Warning: *****Longer than I intended Thank you if you get through it******
Ok I'm really trying to understand this GTO concept. FWIW I am in the best poker coaching program and we are taught to exploit, exploit, exploit - so I definitely understand exploitative play. We are trained to ignore GTO until the point in which we need to use it. (versus villains who are competent, winning players and who are exceptional at exploitative play.)
Matt was asked how to adapt GTO for micro stakes and he replies:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matthew Janda
I do not think anyone knows that.
I tend to think the GTO lines are usually best at every stake.
The answer is to take the most +EV line. It is very obvious to me at least that GTO is not the most +EV line is so many situations. GTO is most clearly NOT the best at every stake because it's NOT the most +EV line. Or I should say it's clearly NOT the most +EV line against villains who are highly exploitable.
Extreme examples. Villain is a huge nitty nitty nit nit and gets extremely uncomfortable with calling flop raises OOP even with TPWK hands like AT on a Ah2hJs flop. Their fold to flop raise OOP is 75%.
The GTO approach is to raise your value combo's (22, JJ, AJo, A2s) and some premium flush draws (KhQh, KhTh), etc. along with some bluffs.
This GTO approach assumes villain cares about being exploited themselves. Maybe they are happy living in their world of nit and continue folding TPWK.
This also means that CLEARLY you can go outside of the GTO bluff strategy and begin to raise more bluffs (backdoors flushes, 3rd/4th pairs, broadway gutshots without backdoor equity, etc) because villain can be
exploited hard
On the opposite side of the spectrum, you have mr. WHALE STATION and they open 50% UTG and fold to flop raises 20% of the time. Here you would NEVER want to raise bluffs (one could argue you still should at a very rare frequency to let the whale who is probably one tabling not get the idea that you are only attacking them with value every time)
But the main point is that you can begin to raise the flop with lower value hands like AQ or AT maybe even A9.
If Player A and Player B both play perfectly GTO poker, and they play 1 million hands against each other, shouldn't the expected winnings of each player be the 0bb/100? (assuming no rake is paid)
Meaning GTO is only a system to prevent you from losing money but also prevents you from winning money? It is a 0 sum system?
Because if GTO is simply a preventative maintenance to counter exploitation then is assuming villain exploits and doesn't play GTO, therefore also implying that now you are being exploited because now you can't take exploitative lines because now villain is adapting to your exploitations by becoming more and more GTO.
So you have 2 villains that are both exploitative villains. They want to study how to play against their opponent (A vs B and B vs A), so they move more and more into GTO play instead of moving more and more into exploitable play - So eventually in a perfect system, they both end up having 0 net profit vs each other.
In other words, GTO seems to be a system that only works if the villain also plays GTO.
If villain knows you fold to much to 3bets, then the correct solution for the villain is to 3bet you more. This is not GTO, correct? Because villain should just be 3 betting their normal range.
I don't understand how Matt can claim GTO crushes all limits.
It also confuses me that if you play GTO it assumes villain exploits. Instead of counter exploiting, like x/raising flops more often when you see they float bet IP more than average but fold a lot to cbets.
If no villain is exploitable and everyone plays perfectly GTO, nobody would make money in poker.
Also some villains do not purposefully exploit, because they could exploit by cbetting 80% OOP so it is an exploit vs someone who folds a lot IP, but sub optimal vs someone who calls down to river with 2nd and 3rd pairs.
So I really fail to see how GTO is some game crushing theory - because in my head it seems clear to me that it is quite the opposite - it is a system which prevents being exploited and ALSO prevents you exploiting the villain, therefore making your win rate 0bb/100.
Is not GTO simply a system to prevent yourself from bleeding too much versus better than average exploitative players and NOT a system that allows you maximize EV in all situations?
Because it seems to me that maximizing EV is simply playing good, logical, reasoned and most importantly exploitative poker and GTO cannot give you this.
Maybe some people are using "GTO" and "Taking the most +EV line through intense study of range vs range, flopzilla board texture connectivity, combo counting, a solid understanding of poker equities and what not" as the same thing. GTO does not necessarily equate to the other. Or so I argue.
I do hope the book forces me to study some poker math and reason/think on new levels but the overall concept of GTO is really something I tend to find some huge issues with.
If anything I wrote is answerable and made any sense, I thank anyone who can clear some of this stuff up.
Last edited by p0ker_n00b; 09-18-2017 at 09:32 PM.