand why GTO should work and what makes it a smart idea. But in practice, it seems like mostly a gimmick to make people think they can master poker solo, using books and software, without significant experience at the table with the wide variety of players who populate the game.

If the strategy is truly GTO, it shouldn't matter if you're calling the river a lot and losing. Long-term, your opponents shouldn't be able to counter a truly GTO strategy. But it sure sounds like they are leaving it in the dust, at least on the last bet. Even adjusting for the tendencies of an entire pool of anonymized players is playing exploitative poker, so if you're doing that, you're kinda admitting defeat on the GTO front.

 

[Legend5555]

In theory, I understand why GTO should work and what makes it a smart idea. But in practice, it seems like mostly a gimmick to make people think they can master poker solo, using books and software, without significant experience at the table with the wide variety of players who populate the game.

If the strategy is truly GTO, it shouldn't matter if you're calling the river a lot and losing. Long-term, your opponents shouldn't be able to counter a truly GTO strategy. But it sure sounds like they are leaving it in the dust, at least on the last bet. Even adjusting for the tendencies of an entire pool of anonymized players is playing exploitative poker, so if you're doing that, you're kinda admitting defeat on the GTO front.

I'd say it's a good fundamental foundation to start from. I agree that you can save a lot of money by not calling rivers nearly as often as GTO would suggest. There is nothing wrong with adjusting to exploits against the vast majority of players. But getting a good idea of preflop ranges and board textures to cbet (and surprisingly from what I've found, which boards not to cbet and how often you should be checking OOP as the preflop raiser) is very useful. As well as giving you solid ideaa of when to be bluffing and with what hands. All of that is pretty useful stuff.

 

[boltonguy]

I'm only considering playing GTO against perfectly balanced opponents which means never. However I think a good understanding of the theory cant hurt as long as you know that you need to deviate based on your opponent/pool's deviations.

 

[boltonguy]

BN (Hero) vs BB and it wants to X BN. Any idea why? I would think AT4r is pretty dry and hits our range better than the BB's.
I almost want to put this on GTO+ as I dont believe this is a X. I range bet 1/4 pot which is part of the mixed strat but an outlier at 0.7%

 

[Legend5555]

BN (Hero) vs BB and it wants to X BN. Any idea why? I would think AT4r is pretty dry and hits our range better than the BB's.
I almost want to put this on GTO+ as I dont believe this is a X. I range bet 1/4 pot which is part of the mixed strat but an outlier at 0.7%

View attachment 773929

I'm going to assume it has to do with blocker and unblocker properties and that this hand in particular is more of a check. What you should do is put this spot into the analysis section and see what hands is checking in addition to this.

 

[Legend5555]

BN (Hero) vs BB and it wants to X BN. Any idea why? I would think AT4r is pretty dry and hits our range better than the BB's.
I almost want to put this on GTO+ as I dont believe this is a X. I range bet 1/4 pot which is part of the mixed strat but an outlier at 0.7%

View attachment 773929

Also sometimes it glitches and thinks you are the OOP player.

 

[boltonguy]

Here is what GTO+ thinks = X
It X all combos of K9s so I dont think it's blockers (at least suit blockers). I think K9s would like a fold here so blocking KQ and KJ (meaning V wont be calling with a straight draw) isnt a problem?

 

[boltonguy]

Event KTs is X 89% of the time here.
J7 and J8 are betting (presumably as a bluff). Looks like the lower and higher KXs are betting so maybe as a medium strength KXs solver is X for balance reasons? Ugh.

 

[boltonguy]

Here's another interesting spot. I overbet river with the straight flush yet solver wants to bet smaller.
V did X turn IP so maybe the bet is too big to get called by what looks like a weak hand?

 

[boltonguy]

I also find that there are times where i would want to slow play (flopping top 2 IP without a completed draw available) that the solver wants to fast play.

 

[boltonguy]

How's this for a "bad" river choice ... gave up 0.02 EV!!

