PAHWM: AhKh in an action "$1/$3" game (3 Viewers)

[JustinInMN]

GTO rarely applies to low stakes, live games. Why would a skilled player in a game with the normally weak cast of characters choose to play "fancy GTO" poker to keep the table from getting to a stage where they can exploit Hero? And if hero does use GTO, he gives up the substantial majority of the potential profits that an exploitative style can win.

Agree 100%

Hero should be looking for a new game / table change if he thinks the $1/$3 table is so tough that GTO strategies are needed.

Exploit the field all the time, every game. GTO is purely fancy play syndrome in almost every situation. We can debate how to exploit the field. We can decide Hero is making his own mistakes and offer suggestions. We can give Hero a sympathetic shoulder on bad beats and cheer him on when he rakes in a big pot. Even talk about meta game considerations.

But GTO? Not needed -=- DrStrange

These remarks I will take a couple issues with. The main thing is that every game will not be made up of 8 villains that play the same. And there will be opportunities for profitable games that may have 1 or 2 chairs filled with players that aren't donors, and playing close to GTO in pots specifically against these players makes sense. And being able to do this will let you stay in games that will have exploitive profit potential against the other players.

So I think it's over-simplistic to dismiss GTO as FPS. and also to say it's "not needed." GTO in simple terms to me, is designing strategies to neutralize opponents that will pick up on betting patterns. And there are opponents where that is the most correct strategy. "Just change games" is over simplistic too unless we happen to be playing in a larger public room. But in a home game or even smaller private games, not so simple.

PS Understanding GTO is a going to help most people's game. Makes you think about situations in novel ways. Just don't abandon exploitative play in favor of GTO as that will almost certainly lower Hero's profits.

But I wholeheartedly agree with this. In certain spots against certain players, staying close to a GTO-based strategy may be the most profitable choice. However, against inferior opposition that have exploitable tendencies (too loose, too tight, too aggressive, too timid, whatever) the right counter-strategies will yield far more profit that should not be sacrificed in the name of "balance" for the sake of GTO play.

 

[ngmcs8203]

Yes. But then would I have to actually read that (presumably) painfully dry material, and commit large chunks of it to memory?

GTO coaching sites are primarily made with videos and tools to help you commit charts and strategies to memory. I suppose if you don't play NLHE it's a waste, but I know that after watching two of my friends who play live low stakes hold 'em play some sessions online, their game will benefit from the time spent going through coursework.

Learning via courses isn't for everyone, but it would definitely help most people become better players.

 

[ngmcs8203]

Agree 100%




These remarks I will take a couple issues with. The main thing is that every game will not be made up of 8 villains that play the same. And there will be opportunities for profitable games that may have 1 or 2 chairs filled with players that aren't donors, and playing close to GTO in pots specifically against these players makes sense. And being able to do this will let you stay in games that will have exploitive profit potential against the other players.

So I think it's over-simplistic to dismiss GTO as FPS. and also to say it's "not needed." GTO in simple terms to me, is designing strategies to neutralize opponents that will pick up on betting patterns. And there are opponents where that is the most correct strategy. "Just change games" is over simplistic too unless we happen to be playing in a larger public room. But in a home game or even smaller private games, not so simple.


But I wholeheartedly agree with this. In certain spots against certain players, staying close to a GTO-based strategy may be the most profitable choice. However, against inferior opposition that have exploitable tendencies (too loose, too tight, too aggressive, too timid, whatever) the right counter-strategies will yield far more profit that should not be sacrificed in the name of "balance" for the sake of GTO play.

Anyone who pays even a little attention to GTO strategy and only plays that will likely be barely above winning. Every GTO strategy video I've watched, or course I have taken, has said the same thing: GTO works best against GTO. However, if it means you learn that playing J5 suited or A8 off in early position in a 8-max table, that alone will keep you from bleeding chips unnecessarily.

 

[upNdown]

Learning via courses isn't for everyone, but it would definitely help most people become better players.

Right, and I guess that should have been my response to your “start with GTO” suggestion - I don’t think it’s for me.

GTO. However, if it means you learn that playing J5 suited or A8 off in early position in a 8-max table, that alone will keep you from bleeding chips unnecessarily.

But I knew that years ago, long before anybody said the words GTO. I don’t need a chart or a solver to tell me the dangers of playing those hands.

