Did GTO change your game? (1 Viewer)

[Legend5555]

Being exploited long term...... my entire point was to point out that "long term" only exists in situations where long term exists, which for some players (depending on the game and circumstance) doesn't exist.

AND since we're going there with the "cannot be exploited" argument, I'm going to ruffle all the feathers (cordially) by disagreeing with this idea, at least as written. I think the main benefit to GTO is the baseline of strategy and knowledge to start from with the opportunity to deviate from it built-in.

In this example, we are only solving for one scenario : Hero facing a river action heads-up with top pair, first to act. According to your statement "how your opponents play becomes irrelevant" means we will dismiss the opponents actions, tells, and story up to this point. Hero can bet here, check call, or check fold. According to GTO in this scenario hero should bluff 1/3 of the time and fold to a pot-sized bet 2/3 of the time. If hero bluffs less than 1/3 or more than 1/3 then he/she is not playing optimal GTO, which is supposed to protect hero from being exploited. And once again, it's not supposed to matter how your opponent plays.

But the issue is that, even without employing GTO, I as the villain in this situation could identify that the hero is bluffing around a third of the time and folding around twice every three opportunities on the river. So over the course of a moderate amount of hands I could time my bluffs to match up with hero's folds... also timing my value bets to hero's bluffs... The GTO player would not adjust for this because what I do is irrelevant to him/her, and hero just assumes that they will not be exploited over X number of hands so it will all work out. However, GTO player has already been adjusted to by non-GTO player... and villain is exploiting hero with or without using any GTO knowledge.

Now, in best case scenario the GTO player's baseline gets adjusted as play evolves giving hero the best world of exploiting other player's weaknesses all while protecting him/herself over the course of X number of hands. But, this adjustment doesn't happen with the mindset that your "opponents play is irrelevant." Quite the opposite.



So just for fun, I tried this out in the smallest sample size...

GTO / Hardo
Paper / Rock
Scissor / Paper
Rock / Rock
Paper / Scissor
Scissor / Rock
Rock / Paper
Paper / Rock
Scissor / Scissor
Rock / Rock
Paper / Paper
Scissor / Rock
Rock / Scissor

This is 1/3 vs 1/2, and it's 4-4 before repeating to infinity. I did not try this starting with other combos, but at least in this configuration it's a draw if neither player deviates from Rock 50% and GTO... Someone has to switch it up to become profitable. GTO player should have the advantage because the knowledge is there.

Happy Monday (is that a oxymoron?)

Your poker example is flawed. If you haven't, watch the Galfond video I posted earlier.

How often you should bluff is a function of your bet size. When betting pot, you should be bluffing 1/3 of the time. When betting half pot, you should be bluffing 1/4 of the time. As bet size goes up, you should bluff more.

The caller of a pot bet needs to call 1/2 the time to make themselves unexploitable, 2/3 of the time if it's a half pot bet. This is minimum defense frequency, pot size/(pot size + bet size). As bet size goes down, you should call more.

Neither of these strategies relate to profitability, only exploitation.

 

[Nanook]

Rather than arguing about "if" GTO works or "if" one should pay attention to one's opponents play or not, let me present an example and then everyone can decide for themselves.

Since Rock Paper Scissors is an excellent learning tool let's go back to that again:

Lets assume for now Player A read that because of GTO he should at least start with playing "Rock" 1/3 of the time, "Paper" 1/3 of the time and "Scissors" 1/3 of the time so for now that is his strategy

Player B's last name is Rockford and he has always been called Rocky. Because of this his favorite way to play is just go with "Rock" 100% of the time.

You tell me, assuming "B" sticks with his strategy of going with "Rock" every time how long before "A" should/would switch his strategy & how would you switch up? I know what I would do....

If you are going to make the case for "A" sticking to his original strategy of 1/3, 1/3, 1/3 I want to play poker with you..... just sayin'

 

[MrRossKeys]

Your poker example is flawed. If you haven't, watch the Galfond video I posted earlier.

How often you should bluff is a function of your bet size. When betting pot, you should be bluffing 1/3 of the time. When betting half pot, you should be bluffing 1/4 of the time. As bet size goes up, you should bluff more.

The caller of a pot bet needs to call 1/2 the time to make themselves unexploitable, 2/3 of the time if it's a half pot bet. This is minimum defense frequency, pot size/(pot size + bet size). As bet size goes down, you should call more.

