Quote:
Originally Posted by ScreaminAsian
it's weird to think that there's one GTO strategy when so many people are winning using much different strategies (isildur vs jman for example).
People confuse GTO with best. GTO doesn't mean 'best'!
The whole point of GTO is to minimize the maximum loss possible against any other strategy. This also has the consequence, in many games where the GTO solution can be easily shown, of minimizing wins. For instance in roshambo, GTO is obviously to randomly select one of rock/paper/scissor - but it is literally impossible to ever show an advantage over any player with the GTO 'solution'.
Exploitative maximizes wins vs a specific strategy with the obvious downside that it is almost certain an exploitative counter-strategy exists which would result in accordingly large losses. Again roshambo is the obvious example. If you're facing somebody who's doing nothing but rock,rock,rock then anybody with a brain would start going paper,paper,paper until they adjusted, but the GTO strategy would still just blindly pick randomly since the adjustment of playing paper would open yourself up to exploitation. So maybe you're asking well then couldn't GTO be
random unless your opponent has chosen the same symbol for the past 20 rolls in which case you roll the opposite the next time. No. That wouldn't be GTA because if somebody knew your strategy then they could exploit you by rolling paper 20 times and then rock on the 21st time. GTO is about making it impossible for other strategies to exploit you - not about exploiting other strategies. In GTO you literally don't care what your opponent does as you are simultaneously playing against all possible strategies - not your opponent's particular one.
GTO has a very specific meaning and it's unclear GTO poker is even desirable, let alone something top players would actually strive for! I'd generally assume that when people say GTO they actually mean balanced+exploitative, that's not at all what GTO is, but in the poker player vernacular that's what it's turned into:
"My opponent is raising 2bb to win my 1bb 40% of the time. If I want to play 'GTO' I need to defend at least 33% of the time or he shows an instant profit!" There's at least two things technically incorrect with that statement, but isn't the meaning more important than the delivery? And given that while there
may be only 1 true GTO solution there are effectively infinite poker player 'GTO' solutions.