Not necessarily. Unless I missed it, you haven't said how often the opener will continue when facing a 3-bet. Nor have you explained how the opener will play post-flop. Opening with a tight range is "good", but what if you fold to 3-bets at an exploitable frequency, or you check-fold or bet-fold too often post-flop?

If you provide the entire pre-flop strategy, there will presumably be a way to exploit it, unless you can also specify what happens after you open, and that includes every possible post-flop action sequence. To some extent, finding out GTO pre-flop ranges requires analysing every possible board run out and working backwards from the river. And that's pretty much impossible for a human to do.
Even the best bots in the world are some distance from finding the GTO solution to HU NLH poker, so it's almost laughable that a random 2+2 poster thinks he has solved pre-flop 6-max.

That is EXACTLY what I just said.
You are exploiting them folding too much...
You're example is exploitative poker, not GTO poker...
GTO is not about exploiting, GTO is about being unexploitable yourself.

Now let's position us in the SB and BB in a situation where the dealer bets 3XBB.
The SB would only fold 35,52% of the time using our second chart.
And in case the SB folds, our BB will only fold 35,52% aswell using our chart.

As you can see, the SB and BB are unexploitable to this squeeze play.

Don't believe me? Let's calculate profitability for the dealer...
He's betting 3BB's in order to win a pot of 1,5BB's
(Formula for Required Fold Equity: Required fold equity = Bet size / (Bet size + Pot size))

So; 3 / (1,5 + 3) = 66,66%
This means that BOTH the BB and SB would have to fold 66,66% of the time.
So it's obviously clear that this isn't a +EV move for the dealer if both SB and BB employ my charts.

You didn't answer my question.

If you face a 3-bet, then u need to use GTO ranges aswell, I didn't have to time to calculate these yet.
Of course you are not going to be unexploitable using my preflop charts alone...
GTO preflop charts won't make you unexploitable post-flop obviously...

I can work out what % of the time you should bet/call post-flop depending on the sizes of the bets. The only problem is WHICH hands you select to be in this static % range. Which hands would fit in this range would depend on the board texture and how much equity they have on that specific board txture.

Selecting which hands go thru this static betting percentage is pretty easy.
You just pick the hands with the most equity.

No you don't do 65 + 35... I'm not stupid, it's not 100%
77% of the time the dealer will win the blinds if I calculated this correctly.

But that is of course assuming that your opponents fold that much.
Which makes the dealer betting with ATC a good exploitative strategy in this case.

But as I said, in GTO you can't assume anything. Employing GTO your strategy is persistent regardless of the opponens' tendencies.

This is where your calculations are wrong. To find out how often the button will win the blinds against a 65% folding small blind and a 30% folding big blind, you multiply the frequencies:

(.65)(.30) = 0.195

19.5% of the time the button will win the blinds under those circumstances.

Woops, I calculated the odds of either one of them folding instead of calculating the odds of either one of them calling.
hmmm..

Let my try to calculate the odds of either one of them calling
This is what I did;
Okay but now let me calculate either one of them calling instead.
The SB will call 35% of the time.
So in the case that our SB would fold which will happen 65% of the time, our BB will call 65% of the time.

So you do 0.35 + (0.65*0.65) = 0.7725
Coincidentally the odds of either one of them calling equals the odds of either one of them folding.

So anyways let's get back to point. if either one of them will call 77,25% of the time, that means that we will win the pot uncontested 22,75%.
NOT 19.5%

Still not convinced? Okay. Let's say everyone at the table folds 80% of the time. (they have a VPIP of 20%)
We're in 6-max, You're UTG. 5 Players to act.
According to your logic we should do: (0.80)*(0.80)*(0.80)*(0.80)*(0.80) = 0.32%

So you're saying that the event of an entire table folding in this case would be 0.32%??? It's not as rare seeing an entire table fold... It happens way often.

EDIT: oops, I meant 0.32 not 0.32%. 0.32 = 32%
Ok so maybe you're right.
But I haven't done any calculations like these in my charts since there was no need to it.

EDIT2: looks like both of our calculations actually lead to the same result, scroll down to my following post.

Another way to recognize that "calculations" of this sort don't actually create GTO preflop ranges is due to the inherent value of position. Being in late position and being able to close the actions on different betting streets has an inherent advantage. This advantage allows you to play hands that you otherwise wouldn't have if you were just allin preflop. So if your calculations aren't taking positional advantage into account (which is basically impossible to do without solving the game entirely), you know you're doing something wrong.

If they all fold 80% of the time independently, then yes, you would do (.8)^5, which comes out to just over 32%.

Lets go!

Bob148 already pointed out how your adding of 2 defending frequencies to one was incorrect.

And as the game doesn't end preflop, you need to take positions+equities and the realization of the equity in to the account.

Basically what this means is:

Lets take the simplest situation, 4 guys folded, we are SB. How much can we open if we assume BB is defending optimally, and how much is this. You can't just calculate it by using risk/reward formula as BB will defend by calling and then the game tree just doesn't end and we lose 100% of our risked monies. Instead we move to postflop where our every single hand have equity and then we have to start estimating how much we can realize the equity of our stuff -> how much extra BB needs to def to prevent us from opening any two cards -> what hands we can open vs this defending frequency.