Neither of these strategies relate to profitability, only exploitation.

My example was based entirely on Galfonds video that you posted earlier. Word for word pretty much.

 

[upNdown]

If you are going to make the case for "A" sticking to his original strategy of 1/3, 1/3, 1/3 I want to play poker with you..... just sayin'

But the good news is you would not lose money against Rocky, long term, because you are UNEXPLOITABLE!!!

 

[Nanook]

There’s a lot of fundamental misunderstanding of GTO terms and/or distortion of core concepts being thrown around throughout this thread.......

I believe that this is the primary source of disagreement in this thread

 

[Nanook]

But the good news is you would not lose money against Rocky, long term, because you are UNEXPLOITABLE!!!

Correct

 

[MrRossKeys]

Rather than arguing about "if" GTO works or "if" one should pay attention to one's opponents play or not, let me present an example and then everyone can decide for themselves.

Since Rock Paper Scissors is an excellent learning tool let's go back to that again:

Lets assume for now Player A read that because of GTO he should at least start with playing "Rock" 1/3 of the time, "Paper" 1/3 of the time and "Scissors" 1/3 of the time so for now that is his strategy

Player B's last name is Rockford and he has always been called Rocky. Because of this his favorite way to play is just go with "Rock" 100% of the time.

You tell me, assuming "B" sticks with his strategy of going with "Rock" every time how long before "A" should/would switch his strategy & how would you switch up? I know what I would do....

If you are going to make the case for "A" sticking to his original strategy of 1/3, 1/3, 1/3 I want to play poker with you..... just sayin'

THIS!

This is what I was trying to say in my response. One way GTO is being explained is that it is non-exploitable regardless of what your opponent does, but at the same time it's being explained as a way to start with and adjust strategy for the situation. These two definitions are almost opposite of each other, but being communicated together.

I promise I'm not trying to fight or prove that I am right in any way shape form or fashion. I'm just highlighting aspects of GTO that I believe make it good to learn and know, while defending against the idea that it in itself is all that is necessary for winning poker. If by definition 1000 hands gets a player back to even, then by definition that player would not win more than they lose. So which is it? overall winning, or overall even?

 

[MrRossKeys]

My point may be getting lost, or may be due to a lack of understanding on my part, or may be due to a focus on different aspects of GTO between all of us in discussion...

I appreciate the dialogue entirely and appreciate the effort to educate.

I'm going to fade back into the sidelines for the time being so that others can share, and the OP can get more answers to his original question.

Cheers!

 

[Legend5555]

My example was based entirely on Galfonds video that you posted earlier. Word for word pretty much.

Except you're not right at all.

According to GTO in this scenario hero should bluff 1/3 of the time and fold to a pot-sized bet 2/3 of the time.

Where did this come from?!? This isn't at all what was said in the video.

The person betting pot on the river should be bluffing 1/3 of the time and value betting 2/3 of the time.

The person facing a pot sized river bet should call 1/2 the time and fold 1/2 the time.

The way you said it makes no sense and seems like you conflated the bettor and caller.

 

[upNdown]

I would never consider putting in the time to work with solvers and/or get on board the GTO train, so I have nothing to say.
But I follow Daniel Negreanu pretty closely. Sometime in the last couple-few years, he decided he needed to jump on the GTO bandwagon to compete with the wizards. I believe he dedicated himself to it and worked his butt off with it, though he didn't see any immediate results. In the past 6 months to a year, he's evolved his game back more in the direction of exploitative with the benefit of understanding GTO, and I think he's happy with the results so far.
Obviously as a primarily tournament player, his short term results are nearly meaningless. But I do put some faith in this guy - a guy whose ego wasn't so big that he knew he needed to learn what the new generation knows, but who's ultimately decided that although he's a better player with that knowledge, he'll get better results by exploiting his opponents.
Also I think maybe his ego is actually so big that he thinks he can exploit the unexploitable. Which is hilarious. But I'm rooting for him.

 

[RainmanTrail]

I view winning strategy as lying on a spectrum between GTO and exploitative play. The extremes of which could be personified by Doug Polk and Phil Helmuth's approaches to the game.

Something to think about when deciding where to operate on this spectrum is the fact that GTO solvers assume your opponents are playing GTO. But if they are, then you all lose to the rake and nobody wins. The only reason winning is possible is because of the fact that they are not playing GTO poker. But as soon as you recognize that someone is not playing GTO, you should be shifting away from GTO as well in an effort to exploit their mistakes. If they are so strong that they then recognize you have shifted away from GTO and they counter you by shifting back, then you shouldn't even be playing in that game to begin with because it's not going to be profitable long term.