 

[ngmcs8203]

Right, and I guess that should have been my response to your “start with GTO” suggestion - I don’t think it’s for me.


But I knew that years ago, long before anybody said the words GTO. I don’t need a chart or a solver to tell me the dangers of playing those hands.

I cut my teeth pre-GTO and had trouble digesting the math discussions in the early 00s so relied heavy on the old school books and strategies. Glad I spent the last few months figuring this stuff out.

 

[BGinGA]

Learning GTO would take a lot of work and time and probably money, wouldn’t it?

Probably the cost of a couple $30 books.

Yes. But then would I have to actually read that (presumably) painfully dry material, and commit large chunks of it to memory?

I'm debating which one I'm currently shortest of -- time, money, or memory.....

 

[tentoesdown]

I stopped reading after you checked the flop. Horrible

 

[WedgeRock]

Thanks beautiful.

Good God. $3 aint enough, if I'm sitting at that table hoping for one of the action players to join I'm fine with between $30 and $50. $20 wont feel like enough but $75 will make a raise pretty scary. But my games arent crazy like this, curious to see how that would change analysis.

Edit: lol looks like my last sentence was prudent, out of my depth.
Edit 2: Aaahhhh shit, missed the $10 rock comment. Bet sizing makes way more sense now. I'm gonna stop editing this comment now.

 

[NotRealNameNoSir]

100%, missed the rock comment

 

[bergs]

Seat 7 is the button and has the $10 rock out.

Seat 8 in SB limps blind.
BB limps.
UTG limps.
Seat 1 limps.
Seat 2 limps.
Seat 3 folds.

HERO in LJ with and raises to $80.

NICE!!

Seat 8, Seat 1, and Seat 2 all call. HERO is in position on all of them.

MMMHMM. MMMMHMMM!!

Pot: $330 after rake.
Eff Stack: $820

Flop:

MAMA FUCKIN MIA!!

Checks to HERO.
HERO checks.

Wait, wat?

Pot: $330 after rake.
Eff Stack: $820

Turn:

Checks to HERO.

Wait, wait, wut?!?

Action?

(Obviously betting at this point. But what sizing and how do we respond to calls and potentially check raises?)

Bro this is like Earnhardt wondering how to run the final straightaway after hitting the wall on turn 4.

 

[bergs]

Could I have missed out in value sometimes from these looney toons? Yeah, but keeping some semblance of balance is also important.

Do you play with these guys all the time? If not, fuck balance, assume their paid mortgages and 401Ks.

 

[JustinInMN]

Bro this is like Earnhardt wondering how to run the final straightaway after hitting the wall on turn 4.

Too soon.

 

[bergs]

Too soon.

Hasn’t it been like 30 years?

What else is too soon? The Hundred Years War? William Wallace? The 1996 Dallas Cowboys?

 

[upNdown]

Bro this is like Earnhardt wondering how to run the final straightaway after hitting the wall on turn 4.

Odd bit of trivia from my life. That’s the only NASCAR race I’ve ever watched. Not sure why I watched that day; I think I just figured I’d give it a shot, so I sat down and watched it beginning to end. (And knowing where I was when I watched it, it must have been between 97 and 04, so not quite 30 years.)

 

[JustinInMN]

Hasn’t it been like 30 years?

What else is too soon? The Hundred Years War? William Wallace? The 1996 Dallas Cowboys?

Sorry forgot the sarcasm font tags.
<sarcasm>Too Soon</sarcasm>

 

[JustinInMN]

Odd bit of trivia from my life. That’s the only NASCAR race I’ve ever watched. Not sure why I watched that day; I think I just figured I’d give it a shot, so I sat down and watched it beginning to end. (And knowing where I was when I watched it, it must have been between 97 and 04, so not quite 30 years.)

I believe it was 98 or 99. I am class of 2000 and was definitely in high school when it happened. We were at my parents' friends' house and was the only thing we could find on the TV while the grown ups chatted. (Antenna days . )

EDIT:

Guess I am very wrong, was 2001. I must have been thinking of a different crash I saw.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Dale_Earnhardt

 

[WedgeRock]

Top pair + nut flush draw when you have both the nut cards makes it harder for anyone to have a draw to call you with.

Late to the game, but agree, can't expect a Q-high flush draw to call.

All the more reason to get those straight draws to put in money on the flop.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Dale_Earnhardt

Dale Earnhardt died?! Spoiler Alert!