The dumbest thing about the stuff you write is the assumptions you make. I am not a champion of GTO play, I don't strive to play that way myself, and I don't actually even think that most of the popular wisdom and techniques that are promoted as GTO necessarily even have anything to do with it. I just think that your ideas in particular are content-free nonsense. You seem to think that anyone who espouses this idea must be in the pocket of Big GTO.


Exactly this. If you're going to "ban gto play" then either you'll have to tell players how to play, or ban ones that play in ways you don't like. If you see this as some kind of shining ideal, then either you haven't thought about it, or worse, you have.

Rusty, if Yadoula8 ever produces that book that he mentioned, where would you put the line for an over/under bet on the rating Mason Malmuth would give it in a book review? 2.5? Am I aiming too high there?

Guys, I asked if its possible for the casinos to force the players to exploit in general, not in specific situations.

Look at the response I got. Are you like this normally? You've all gone mad.

Rusty, are you going to point out any specific place where I don't make sense, or you just going to stick with your general insult? We don't want everyone to think your just spouting content free nonsense, do we?

Please don't go digging through old messages looking for a mistake. I have made a couple over these years... I don't want any more of your abuse. I just want to be able to post in peace. If you will not accept that you may be suffering from that cognitive dissonance, then please lend me the curtesy of being polite at the least. After all, I am only a girl.

I know this isn't your faults, your all just going mental because of cogD.

...Looking forward to your replys, what you thinking rusty, attack her as a person? Or maybe, just maybe, you could apologise??

Your proposal makes no sense. You're suggesting that a casino should monitor players and prevent them from playing in particular ways. It's absurd.

At the very minimum, the absurdity stems from what GTO actually is - which is 2 players maximally exploiting each other.

Beyond that, what *precisely* are you going to require people to do? Like usual, you have no actual specifics, just hand waving. "We'll make it so players are forced to exploit in general." What, *specifically* does that even mean?

When everyone you meet has gone mad it's a safe bet that it's you.

Assuming that somehow the casino can analyse my ranges and decide that I'm "too balanced" or whatever, how is that going to work practically? Are they going to monitor my hole cards for 20k hands of me vs. one specific villain and say "Your 3-bet/5-bet strat vs. this guy is off"?

And what happens when I'm playing a guy who's pretty good pre-flop and we can't exploit each other pre-flop any more? Do we both just have to leave the game, or do we both have to agree to play sub-optimally for no reason?

Question: because multiple actions in GTO strat can have same EV doesn't it mean that the person who chooses the best action at the right time will have an edge? (Person is better able to develop reads and exploit an opponent not playing perfect GTO)

Not everyone thinks I'm mad lol, only experienced players who don't know how to exploit properly like you guys who post everyday.

My question was how practical is it, but it appears u guys know far less than me on all accounts... they wouldn't need to monitor it against an individual villain, because every villain would be presumed to be playing GTO anyway. And if your both good preflop you can still exploit, you just need to mess with your perceived range... I didn't realise u guys would be so far from understanding this one.

Rusty u want to know exactly how it's done from me, but I actually asked whether it could be done lol. I figured they would just record our plays n then compare them to the GTO alternative. Kinda like what Poker snowee does... come to think of it. I don't need ur advice, and I think I made my point clear

We'll see how well my book will do, fortunately I have aleady planned for you guys. I'm a master exploiter who may well go down in history. If I do, u guys are gonna be remembered for ever as a bunch of d****

I'm not asking how it would be technically done, I'm asking what you would have the site tell the players, or do to them. What exactly would be the outcome of their surveillance? Would they send people messages telling them "play different?" Would they just ban them? How would the site "force players to exploit?"

...

Oh great, Lego too...

Rusty, I expect the site would tell them to exploit more............. I expect they would ban people who don't exploit enough, for a period of time. If your incapable of exploiting, like u nasty bastards, then u guys can go play each other elsewhere. You won't be missed.

I have well and truly had enough of these guys. I'm only talking about the experienced players who have hounded me with abuse for years. If you don't think I deserve this abuse then understand that Ive essentially cracked exploitative theory, and I've come to realise that these guys have a mental problem called cognitive dissonance which basically makes them go completely insane when they meet someone like me.

If you want evidence, then look at this, I very rarely make mistakes, almost never. If I do, these guys tear me to pieces. I have to be careful with my posts. But, I bet can force them to make one, even tho they know I'm trying, I've pinpointed exactly what they can't comprehend...

Oy, gents, do u realise that optimal is the stupidest word for an equilibrium strategy? A master would always find a way to exploit a person and so equilibrium is actually never optimal. By golly, it almost seems like whoever came up with that name was going mental too... Hmmm, these guys could side step that question quite easily, but I only really said it to piss them off anyway. So here's another... Guys, do you think bluffing is level Three? Surely you realise that you need to consider in some way what the opponent thinks you hold before your able to pretend to hold something that he doesn't expect??

Come on guys, have a go, answer me.

...They'll all try to be clever, they might ignore me or sidestep my questions in some way. They might even agree with these two, but in the past they have violently opposed both ideas... U gonna delete this one rusty?... These guys will do anything and everything to stop themselves from accepting the simple truth. That all Human beings already know all exploitative theory. These guys already have my logic in there heads, but they also have other knowledge conflicting with it.

I think Lego was just pointing out a post I'd missed, about what you wanted the site to do.

I don't think telling a player "be more exploitative" is going to have the desired effect. Banning them might. But I think that's a pretty hard sell. "Come play at our site, if we don't like how you play, we'll ban you"

I think one of the original sources of the word "optimal" as in "game theory optimal" came from the book "The Mathematics of Poker." I believe it's authors have since expressed sorrow that they chose that term, because it's so at odds with the more common knowledge of the word optimal. No one who tries to play GTO or who espouses it actually thinks that GTO means "best." They all know what it really means.

Outside of poker, I don't think the term is used that much in mainstream game theory. I think GTO might actually often be referred to as the "suboptimal" solution in mainstream game theory, but I'm not sure.

What is it you want me to delete, exactly?

If I knew how to exploit my opponent more then I'd already be doing it.

But the problem is, if my opponent adjusts to be closer to optimal to avoid my exploitation, what then? Does the site say "Sorry, you've got to be more exploitable for your opponent"?

No no bladesman, firstly you have to remember everyone would be exploiting in this future site. Secondly, which I expect you guys will struggle with, we can exploit when the opponent is trying to play GTO, especially if they are also being forced to exploit! They will be searching out situations where they can exploit us and what we do is lure them in, with pre-planned re-adjustments.

Rusty, I thought u might find no way around my post, so I thought your cogd might have nothing to do but delete my message, but you did find a way... what about my second question? Do you accept that, as everyone can bluff, everyone can play at level 3??

As usual, references to your theories of levels I consider non-sequiters. Sorry. I ain't buyin it.

Knock the cognitive dissonance crap off. People are free to believe you're full of it without having a mental problem.

Struggling rusty? Sounding a little abusive n u didn't answer the question... How about I make it easier for you...

At Level three, we consider what the opponent thinks that we have... is it possible to bluff without considering that in some way?? I just explained that to a pissed mate in the park, a guy who's never played poker before, n he laughed because it was so simple... does it make sense to u??

Yes.

Omnomnom delicious word salad.

Yadoula, if a site wanted to ban Nash-style players, why wouldn't it just ban winners as a whole? After all, if you're maximally exploiting villains while GtoBot666 is only beating them for half your winrate, you're the bigger nuisance to the site. The site would rather players gradually lose to the rake than dump all their money to you.

Hahaha one word don't cut it mate, you wonna explain to us all how u play a hand the oopppond won't expect without any idea what they expect you have hahaha I'm crying over here... ur abuse only makes me stronger. U can't touch me. Even when I'm steaming lol

I'm going to triple barrel every fifth hand without looking at my cards. That way I don't know what I have, my opponent doesn't know what I have, and I don't need to think about what my opponent thinks I might have. I'm considering nothing but barreling every fifth hand.

Of course. It was a post from a different thread so people may not have seen it.

To be a good bluff the bluff should be believable, meaning that your opponent has to believe that you can actually have the value hands that you're representing, or really they need to believe that you actually have such value hands at a certain degree more often than you have bluffs. What such degree is depends on the pot odds your bet sizing offers your opponent. To know whether or not a bluff is "believable" (as described in the foregoing) you would consider what your opponent believes your range to be. If you try to represent hands that your opponent does not believe could possibly be in your range, then your opponent may call with hands that your bluff was intended to make fold.

The immediate example that pops into my head is boards that mostly check down, then someone bets the river IP (generally somewhat small) and gets check/raised. A lot of times in this situation the IP bettor is not that strong, but is betting for value (maybe like betting second pair for value looking for a call from third pair or a pocket pair in between second pair and third pair). The other guy knows the IP bettor is weak and so makes a big check/raise. But this guy's range is weak too. What strong hand could he possibly have (on the boards I'm talking about usually only a rivered set - maybe some 2 pair if he is thinking about this and check/raises for thin value). So the IP bettor calls the check/raise with second pair and beats unimproved 88 or whatever. The guy with 88 can't bluff the IP bettor here because he can't reasonably have a value hand that he would check/raise (assuming the IP player is good and knows all this of course - if he isn't so great and won't realize that the guy with 88 can't really have a good hand, then maybe the guy with 88 can bluff here).

So when considering a bluff, especially if your opponent is good, you should consider what range he thinks you have. But, of course, it is possible to bluff without considering this, although it may not be a good bluff if your opponent doesn't think you could possibly have the strong hands you are representing.

This makes me think that my comparison of you to anarcho-capitalist Ayn Rand fanboys talking about statists is 100% accurate.

You come across as someone who suffers from grandiosity, someone who perceives yourself as uniquely capable of solving poker, someone who everyone else is secretly envious of, someone with a pompous demeanor.

I have seen many players bluff, then justify it by saying that the only way they could win the pot was to bluff, without considering what their opponent has or what their opponent think they have. They only considered the cards in front of them and believed they had a hand that had no chance of winning at showdown.

I gave a contrived example, but this is true too and I'd say not necessarily even bad if it comes with a certain reasoning. I'm a long way from GTO poker, but there are instances when I will justify a bluff on the basis that if not this combo then I never bluff, and this is the worst hand I can ever get to the river with etc. At that point I'm not thinking about my opponent's range or my perceived range at all. I'm just thinking about my own actual range.

Yeah Lego your level Three, u get it. Not sure you know how to pre-adjust tho... Rusty blatantly doesn't get it though. He's gone real quiet. He knows less than my mate in the park n he still hounds me with abuse.

There are actually two definitions of a bluff nowadays, but one of them is wrong imo. That's the one which allows you to bluff without any consideration of the opponent as u describe. It's a gorgeous day over here, n for some reason I don't generally like talking with u guys, so I can't be arsed to go into it.

I do think I cracked everything, and I do think I'm the only one, but that was a massive surprise to me, I'm just a normal guy. The second anybody reads my book they will know it as well as me, everyone is fully capable of using all the Levels, we all use them everyday.