First off...sorry if this is in the wrong forum, but I don't know where else to ask a game theory Q and I know for a fact that the HS regs will have better advice to give than any other group.

Having said that, I have been watching a ton of Matthew Janda material on CR recently & I'm wondering...WHY DOES HE ADVOCATE PLAYING IN A WAY THAT WILL MAKE OUR OPPONENT INDIFFERENT TO CALLING OR FOLDING?

I mean basically as I'm understanding his material, he's saying that it's best to be balanced in such a way (with mathematical support) so that we show up with the correct ratio of value hands to bluffs so that the opponent's EV on a call is = his same EV on a fold.

Why would we want to be perfectly balanced from a game theory perspective? Wouldnt we rather be more heavily weighted toward value in spots that we feel we are getting called down and more toward bluffs when we think the opponent will not be able to call down?

It just seems like his lessons are advocating a perfectly balanced & unexploitable game which to me seems like NOT the most profitable game.

Thanks for any responses.

optimal strategies are not necessarily the most profitable strategies. In the spots where you are getting called down too much your opponent is not playing optimally and you should bluff less as an exploit. GTO strategies simply provide the best strategy against a game theory optimal opponent.

Sometimes it's better to avoid losing than to try and win.

wise words

You still win what is in the pot when you bet
That said, if your opponent is skewed one way or the other and never will figure out what is going on, it´s obviously better to exploit his leaks.

maybe that's optimal play vs some1 that can adapt perfectly to your gameplan. Most players have tendencies to either call or fold too much.

I'm a really small stakes guy but I wanted to say something -

I really don't like coin flip situations especially for large numbers of bbs. Is it pretty safe to assume most players would agree? Also, wouldn't he have to know what you have in order to give you .5 equity? His strategy seems very imprecise. I know poker isn't about precision and is about ranges but aiming to give an opponent .5 equity seems like an unrealistically high goal.

OTOH - giving an opponent .5 equity would minimize the opponents ability to whipsaw the odds in his favor because he's only able to move the odds from their current position (the current position being even).

It still seems like an impossible goal though.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/15/poker-theory/