I've played a lot of poker over the years at just about every level but nosebleed stakes and against both the worst players imaginable and the best players in the world. I've been approaching poker using Nash Equilibrium strategies for decades. Long since before solvers arrived. I've even written my own AI code (this is what I do for work now) to test out different theories and to solve for difficult spots in various games. I've put a lot of thought into this topic over the years about where I should operate along this GTO vs exploitative spectrum and what sorts of games I should be playing in. But in general, the better your opponents are, the more you should shift your play toward GTO, and the worse they are, the more you should shift toward exploitative play. I don't care to trade blows with other top players in an effort to see where I might "rank" or how I might stack up with them though. I'd much rather play in mid stakes games where I can exercise my creativity more. It's just a lot more fun to me. There's something beautiful about solving the puzzle that is your opponents. Each one with their own flaws. That's what I play for. That's nearly my entire enjoyment from the game. Solving puzzles of people. Finding holes in their game and making adjustments that capitalize on those opportunities. That aspect of the game lies entirely on the exploitative end of the strategy spectrum. If I find myself only playing in games where the competition is so strong that I have to revert back to GTO strategy, then the game becomes boring to me. Knowing that I have 28 combos in my value betting range and choosing 7 bluff combos for when I bet 1/4 pot so I can't be taken advantage of just isn't fun poker. Not to me anyhow. I'd rather figure out who I'm never bluffing against and who I'm shoving nearly any two cards against. Although I will pick my isolated bluffing ranges against those strong players as well. I would probably just move on to something else if that's what poker becomes; always needing to play GTO. Fortunately, I don't believe it will. I think this is one of the reasons I love playing mixed games so much though. There are no seven card stud hi-lo split solvers out there. These games are largely a battle of wits. Nobody is drawing from some Doug Polk video where he's debating whether or not to 4-bet shove a 21BB stack with K8o from the big blind because PIO says it's "unexploitable".

 

[Poker Zombie]

I've been approaching poker using Nash Equilibrium strategies for decades

I've remained mute throughout this discussion, because I didn't want to bring up Nash's paper on non-cooperative games.

Not because It's wrong - in fact it is absolutely right. I was just afraid that referring to a doctoral thesis couldn't remotely help your case. If anyone read it, they would already have agreed on the rest of your post. If they disagree with your post, they are extremely unlikely to read his paper. Reading a brainiacs paper that was written to impress other brainiacs is rarely a "fun" read. It's certainly not a light read.

 

[Anthony Martino]

I view winning strategy as lying on a spectrum between GTO and exploitative play. The extremes of which could be personified by Doug Polk and Phil Helmuth's approaches to the game.

Something to think about when deciding where to operate on this spectrum is the fact that GTO solvers assume your opponents are playing GTO. But if they are, then you all lose to the rake and nobody wins. The only reason winning is possible is because of the fact that they are not playing GTO poker. But as soon as you recognize that someone is not playing GTO, you should be shifting away from GTO as well in an effort to exploit their mistakes. If they are so strong that they then recognize you have shifted away from GTO and they counter you by shifting back, then you shouldn't even be playing in that game to begin with because it's not going to be profitable long term.

I've played a lot of poker over the years at just about every level but nosebleed stakes and against both the worst players imaginable and the best players in the world. I've been approaching poker using Nash Equilibrium strategies for decades. Long since before solvers arrived. I've even written my own AI code (this is what I do for work now) to test out different theories and to solve for difficult spots in various games. I've put a lot of thought into this topic over the years about where I should operate along this GTO vs exploitative spectrum and what sorts of games I should be playing in. But in general, the better your opponents are, the more you should shift your play toward GTO, and the worse they are, the more you should shift toward exploitative play. I don't care to trade blows with other top players in an effort to see where I might "rank" or how I might stack up with them though. I'd much rather play in mid stakes games where I can exercise my creativity more. It's just a lot more fun to me. There's something beautiful about solving the puzzle that is your opponents. Each one with their own flaws. That's what I play for. That's nearly my entire enjoyment from the game. Solving puzzles of people. Finding holes in their game and making adjustments that capitalize on those opportunities. That aspect of the game lies entirely on the exploitative end of the strategy spectrum. If I find myself only playing in games where the competition is so strong that I have to revert back to GTO strategy, then the game becomes boring to me. Knowing that I have 28 combos in my value betting range and choosing 7 bluff combos for when I bet 1/4 pot so I can't be taken advantage of just isn't fun poker. Not to me anyhow. I'd rather figure out who I'm never bluffing against and who I'm shoving nearly any two cards against. Although I will pick my isolated bluffing ranges against those strong players as well. I would probably just move on to something else if that's what poker becomes; always needing to play GTO. Fortunately, I don't believe it will. I think this is one of the reasons I love playing mixed games so much though. There are no seven card stud hi-lo split solvers out there. These games are largely a battle of wits. Nobody is drawing from some Doug Polk video where he's debating whether or not to 4-bet shove a 21BB stack with K8o from the big blind because PIO says it's "unexploitable".

