Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob148
For starters, the equilibrium opening ranges for 3+ player poker remain unknown, thus calling any multiway strategy "gto" is a mistake.
You'll notice that I called it a "GTO-style" of play. I never claimed that what is suggested is GTO or that GTO is even known.
Quote:
Equilibrium strategies for real poker are mixed strategies at nearly every decision point; including value hands and bluffs at 100% frequencies will not lead to an equilibrium strategy.
This is true, but irrelevant. It's also irrelevant to the analysis. The range construction process is about building intuition and understanding for how hand ranges interact with each other. The intention is not to declare that this is *THE* way to play the hand.
This is where I believe that you are likely to be making significant overadjustment errors. The arbitrary approach to picking hands with which you alter at random frequencies is likely causing more errors than it is improving your EV by mixing your strategies.
Quote:
The indifference principle is useful only for certain all in situations and some river situations; when ranges are asymmetrical, using a frequency based approach to decide how much of our range we should fold isn't going to give us an equilibrium strategy.
It was never claimed that this is giving us an equilibrium strategy.
Quote:
True indifference is about forcing our opponent to play a mixed strategy in order to maximize his expectation. We do this by playing a mixed strategy of our own. If our opponent plays a pure strategy, then we should also play a pure strategy.
This is true insofar as you assume that your opponent's pure strategy is also a fixed strategy. That is, your opponent will never adjust. At the lower levels, this might be true. But this mentality would also lead to a stagnation of overall poker skill development. If you intend to move up, then you should begin to develop habits that are applicable at the higher levels. Feeling out what a baseline strategy might look like is the start of an iteration of strategies, not the end product that should stand for all time.
I'd rather have a methodical choice of mixed strategies than a haphazard approach of "I think I would adjust my KK and KQ completely arbitrarily."
Quote:
Traditional definitions of value and bluff are being abandoned for preflop, flop, and turn strategies; the profitability of a hand is what matters. Hands derive expectation in a number of ways so putting hands into nice neat categories doesn't tell the whole story.
Nobody ever claimed that it did.
Quote:
Categorizing hands is a mistake.
Blanket statements like this built on a faulty reading of the post is also a mistake. You seem to have some sort of vendetta against GTO-style play in favor of a more old-school "feel" sort of approach to poker. That's fine. It's your money; play how you want to play. You can even be 100% dismissive of anything remotely reeking of a different theoretical approach to the game.
But those who are able to read and think carefully can see right through the strawman argument you've created against the analysis that was presented.