So I️ understand the basics of gto where you have to a balanced range so your opponent can not exploit you , assuming you’re playing a competent opponent who doesn’t have any leaks which you should be exploiting.

My question is how would you opponent know your range is balanced . For example I’m a casino playing against a full ring table for 8 hours and let’s assume they’re all good / great players . How does balancing your ranges work if you won’t have a long history with these players for all different kinds of scenarios and also if most of the time you’re not showing your hand if you’re bluffing . Should you be showing your hand occasionally even if it gives away information?

For example , you check raise the flop on a flush draw representing trips or two pair . Your opponent folds and you muck. How is this definitely balancing your range if your opponent doesn’t know whether you had it or not .


I️ could see where it works for pros because they’re televised often , but for the average casino player how is this benefitial? Does it mainly help with people who you’ve had a long history with ?

If for example you decide to bet on the flip of a coin. You would not need to know if in the past it happened to be tail or heads. The odds would still be 50% if you like it or not. Or even if it was head 3 times. So it s not really about 'making up' for all the times you played differently.

I think you may be confusing 2 separate concepts.

One concept is that of intrinsic balance. Like if you needed to balance 2 actions 50/50 then yeah, you can flip a coin. Your opponent does not need to know what your balance point is. It usually does *matter* if he knows

You seem to be interested in the idea of observed frequencies, that is, you do (or don't) want your opponent to know your true underlying frequency. For things that happen infrequently, there is really no way to "demonstrate" your underlying frequencies. For things that happen often, if you want to hide your frequency, it will be difficult.

Hopefully that helps?

When your range is balanced, you maximise the EV of your value-bets and your bluffs. It doesn't matter whether villain calls or folds in the vacuum of one hand, because you played the hand optimally. Suppose this time around he folded. That would mean you didn't get value if you had a real hand, but you won the whole pot if you were bluffing. Maybe next time the same spot comes up, villain calls, but you have the nuts and win his stack. In the long run, by balancing your range correctly, your bluffs will at least break even and your value hands will print money, because villain can't tell when you're value-betting and when you're bluffing. You choose each action at just the right frequency and cause him to "guess".
If you have long history of your opponents, then you can spot their tendencies. If someone is a calling station, you cut down (or even eliminate) bluffing and just focus on value-betting him to death. That is to say you will maximise EV by straying from GTO and using an exploitative strategy. A balanced "GTO" style is more useful when you don't know the tendencies of your opponent, because the GTO play is guaranteed to at least break even against every possible strategy.
To emphasise, if you don't know much about your opponents, especially if they are tough/good/professionals, use a balanced style that makes it hard for them to beat you. If your opponents are random casino players that have loads of leaks, find out what those leaks are (calling too much, bluffing too much, folding too much, or whatever) and punish them for their lack of balance.

GTO is the default strategy; one adjusts it as one gets more information. Showing the hand, maybe, but it is likely seen by all players. Loosening up the table/action perhaps.

Choose the action that you believe maximizes your expectation based on quantitative and qualitative information.

Mate, you're confusing the theory between exploitative and GTO.

When we exploit we consider what we are representing. We consider how the opponent will perceive us and then we make a play which will make us the most money.

A 100% GTO player wont care what they are representing. They do think about the cards a GTO opponent would think that they hold, but only so that they can calculate an equilibrium strategy. They wont consider what it looks like they currently hold.

- To exploit we use our perceived range. What it looks like we hold. The cards that we are representing.
- To calculate a GTO play we use our actual range. What we, a GTO player, could actually hold.

It is very confusing, but my simple advice to you is this... Forget about GTO man! You are speaking about the cards that you are representing and this is what is called "Level Three" of exploitative theory and it's pretty advanced. This is the natural way to play poker. It's easy, it leads to GTO anyway, and it makes you the most money.