Well said. At the end of the day, for me as a live PLO player:

1. I want a game where exploitative strategy is the optimal strategy. It means my opponents are making mistakes (either playing hands that make 2nd best holdings, or overvaluing strong preflop holdings when the flops don't favor their range, but they still continue firing, like AAxx on a 678 flop)

2. If I need GTO for the table, that means the table isn't going to be the most profitable for me. Give me a table full of droolers and donks rather than GTO robots, table change please!

 

[BGinGA]

Well said. At the end of the day, for me as a live PLO player:

1. I want a game where exploitative strategy is the optimal strategy. It means my opponents are making mistakes (either playing hands that make 2nd best holdings, or overvaluing strong preflop holdings when the flops don't favor their range, but they still continue firing, like AAxx on a 678 flop)

2. If I need GTO for the table, that means the table isn't going to be the most profitable for me. Give me a table full of droolers and donks rather than GTO robots, table change please!

So GTO doesn't change your game -- it only changes your table? lol

 

[ekricket]

I just want to say that the recent discussions without the arrogance and condescending attitudes are remarkably helpful and insightful. Good stuff and good discussions. Thanks.

 

[Anthony Martino]

I just want to say that the recent discussions without the arrogance and condescending attitudes are remarkably helpful and insightful. Good stuff and good discussions. Thanks.

You're wrong!

 

[Taghkanic]

THIS!

This is what I was trying to say in my response. One way GTO is being explained is that it is non-exploitable regardless of what your opponent does, but at the same time it's being explained as a way to start with and adjust strategy for the situation. These two definitions are almost opposite of each other, but being communicated together.

I promise I'm not trying to fight or prove that I am right in any way shape form or fashion. I'm just highlighting aspects of GTO that I believe make it good to learn and know, while defending against the idea that it in itself is all that is necessary for winning poker. If by definition 1000 hands gets a player back to even, then by definition that player would not win more than they lose. So which is it? overall winning, or overall even?

If Rocky starts out playing 100% rock, the last thing you want to do is give him a reason to stop.

If you adjust from 1/3rds to play paper every single time… Rocky will notice, unless he’s truly an idiot.

So which do you want? A permanent profit which takes more time to accumulate, or take a shot by shifting to 100% paper (pure exploitation)?

Once you shift, you become just as vulnerable (exploitable) as Rocky.

If instead you throw him a bone sometimes and give away a few throws with scissors, maybe he never wises up.

If Ricky sees your switch and revised his strategy, then you have no idea what to do. You have yo go back yo 1/3rds and may never do better than break even against him again.

My approach would be be to play somewhat less scissors and rock (say, 1/2 paper, 1/3rd rock and 1/6th scissors) so Rocky still wins or draws sometimes and never adjusts.

 

[TheYeti]

I've been a recreational player for almost 20 years (semi-regular home games, couple trips to Vegas a year) and have never paid much attention to "game theory", I play by what my gut tells me. I haven't actually tracked my play until the last couple years (average ROI ~75%), but I believe I am an overall winning player.

That being said, this thread interests me and I'm trying to learn! Keep up the great discussion!

 

[Taghkanic]

I've been a recreational player for almost 20 years (semi-regular home games, couple trips to Vegas a year) and have never paid much attention to "game theory", I play by what my gut tells me. I haven't actually tracked my play until the last couple years (average ROI ~75%), but I believe I am an overall winning player.

That being said, this thread interests me and I'm trying to learn! Keep up the great discussion!