 

[Legend5555]

Here is what GTO+ thinks = X
It X all combos of K9s so I dont think it's blockers (at least suit blockers). I think K9s would like a fold here so blocking KQ and KJ (meaning V wont be calling with a straight draw) isnt a problem?

View attachment 773988

I guess it doesn't want to bet here for balance and because you have showdown value and can't really improve. KQ can make the nuts so it bets more often.

 

[Legend5555]

I also find that there are times where i would want to slow play (flopping top 2 IP without a completed draw available) that the solver wants to fast play.

Single raised pot? 3 bet pot? As the aggressor? As the caller?

 

[boltonguy]

Yeah makes sense. Most of my mistakes are small EV. I bet when I need to bet just wrong sizing. It is fun to play and try to figure out the "why" when the choice is less than optimal.

 

[boltonguy]

Single raised pot? 3 bet pot? As the aggressor? As the caller?

SRP IP as aggressor - have been doing a lot of BN vs BB and in BN as Hero flopping 2 pair (like 56s on a 56Ar board) and I would want to bet 1/4 pot flop and X turn on a blank but solver wants to bet flop 1/4 and turn big.

 

[boltonguy]

Heres another one. I bet turn and bet 1/2 pot to deny equity to the 2 draws where solver wants to bet 1/5 pot ?? and then I bet smaller on river to a) get called by worse and b) lose less to AJ and solver wants to jam! But the difference on river between my 1/3 pot bet and jamming is 0.03 EV!

 

[boltonguy]

I will probably play this for hours though ... so thanks for bringing it to my attention!

 

[Legend5555]

SRP IP as aggressor - have been doing a lot of BN vs BB and in BN as Hero flopping 2 pair (like 56s on a 56Ar board) and I would want to bet 1/4 pot flop and X turn on a blank but solver wants to bet flop 1/4 and turn big.

You aren't blocking any TP and 78, 89, and most 6x are going to call as well as all Ax. When turn is a blank you want to bet large because your equity has often increased against the straight draws and all Ax still going to call just about any size. And most 6x and 5x are going to fold to all but smallest sizes anyway.

 

[boltonguy]

Oh no! I just hit may daily limit of practice hands. $39/month is pricey. I'll go back to snowie until tomorrow!!

 

[trigs]

which boards not to cbet and how often you should be checking OOP as the preflop raiser

Just playing with it for a couple days for free, I definitely was surprised at this as well. Also the amount of flop checks in general and the amount of small flop bets (like 30% of pot bets).

 

[Jimulacrum]

I'd say it's a good fundamental foundation to start from. I agree that you can save a lot of money by not calling rivers nearly as often as GTO would suggest. There is nothing wrong with adjusting to exploits against the vast majority of players. But getting a good idea of preflop ranges and board textures to cbet (and surprisingly from what I've found, which boards not to cbet and how often you should be checking OOP as the preflop raiser) is very useful. As well as giving you solid ideaa of when to be bluffing and with what hands. All of that is pretty useful stuff.

I agree that studying GTO has a lot of educational value. I just think that in application, it has weaknesses along the lines of, say, Google Maps.

It's excellent for giving you a generally optimal route from point A to point B, in theory. But you need to have the sense to deviate—sometimes sharply—when it's obvious that the suggested route won't work (e.g., tree in the road, players who never bluff the river). And those points of deviation are all over the place in poker because you're constantly getting information about your opponents.

The funny thing about the example we were discussing is that it's about an anonymized player pool, not individual known players. This is the type of spot where GTO should really shine, since you have no exploitable information, but alas, it does not. River spots should be among the simplest to consider for a GTO approach, and yet that's where it's failing the most clearly. I have to wonder if the approach the software is suggesting is not truly GTO.

It's easy to brush this off as "Players on this site almost never bluff the river, so this doesn't really work here," but that shouldn't matter for a GTO approach. GTO may leave some money on the table compared to an exploitative approach, but it shouldn't have you getting constantly value-owned on the river.