I just play the GTO from the spot of the last deviation (could be loose or tight on earlier streets). That means I will not be folding a good enough hand to a raise instantly, but as it goes further, I will be folding more and more of them, if the bets are still large (bet size vs. the range one (and he) has).

With feel, one gets a better picture of what the others' ranges are, and one makes profitable adjustments.

It though still doesn't mean he isn't more or less balanced on some street(s) even if he isn't on some earlier street(s), and that's where experience/feel comes in, and many times even the feel with some lack of experience will ring a bell and one adjusts at least some.

Folding is generally not going to be unprofitable in more marginal spots if you have no clear picture (that someone is likely looser than GTO somewhere).

You could also be overfolding or so when you have the lead and you don't think the other will fold easy enough, when in fact, you might be wrong.

It is tough to use relative (to his that street range) GTO ranges vs. players you don't really know (but you bust them when you get the lines), but some experience and feeling the game helps.

I think a bot might still win by not adjusting vs. non optimal players, and if so, it is very hard to lose if one knows GTO, and my feel tells me that I would still win even if I would play it GTO in a lot more spots, but of course I prefer to adjust.

I’ve got GTO questions (don’t we all?).

If I read him/her right, pucmo says he/she might play tight or loose in early streets and then resort to GTO. I’ll call that partial GTO.

Does that make sense?

Can you start GTO play mid round? Is it reasonable to claim that if you don’t play GTO on early streets there might be game states that occur which would not occur with total GTO? GTO play won’t change the cards but could change bet sizes and folds. Seems to me that a partial GTO cannot have all the properties of a full-time GTO, e.g., unexploitability.

OTOH, maybe it can -- for given a mid-street game situation, what necessary conditions for nash equilibrium are violated for GTO from a mid-point on? If partial GTO is possible starting in the middle of the round, then what distinguishes the two starting points?

Comments?

Awesome question!

My opinion is yes, but an important corollary question is "why".

There will be states that exist that would not happen if previous decisions were gto. For instance, I think gto on the flop tries to avoid being capped, even if it means making a check-raise with value as weak as second pair. Gto would rather try to win the hand right there than proceed oop and capped.

But as to is it possible, I think it is because the tree branches are solved from the end of the hand and computed backwards, which is why it takes so much computing power.

Chess, on the other hand, is solved from the existing board and calculated forward with all the possible moves "deep". This is one of several reasons why solving every possible runout in poker takes longer than chess even though chess has lots more possible combinations of boards.

Anyway, if I am correct, you can take any decision in poker, and calculate it backwards into a gto solution, so long as you can account for every possible runout, or you "bin" it together with other very similar hands-boards combos and use a predetermined solution.

So, the closer to the end of the hand you are, and especially if you are deciding on river actions knowing the full runout, then you can more easily crunch the numbers and make the best gto decision you are capable of.

In theory, any mistakes you have made on earlier streets will still cost you money, but if your "gto decision" forgets those and treats the rest of the hand as Nash then you should only lose (or gain) what you deviated from Nash on earlier streets. For instance, if the gto solution says you have to fold because you allowed pure profit to opponent by a previous street mistake, then it is still gto to fold and you are finishing the hand as close to Nash as possible.

I would be of the opinion that a very good gto player would have ranges preflop, and bet sizing according to ranges vs flop texture, and then really only go deep in the tank on the turn, crunching some approximate numbers and preparing for the different river scenarios and SPR likely on the river.

I just dont see how a human could ever actually crunch a specific gto solution mathematically on the flop, given the ridiculously impossible math.

It has to be either starting as exploit and finishing gto, or starting gto ranges and playing into spr that allows balanced turn/river decisions.

Yeah GTO can be applied at any time. (Not that it ever should). If you could only apply it from the beginning, you could say that you're not playing GTO unless you play it from the first hand in a tourney, or the first hand of your life even. It is just a strategy that can be adopted any time we make a decision.

BTW, Pumco says that experience teaches him what ranges different players hold, but this is a very slow way to go about it, and there are also the times when you see one of the trillions of situations which you're not aware of. You wont fair too well then... The standard way to read the opponents range is by putting yourself in his shoes and looking at the situation through his eyes. If it looks like you yourself have a strong hand, he will probably fold anything but a stronger hand. If it looks like you are weak, he may well bluff you.

This is what they call Level Three, Pumco, your most probably not Level Three. And if you've not consciously learnt the Level, the really simple logic which I just explained will be very hard to accept. I suspect you will go mental and hound me with abuse. Which does make me wonder why I bother sometimes lol... Do prove me wrong Pumco! I'll be real impressed.

I think players can end up playing full or partial GTO solutions simply by chance. Strong hands being the obvious example where playing close to optimal is easier to do.

I also think players can make a concious decision to play closer to optimal at some point in the middle of the hand, but IMHO you can't call it GTO as that is usually defined as a strategy for the full game. I think you could call it something like "street optimal", but would avoid calling it GTO to avoid confusion.

I think it's much more difficult to play a hand at the margins or a hand that normally isn't a part of an optimal strategy in an optimal way. I think it's almost chaotic in nature where different inputs (player, opponent, betsizing, etc.) can cause a huge deviation in expectation good or bad, but normally towards the bad.

Sent from my SM-G900R4 using Tapatalk

Firstly, I've tried playing gto at micro. Problem is, there are so many hyper loose aggressive and calling stations, it's insane. You need a huge bankroll to avoid the variance of calling all ins every 40 hands. GTO is assuming infinite repeats. We have to exploit fish. There's too much of the and they are so obvious it's insane. I had one guy tell me he just calls all the time and occasionally hits. He s obviously a calling station. I'd say learn exploitative at the micro due to the fish. No one is gto there.

Played some 10NLHE for a break from O8B...

2bet pot heads up im in position with AQo

My AQo flopped a rainbow dry queen high board...

EP donked the flop, almost pot size...

I really cant raise, or fold, I call...

Turn is a club, making a bdfd possible...

EP checks turn...

I am pretty far up in my range, so I bet turn, half pot.

EP check-raises me, I only have 1/2 stack behind, so I put the rest in, a little bit of a raise...

EP shows A5cc picked up a nut flush draw on the turn, no other straight draws...

River brick and I double up...

Seems pretty standard GTO play, I was a little surprised to see it at NL10, the rest of the table was typical mix of normal poker.

The only mistake was that the flop was so dry, that I really cant call the flop donk with any part of my range that is weak. Not even JJ, so I call the flop donk bet to keep villain wide open and be a little under-repping my strength.

Back in the golden days, if you played TPTK this way, you got stacked by nitregs.

Times have changed drastically....

Don't know which bet was worse, the lead on the flop, or the xr on the turn. Playing Ac5c like this is pretty far from a game theoretical approach on all streets.

Any thread with Yadoula comments is gold imo.

It was spewy, given that my stats show I am on the conservative side of things. But at higher stakes, the only hand I could really gii with here is AQ or QQ+ or a set. Given those few combos versus a lot of weak stuff that might have called the flop bet, jamming a nfd on the turn is pretty gto. That is why it surprised me at NL10.