The thing about studying theory or really any strategy is that you can still play with your gut if you want. But I find that my gut instincts get a lot better after I’ve studied statistics and tactics.

 

[chipchipchip]

The thing about studying theory or really any strategy is that you can still play with your gut if you want. But I find that my gut instincts get a lot better after I’ve studied statistics and tactics.

This is so so true. To me it’s about having a full toolbox (theory) and being able to decide on the spot which tool to use in any given moment (gut). How does it go… If you are just a hammer then everything you see is a nail.

 

[SloppyFlop]

I find that the theory is good to know and the knowledge will improve my game. But in the end of the day no one is perfect and every one is exploitable in one way or another its just a matter if your able to capitalize on it.

 

[kimbless]

It's nice to know to understand the theory of the game but I don't think it's something you need to be focusing on all the time while playing. If you're trying to get better at poker, for sure it's good to practice it but at a home game I probably wouldn't focus on it too much.

 

[JustinInMN]

GTO is not a profit maximizing strategy, it is an exploitation minimizing strategy. Of you could actually play GTO, then you can't do worse long term than break even.

Exactly, GTO strategy should be thought of as "playing defense," making sure you are not predictable and therefore exploitable. But that strategy does not maximize profit, but it can "keep you afloat" in tougher games until you find an avenue for advantage.

I almost never find myself in a game where playing GTO would outperform exploitative play. But that doesn't mean it has no merit. It's useful to study, but the vast majority of your opponents are not playing the way the solvers think they are. In the super high roller events, it definitely matters though. You'll get smoked if you're not studying it in those games. But the variance is through the roof.

1. I want a game where exploitative strategy is the optimal strategy. It means my opponents are making mistakes (either playing hands that make 2nd best holdings, or overvaluing strong preflop holdings when the flops don't favor their range, but they still continue firing, like AAxx on a 678 flop)

If I’m in a game that I feel the need to try to play GTO I need to find a different game ASAP.

I love all of the above comments and others that point out that if a game "requires" GTO, it's unlikely to be the most profitable one available. Exploitive play is the best way to win money and game selection is key to strategy as well. It's a good point that understanding GTO is a good tool for recognizing deficiencies in opponents that can be exploited. (Overbetting certain lines, for example.) But as a playable strategy, it's best not to stay in GTO mode any longer than necessary.

I don’t play online but it seems like that would be an ideal place for GTO. Exploitative definitely seems like the right choice for live.

Online has been taken over by the robots for this reason. I think it's much easier to get exploited online than live with HUDs and everything else. So I wouldn't call it an "ideal place" for GTO, but you must be willing to be in "GTO mode" for more stretches if you are willing to play online at all in the first place.

In my opinion, most live cash games @2/5 NL & below have very few players that are well versed in GTO.

I would agree, I would also not expect to find many "pros" at these stakes. I imagine NL pros have to beat 5-10 or 10-20 or better to maintain their "nut." (Hello, out of context thread.)

 

[merkong]

GTO is probably the most misunderstood 3 words in poker.

I tease one of my regulars who is a student by calling “GTA” or “GMO.”

He’s is tricky but he can’t catch me. Even in his GTO.

 

[peatmonster]

What’s the best GTO resource ?

 

[RocAFella1]

toolbox

Doug Lee, biggest?

 

[BGinGA]

What’s the best GTO resource ?

old Motor Trend issues or PontiacPerformanceCars.com

 

[JustinInMN]

old Motor Trend issues or PontiacPerformanceCars.com

 

[Nerxa]

I have always been an online cash player and a live tournament player, as these are the only good games around here. Tournament was always approached more on a mathematical side anyway so when gto became more widespread, it was easy to grasp and sharpen my fundamentals. It really improved my hand reading and how to approach the game in a long term view. You just need a game than runs enough with the same pool to actually destroy it using better knowledge than your opponents from a theory pov. Sprinkle some exploitative lines when you have a good grasp of your opponents and you can print money easily.

As a side story, I played a weekly (friendly) 6 to 9 max 40$ single rebuy sng for 6 years, from 2010 to 2016 or so. I lost my little note book but this game saw me going break even in the first year when I was learning the game to winning a little on year 2 and 3 and then going up around 11k in the next 3 years, with the last one being me cashing in 50 out of 52 games I attended, an average of 120$ profit per game, netting a little under 6k that year in that game alone. I still wish these guys would start playing again... It broke due to life stuff and one of the host being caught cheating...