I was listening to a podcast featuring Matt Berkey where he described a GTO style as such. (He also says that GTO and exploitative poker are the same thing.)

I find that what he says about GTO mirrors how I play. I would described my style as being influenced by GTO and it fits his description of being a defensive style. I'm more of a counterpuncher, usually the best at the table at picking spots to check-raise or slow-play. I'm not the LAG who tries to run over the table by finding spots to fire multiple barrels with any two cards. It can be very frustrating for players who are used to being the most aggressive player at the table. If they don't make the adjustment to slow down, then they end up handing me money. This is where the idea of GTO as advanced bluff catching comes into play. (If they do make the adjustment, they often get bored at the table and make other mistakes that I can exploit.)

Some threads here are devoted to (misunderstandings of) the concept of GTO. I think this discussion might help some people develop their arguments in those threads.

you play live?

GTO and exploitative poker are not the same thing by definition. Saying so is analogous to stating that apples and oranges are the same thing--and they are not.

I play live.

There is some merit to the idea that good GTO play and good exploitative poker are applications of the same principles.

If you think the only qualities of a gto strategy have to do with bluffcatching frequencies and that's the end of the story, you're quite wrong.

Think about these players playing vs a gto bot:

player 1: he is loose and overaggressive preflop, flop, and turn, and calls down with bluffcatchers when he thinks he can beat a bluff.

player 2: he is tight and passive preflop, flop and turn and folds unless he can beat a value hand on the river.

Where are they losing ev to gto? What do their river ranges look like? Is either player making a big mistake with his strategy regarding his calling frequency?

Think about it before reading this:



This is why when you're bluffcatching you gotta realize that you're basically getting back (your call)/1hand. Only if you can beat a value hand will your call show a profit >0ev. The hands that are >0ev have a calling frequency of 100%, while you can basically do whatever you want to with true bluffcatchers and junk vs a non adjusting opponent that has good river bluffing frequency.

Now think of all the betting, raising, calling, 3 betting, check 4567 betting decisions that you have to make and you'll see that gto is much much more than a few indifference equations.

Depends on how you look at it:

a) a guy thinks he knows what gto poker is so he just plays that way.

b) a guy thinks he knows what exploitive poker is so he just plays that way.

now take em both through this warp:



They come out of the warp and discuss their findings:

a) "Man I told you I knew gto whooot!"

b) "Man I told you I was an exploitive master."

Then they high five.

The end.

Draw your own conclusions.

What would that merit be?

The person who's exploiting is always closer to the Nash Equilibrium than the person being exploited. This has to be true because mathematically the Nash Equilibrium caps your losses and floors your wins - if at any point you perform worse, you can't be an exploitative master because you can always return to the Nash Equilibrium.

If poker were a hill, Nash Equilibrium would be the top. Exploitative poker happens when someone is on the side of the hill. GTO just means you push someone downhill.

The way it's commonly used just means the "GTO player" is standing on the Nash Equilibrium, regardless of which direction you're pushing. And exploitative just means you're pushing your opponent, regardless of where you're standing.

Both really are two sides of the same coin except that an exploitative player is going to do better (push harder) if she understands where the Nash Equilibrium is, and the Nash Equilibrium player is going to do better (get more leverage) if she deviates from the exact equilibrium (walks a little down the hill).

Does a GTO player/bot make adjustments?

GTO is better than anyone else at both dishing out aggression and dealing with it... not sure why it makes sense to try to put it one box.

I find it easier to look at GTO as a fundamental approach to the game in which you prevent yourself from being exploited by creating a strategy that's bulletproof. Once you have that framework, theoretically, you cannot be exploited by another opponent's strategy.

You can choose to make adjustments to your strategy when you notice that an opponent is not playing optimally against you and giving you spots to earn more EV from their mistakes. However, if they eventually discover the method you're using to exploit them, they can develop a strategy to counter you, at which point you have to return to your GTO framework.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I find it interesting that people talk a lot about the defensive side of gto (indifference) and not that much about barreling frequency/check raise range etc

Haha some nice analogies in here...

Exploitation and GTO are different -

There are in infinite amount of exploitative strategies you might concoct. And GTO is just one strategy.

To make all exploitative strategies we use the Levels of thought. As you move through the Levels the strategy you create changes, and the last strategy you would adopt is GTO. Level Infinity.

But this doesn't really put GTO at the top - Each of the different exploitative strategies can make you profit and all would be used by the perfect master. I suspect the potential profit peaks when deception is most valuable at Level Three. It's the end point that is GTO, when there is no more profit left.

And so, GTO is not really up at the top of the hill at all, its over the summet and back down to where you started.

Bob, the only time an exploitative master would play GTO would be against a GTO bot. If two exploitative masters played each other they would leave room for exploitation. Saying that they would play using GTO is like saying two elite soldiers locked in a cupboard fighting to the death would use their grenades.

How about this....

GTO is what is expected of an unknown player assumed to be of equal skill

And exploit is how to adjust to a known or revealed weaker player.

Is this oversimplification, among level 3 participants?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Sorry your completely wrong, IMO at least

GTO might be expected of an unknown player at our skill level if we are foolish enough to play using GTO. Our ability to use GTO does not show our skill at the game! The most skillful player would make the most profit.

And, you can create an exploitative strategy without knowing the player at all.

How do I exploit an unknown player, unless I model him as weaker?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Pre-empt his reaction to your pre-designed image

I think this is correct but unintentionally correct.

The NE being at the top of the hill is indeed too simple of an analogy. It would indeed be like multiple universes where in many of the universes the coordinates of the NE is not at the exact peak, but near the summit.

But what you're missing is this - in no universe are the coordinates of the NE going to be lower in altitude than the peak where the NE is located. That is, while in a parallel universe where moving north by 50 feet will bring you to the peak, the sloped part of the summit you are on in that universe is mathematically higher or equal to the peak in the NE universe.

Playing the NE doesn't guarantee you the maximum expectation, it guarantees you at least a minimum expectation.

I think this would be level 4 at which point I only profit if if I can level 5 and the profit is limited to the diminished returns of levels 5-infinity.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Lol this is getting confusing...

This much makes perfect sense to me if that satisfies you?

Robert, sorry mate, that's Level Three... And, its only if a person is able to perfect a Level Three strategy that Level Four would be the only way to beat them. Which is clearly impossible to do.

Sounds like i need to study more before I engage in the terminology which I am probably mistaken. Thanks, I will study more.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

My understanding of levels is that all levels are possible, yet become less relevant.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Much like what I've read in this thread, I was introduced to GTO, and continue to be explained as to what it is, through metaphor. But all metaphors (or models) are not created equal - and it is perhaps the use of certain metaphors (or models) to explain GTO that may be a reason as to why people seem to consistently misunderstand GTO and its related concepts (I have been guilty of this).

Do any of you have the "perfect" metaphor to explain GTO to, say, a beginning poker player, or perhaps a generally educated reader? Have you come across any metaphors that seem correct on the surface, but in fact, get some of the the concepts wrong?

Applications of Rochambeau "Rock Paper Scissors" come to mind.

GTO would be all three decisions are weighted equally, and betting on one or another is break even.

Exploit would be where Rock pays more than Paper which pays more than Scissors. So the logic ensues as to what level your opponent is on, starting from "Rock pays most so I should choose Rock."

Personally I like to imagine poker in general as the centroid of a triangle. All triangles have a central point of balance, even weird ones.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk