OP's suggestion is to project a false range that causes an imbalance in your opponent, and then *BAM*, we use 5th level play and outlevel him $$$

We would project a false range as often as possible provided it would earn more profit... I wasn't talking about inducing an imbalance.


Is it not obvious that by playing exploitative we have higher variance? We are opening ourselves up to potentially lose. (I'm sure I learnt this from you GTO guys). Perhaps higher variance is the wrong term as we would win a lot more often. I mean, we 'could' lose more often.

It appears as though most GTO players would only deviate if they recognised a line or situation which they have seen the villain play unbalanced. It seems most players only regularly deviate if they are against fish..... Once you can recognise the standard level of a player then you can adjust based only on this information. It takes players sometimes years to advance in levels, where as, if you are looking for lines or situations, the villain might adapt hourly.

The fish might not know the GTO formula but they know when they don't often win. They know when the villain is playing tight. If they are level 3, they know that you are always projecting a range which might have hit.

Even more importantly than the fish.. If we were playing against each other without balancing then there would be much more money available at the tables.

Yeah guys using math in a math game is like stealing laptops. Would you say the same thing to mlb managers "guys playing the people with the best batting averages isn't fun it's like stealing laptops just guess to make your lineup."

Seriously I can't tell if you're a troll or the most arrogant ****** (the most insufferable combo) on the planet but I'm amazed you're getting any responses at all.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using 2+2 Forums

No but imagine someone found a way to win in baseball by not throwing the ball in the first place. The batters and fans would both be screwing and bored.

It's not maths that's the problem. It's that by balancing you are removing the opportunities to make profit from poker... You call me a ****** although your the one trying really hard to take all the profit from the trade in which you work lol.

You are now simultaneously claiming that

a) you'll make more money playing exploitatively (not balancing)

b) the person who balances takes "all the profit"

Surely the method that takes the most money off the table is the one most likely to take all the fish's money and destroy the game.

They take the profitable plays from the game, all that's left is losing plays.

Poker as it was designed to be played is fun. It's a battle of wits. Man vs man. My mind vs yours. Knowing the villain is a factor... Sometimes the fish will be on form and play really well, always going one level higher than us. Most the time we will outwit and destroy them.

Are you gonna allow these guys to call me a ******?? While I'm not allowed to make analogies related to theft??

You seem hell-bent on this 'levels' analogy when in fact very little in poker is about 'levelling'.

It only appears that way because you concentrate on your 'actual range'.

All poker exists within the levels. Balance is just exploiting a couple factors within the levels.

The solution to poker is not known. It's a battle of wits to see who can get the closest and exploiting people includes noticing when people make incorrect play and exploiting that (which leaves them open to exploitation especially if they were wrong about the first thing). Do you understand what goes into chess training? Top level chess players use machines to train them to play as perfect (close to gto) as possible. Is chess really no longer a battle of wits?

I said troll or ******. As long as you keep posting stuff like this I think my statement was fact not opinion:






Try posting stuff that actually has meaning.

It's not like chess in many ways... Most importantly, because you GTO guys are playing close to the highest level, when most of you cant even play level 3.

Again you are not qualified to make these statements because it's still very clear you still don't understand what you are talking about when it comes to applying mathematics to poker.

I don't use hardly any maths... I play cards.

Hearts? Spades? What's your game?

Poker. I'm the highest level player there is.

I routinely play on level 7.5. But I can go from 2.5 to 82.5 whenever I want. I find playing the half levels to be better because even the "levels players" never see it coming.