It's ok imo. Keep posting.

Depends on the game.

When I play my very first hand vs a new limit holdem opponent, I play my standard preflop range and I go for thin value postflop because the general tendency is that opponents showdown too much and play too passively.

When I play my very first hand vs a new no limit holdem opponent, I play my standard preflop range and I bluff more on the margins and I pass on thin value bets on the margins because the general tendency is that opponents fold too much.

If you're talking about general tendencies you are talking about knowing the villain in some way

Not really it's just the way people generally play those games vs unknowns. All I know is that they're confident enough, or crave action enough, to sit with a gamestarter. I find the general population that will sit with me without having history vs me are divided like this: 15% maniac that craves action/25% nit that folds a lot/10% crusher/50% standard tag.

Estimated of course.

I would describe this as "Exploit unless" strat, which is pretty common way to play winning poker.

A GTO player will achieve minimal loss to you until hand history is established. Then attempt to accumulate edges against you.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yeah, Bob, what your doing is making an assumption on the players weaknesses based on the field of players, which I have no problem with... It's just that the question was whether you could exploit without any knowledge of the opponents weaknesses.

Maybe GTO is less applicable against unknowns and gathering more information than you give away is the best way to "say hello" to a new player.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

For instance, seeing the way they played a key hand might make a GTO fold into a information call.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thanks for the metaphor, Robert. I think the rock-paper-scissors analogy holds for GTO, and I appreciate you sharing it. But it doesn't follow that a GTO strategy is "break-even." A GTO strategy is very, very profitable. Maybe not always the most profitable, but it is one such that if you maintain a GTO strategy, you can expect to profit. This is what I was getting at in terms of metaphors or models that seem to be correct, but then continue to perpetuate myths or misconceptions about certain GTO concepts.

http://blog.gtorangebuilder.com/2014...reak-even.html

Then we disagree about the fundamental definition of GTO. No biggie, it happens.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The GTO solution for RPS is to throw randomly with equal probabilities. This is a fact, not a metaphor. GTO happens to be break even for RPS. But poker is not RPS. It is that simple.

Yep. Poker not RPS. Agreed.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Add the part of the metaphor with betting and then the GTO strat is pure profit, for the better GTO player.

Profit is good right?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Now combine both of the RPS analogies.

Three players, any strat is allowed.

The rules:
Anties and a rotating button.
Button acts first and action proceeds left as normal.

Button chooses a potential winner and sets the wager, between 2 anties and a preset table limit.
2nd player can choose one of the remaining two choices and bet as much as the first player, but not more.
Third player gets no choice but can bet the same limits or down to just the antie.

Now all players throw, free to throw whatever they want.

The GTO player will simply randomize, and profit.
The exploit player will decipher patterns and profit.
Both strats can occur simultaneously for profit.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Good GTO and good exploitative play should be applications of the same concepts, just with varying goals. It would be ludicrous to say that a good GTO player doesn't understand exploitative play. Not-so-good GTO players may have problems with exploitative play. For example, they may understand the math behind poker, but just be horrible at putting their opponents on realistic ranges. (On the other hand, there are probably some good exploitative players who instinctively grasp concepts, but lack the math fundamentals to work through GTO solutions.)

In that case, no, any exploitation would be by accident.

No it wouldn't lol

You have yet to provide a logic statement that would support a theory that an unknown can be exploited.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Optimal play is a complete technique, and exploitive is the deviation. One can also "simply" (can be very hard) use logic, math (relates to optimal) and experience based mainly on the opponent's range, the board and experience.

Yeah I did mate, you just can't comprehend it. There's little point in me going through it again, it'll probably take years for you to crack it, but beginners can usually grasp it easily - You manipulate your perceived range so as to convince the opponent your doing something which you are not so that you can take advantage of his misunderstanding.

If a relatively untrained player can explain to this guy that it makes sense to u that'll be great.

Then you are playing incorrectly to send misinformation. This requires your opponent to be exploitable, mate.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Another way to look at it is this
With rock scissors paper, a GTO strategy is to play all three options with equal frequency and no discernible pattern. This strategy should not be exploitable, however neither is it exploitive. It is indifferent to your competitors strategy.

Let's say that your opponent plays rock 3 times as much as scissors or paper. He now has an unbalanced strategy that exploits scissors heavy players, and is exploited by paper heavy players.

GTO in this case again remains indifferent, not being exploitable nor exploitive. The exploitive strategy, though, would be to increase your frequency of paper. This unbalances your strategy, though, and leaves you vulnerable to a shift to a scissors heavy strategy.

Exploitive strategies are exploitable. GTO minimizes your ability to be exploited, but is also therefore not the best for exploiting unbalanced opponents.

One of the key questions that I have always asked here is this-in 99.9% of the games, is GTO even the desired strategy? When playing unbalanced opponents who are not, themselves, trying to play GTO, is it not better to try and identify opponents imbalances and exploit them

Yes but you need to have at least a rough idea of the solution to do that.

No it doesn't mate... I can't be arsed to go into it n it's off topic

Fairplay mate!

I think there is no reason to ever play using GTO. I have been through each and every reason for applying GTO and the only reason I can find to use it is if the opponent were using it. And so, none of us should be... I think that the only reason people do use it is because they are suffering from something called cognitive dissonance -

What I have realised is that the natural built in strategic method that all humans use is exploitative. When players then learn GTO, they have two strategies in their mind which conflict. To protect the knowledge of the GTO plays the mind then rejects all information related to unrecognised exploitative theory.

And so, not only is GTO unneeded, learning it can also makes it more difficult for you to exploit... and if you can't exploit, what is there that you can do?... You play GTO.

I have done plenty of research on this personally over the last half a decade, and I am convinced I am entirely correct in this, but do beware, imo ALL of us are still suffering from cogD. I feel I have come to recognise all exploitative theory in relation to poker now, but there are other 'games' which I still struggle with.