And then you realize that there is no use in calculating stuff like this if you haven't done datamining to get reasonable estimations.



Way too much strat ;___;

Look at my last post. I made a mistake sorry you're right. According to your calculation it's indeed just over 32%

But I don't get why my formula of "1 - 0.35 + (0.65*0.65) = 0.2275"
is incorrect? Altough 22,75% isn't that far away from 19,5...

Hmmm, I see it now!
You did 0.65 * 0.30 even tho in your first post you mentioned frequencies of 0.65 and 0.35 instead.
OK let's recalculate... (0.65)*(0.35) = 0.2275
What a coincidence we are both correct with different ways of calculating

Sorry for the inconvenience tho.

When people like this post stuff I find it hard to believe it's not just a big troll.... But.... I'm always proven wrong.... and it is in fact, not a troll.


#nofaithinhumanity

Why would I troll?
I'm only trying to contribute.
And it's better to try than not to contribute at all.
Maybe my charts aren't GTO. However what's for sure is that you shouldn't play any tighter than my charts otherwise you run a negative expectation.

And imo, playing tighter means having more equity. Therefore you have a higher ROI expectation in the long run supposing that you're not playing EVEN tighter. But hey, that's just me...

Those were my 2 cents.

Well, when you come in here claiming to have done something -impossible- and it is clearly all -wrong- and several people come in here to tell you it is -wrong- you continued to make your case that you were correct.

Now, even with your latest post.... it is still -wrong-.

I don't come here to point out your mistakes, though. I come here to point at you and laugh.

You are my entertainment. So, please continue posting.

You're wish is my demand...
Ok, tell my why playing as tight as possible is WRONG?
If you play with 30%VPIP vs 15% VPIP obviously you will have more equity with 15% VPIP only on average...

You are so dense I love it

Can you answer my question or not?
Who is the troll now...

It's obviously not possible to quantify but it's obviously there as well. The ability to x/b your showdown value otr makes position an obvious advantage. I mean, if you've ever studied a bit of game theory you'll know similar cases where acting second gives you an advantage.

I appreciate the thread OP, and hope it doesn't get de-railed whether or not the charts are GTO, it's nice to communicate this stuff.

On the subject of position, I've always been under the same impression as OP. That is if we were to have an absolute GTO range starting preflop, power of position isn't important as there's nothing any other player can do to exploit/gain from the GTO player, in or out of position.

If checking back hand x is +ev, and the out of position player wants to make the in position player indifferent between bluffing and checking that hand, then the out of position player must allow an immediate profit to hand x that is equal to the value of checking back hand x.

Ah, I think I get what you mean.
If GTO would tell us to give up on the river therefore we check OOP, inducing a bluff on our opponent which causes us to lose a pot where villain would've checked instead if we would've been IP? I think we should counteract this by checking where we would actually want to bet some percentage of the time. I'll try to calculate this percentage tomorrow. I'm off now.

No he's saying if I can check down a hand in position and it's +EV for me to do so OR I could take the same hand and turn it into a bluff when checked to, then my opponent has to check to give me the opportunity to bluff my hand, which allows me the option to check back and realize a +EV situation.

OOP with the exact same hand and scenario, I don't have the luxury of automatically realizing my positive showdown EV. Thus, being in position has an immediate positive advantage for us.

[x] came to see an approximation of gto ranges and how they calculate them
[x] found out OP messes up with basic math calculations but thinks he has GTO preflop ranges

Without knowing your methodology, I am sure your ranges are about correct (if not completely correct) if we assumes no post flop play.

I once found an easy, heuristic way to determine opening range width (like 35% for BTN, ~60% for SB) for each position, assuming there is no postflop play and there is staticity (value of hands not changing) and the widths were relatively close to yours. I was so proud of my discovery that I wrote a 1000+ word article about it, send it to the 2+2 magazine but it was rejected by Mason himself for some minor crap (ouch!).

Note that you would take a lot less heat if you had humbly named your post "preflop opening ranges toy game in 6-max" or something like that. GTO is to be reserved to the full solution of NLH.

Good effort though.

This is about as close to GTO as I am to banging Rita Hayworth.

OP pls stop saying the word GTO in the same sentence with the words "my ranges".

To prove yourself wrong just try and apply your method to 20BB HU play (it should be way easier anyway) and see your results. Then compare to the best estimations we have so far for GTO for that specific format/blind depth. Also I didn't read anything about blind depth concerning your "GTO" solution. Is it all powerful and works for all blind levels from 3 BBs to 1592052 BBs?

Also the 6max GTO solution will more than likely incorporate a lot of limping especially from the BTN at shallow stack depths (but probably at way deeper stacks also, adding more strategy choices tends to increase the EV of the whole range).

So 3X-ing your way to GTO won't cut it (even to a somewhat decent approximation, I would guess).

You are calculating something, but it sure isn't GTO so please stop using that term. Maybe try to call it a "minimum open frequencies" (if that makes any sense) or something but stop with the GTO bull****.

Ty sir and gl.