So iv decided I want to have a dabble in GTO and see what all the hype is about, Iv started with "pokers 1%" as its what iv seen reccomended.

Im looking for somebody to either,
A. learn it with
B. a kind soul with lots of knowledge on it to help me out

any other reccomendations on a learning path would be nice too, thanks

This is beginners questions.

Quit and learn to play exploitative poker.

Nobody competent would recommend Poker's 1% as a solid GTO book.

so where would you start?

this is a beginner question

no it isn't. gto is an advanced concept that has zero relevance to most players

If you're a total beginner, you should stick with the standard ABC exploitative approach (heavy on the value-betting, no need for balance) for now. But if you want to learn about more advanced theory, the poker theory forum is quite a good place to hang out. The sticky threads in that forum will give you some background.

I've changed my mind on this based on reading Philip Newall's book on "The Intelligent Poker Player." In that book, he makes the point that unless you have some understanding of GTO play, you can't figure out how to play an exploitative game.

Take a simple example. Let's say you know a villain is only going to bet out on the river with at least two pair. Otherwise he'll check. To play GTO, he'd need to mix in a fair amount of bluffs with his value bets to get you to be indifferent to calling. So he's unbalanced. You exploit this obviously by not calling unless you can beat at least part of his range. Everything else you can fold.

So with that in mind, understanding some sense of GTO is worthwhile. However, the texts on the subject are orientated well beyond this surface level approach. The assumption is that you not only understand what range is, but also know it for the villain in question. Janda's book is excellent, but virtually everyone just ignores the fact that he says you have to do your own calculations for each situation, not just take his examples as absolute truth in all situations and games. For all but the most serious and experienced players, they are likely to do more harm than good to their game by doing a half assed study of GTO.

GTO isn't a 'see what the fuss is all about' thing. It's something you need to learn as you progress through the stakes, not just on a whim. If you want to learn, I'd strongly recommend doing a course on non-poker-oriented game theory (Yale has a good one on iTunes U and I suspect there's an MIT one available for free somewhere).

why is it? i do not need to know that to play some unexploitable balanced strategy he should be bluffing 3.50% of the time in a given spot. if, by paying attention, we know he never bluffs, his play makes our decisions automatic. it's the same the other way as well, if he's bluffing, say, as often as he is value betting, our decision also becomes trivial. if it's in the middle then it doesn't matter, but at the level that BQ posters should be playing at then it's safe to assume:

a) your opponent doesn't know what being balanced means
b) if they do, it really doesn't matter as if they're at that stage they should also be aware that it only makes a difference if the opponent is paying attention over a decent sample size, and so not bother because it amounts to fancy play which will fly over the head of the other guy

I am still confused about GTO. From what little, non-poker reading I have done on game theory, one of the tenets is that all exploitative strategies are inherently exploitable. GTO is a strategy that is balanced so as to be minimally exploitable. This seems to imply that it is also a strategy that is least able to take advantage of imbalanced players. Is this understanding correct?

My understanding of GTO is that it is a decent defensive strategy to play at the nosebleed levels against other GTO players, but it is not entirely appropriate at lower levels or in high variance situations where players may take an unbalanced approach.

A true GTO strategy would do much better than most humans' muddled attempts at exploitative strategies against exploitable strats.

It's exactly the spots where the bluffing freq is somewhere in the middle that matters. GTO, gametheory whatever you want to call it, matters a lot in poker if you want to progress like TDA said.

That doesn't mean you should be trying to play GTO, not at all, exactly the opposite. But learning gametheory, basically enables you to make sense of the spots, which is where the learning happens.



Then again if you are playing live with 3+ players that have no clue, it becomes basically meaningless.

So, I thought that one of the facets of GTO strategy was that it did not adapt to player tendencies or require reads. If that is true, I am not sure I understand how a balanced, minimally exploitable GTO strategy can better exploit another players unbalanced approach.

from reading your posts, I know you know much more about game theory than I do, I just have struggled with trying to understand if GTO is even the best approach in the majority of games our tournaments played

Because in reality you aren't always exploiting when you think you are. So sometimes you are right making the exploitative adjustment, sometimes wrong.

Yeah, saying GTO would be better than most of our attempts at exploiting is because nearly all poker players aren't actually that good at exploiting - but they're even worse at playing a GTO-approx, so playing exploitatively in a way informed by GTO 'theory' is the way to go.

This.

And in 2016 an introduction to GTO/frequency based strat/theoretical optimal/call it what you will, very much belongs in BQ...sadly for us thickos.

Now if somebody could just write one I could get my head round, that would be great

Massively disagree with many peoples opinion on Ed Millers 1%. I found it an excellent precursor to AONLH, and outlines why this school of thought is so useful.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So you have to read a third-tier book to prepare you for reading the second-tier GTO book. When do you get around to EHUNL?

Also disagree with some posts in this thread, at least for 2/5nl players. After that it does become more important to start thinking in a frequency/balance-oriented way that GTO can inform.

Hey op, here's my list of fundamental gto concepts that you should search the poker theory forum for that Arty linked upthread:

1) minimum defense frequency
2) indifference
3) bluffing range construction
4) bluffing frequency
5) balance
6) mixed strategies

There is a time and place for every one of these fundamentals, as well as a time and place to throw these fundamentals out the window.

I'm not sure about this.

Maybe if you are playing against a strong player who cbets slightly too much you may make the wrong adjustments.

If you are playing a bad calling station who checks to you on the river however, you are going to do much better betting all your value and checking back all other hands then some kind of GTO bluff/value mix.

I think the notion is that GTO should be primarily used at higher levels against better players, where multilevel deception and experienced play is more common.

I don't think anyone would advocate that a GTO approach is appropriate in a turbo donkament against a bunch of beginners.

But the thing is, here you actually have very good idea of villains weakness/spot you are exploiting. When you play against ok and especially good villains, this often isn't the case, and you would be better off just trying to play pseudo GTO in spots you aren't sure what you are exploiting.


Like I play fairly "pseudoGTO" strat preflop and OTF, with exceptions to some spots where I'm fairly sure I have an read how population plays the spot or have read on the villain. So I might choose a different flopsize or totally different flop strategy than GTO would suggest, because I think people play certain spots in certain way that enables me to do this. But this fairly limited thing OTF.

Then OTT I have a bit more spots where I'm starting to exploit, I call too much/too little in certain spots, I underbluff/overbluff certain spots with certain sizes, because I now have a better idea of villains range and how they play it in this spot, with tons of experience in similiar spots. But it's still a guessing game with these exploits and on most spots I'm still just going with gtoish gameplan.

But then when I'm getting to the river, ranges start to be so well defined, and in most spots I can super easily find pivoting questions/points in the hand/ranges that will make my decision easy. And this is where I play the most exploitative. Like you might have a spot where it's hard for villain to bluff and you can just say, "my bluffcatchers are folds unless he bluffs pairs or floats flop crazy wide", and then I just ask myself does villain do either of these things, and it's often a lot easier question than the simple "does he bluff too much here".

Or the other way around "For me to have +EV bluffspot here, villain needs to call like most of his midpairs" Then I just make assumption for that question based on stats and HUD etc, and make a decision.


But OTF these questions are way harder to make and I'm better off just playing fairly GTOish strat.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iw2PcomuYGU

Here is a video of this subject, which might be good or not. Only watched first 25min or so.

Playing COMPLETELY optimally is boring as fk anyways.