GTO players confuse literally everything for no gain to anyone.
- They say GTO is the perfect defensive strategy, but the truth is that it just makes less money. Arty says when you use GTO you you will make the most off all your bluffs and all your strength, but this is just him admitting that he doesn't try to maximise the profit from the hand that he currently holds. He is just confusing things by adding to his deliberations the consideration of all the hands that he doesn't actually hold. His actual range. There is absolutely no need for you to think about how much you will make from your bluffs when you currently hold strength. The bluffs will look after themselves when you hold the bluffs. You don't need to consider your actual range. Just think about how to make the most with your current hand and you will rinse them... It is worth mentioning that you don't need to consider your actual range, but, there is a time an exploitative player will use it. We consider the cards we could actually hold to concoct any complete strategies, such as, "I'm going to raise more* against him" *more of my actual range. And so, your actual range isn't bad, it's just being misused by GTO players.
- If you use the unnatural, and never optimal GTO, you will mess with your own mind too...
...In your mind you already know that GTO isn't a strategy you will ever want to use. So if you come to trust in GTO plays, your mind will hold multiple conflicting views and you will experience cognitive dissonance. If you fully understand all exploitative logic this trust we place in GTO can be avoided and so you are free to learn it. At this point it could be deemed a small benefit to learning GTO, but at this point, you will also know how to reach GTO without considering your actual range. Well, you will be able to see the place where the perceived range meets the actual range.
...The mind thing gets worse, notice how close those two above ranges really are: the cards that the opponent thinks we hold and the cards we actually hold. They are almost exactly the same, they could sometimes be the same, and so if you learn to consider your actual range in detail you are going to find it very difficult to separate it from your perceived range.

You've said words to this effect several times and I don't know how to respond except to say you're wrong.
GTO range-balancing requires an understanding of what your entire range looks like, and how it plays against the range you perceive your opponent to be playing. It's therefore extremely important (when bluffing, in particular) to care about what you're representing. When you take a "GTO" line, the story makes sense. That's how the value hands get value, the bluffs actually work, and the opponent can't do much about it.

You're a prime example of someone who's confusing their perceived range with their actual range - Whenever I say our perceived range you cant even work out what I'm talking about. You clearly confused it with your actual range in the quoted post, you described both as the same thing. To add to your confusion, you seem to also think that when I say our perceived range I am in some way talking about the range I perceive the villain to hold, but I clearly said OUR perceived range. The range the villain thinks we hold.

You dont seem to have been following your perceived range as I advised you to do. So, let me try to get you past your CogD a different way -

Answer me this - Are the cards that you could hold the same as the cards it looks like you hold?

I can't control how villain perceives my range, as I'm not an omniscient god like you. He either assigns an accurate range for me, or he doesn't. In most cases, if he perceives my range incorrectly, he will make mistakes and lose money against it.
That said, I think the short answer to your question is "yes". Unless I've slipped through a gap in the matrix and slid into a parallel universe - or gone insane - it's logically impossible for me to have a hand that is not in my range. The cards I hold look like they are in my range because they literally are in my range.

Just wait until you get to pre-adjusting...things get even weirder there.

Oh and avoiding your perceived range in order to maximize profits some how. Because playing 23o like it's AA UTG nets tons of Yadula bucks.

Classic CogD thank you, what did you call me, a omniscient God lol! For being able to control the way that I am perceived. You do know why people put on suits, right?

Arty, "what it looks like you hold" does not need to be the same as "what you really hold". You can pretend to hold something different to your actual holding. You can pretend to hold something that is not in your actual range. This is extremely simple logic and beginners can understand it without any problems. The only reason you are going mad is because GTO has fully blocked your conscious access to your image. You think your actual range and your perceived range are the same!

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is why players like Arty can easily be owned by you at the poker tables. First of all, he is never trying to deceive you, which is useful. Once you work out what he does you can destroy him forever. But more ludicrously, when Arty see's a deceptive play, this same mind melt will happen in his head. He wont be able to comprehend what you are doing. He will lose his mind. Shout abuse at you and throw his chips in your face.

Arty is a Level Two player. A player who has blocked off conscious access to Level Three in his mind. He has blocked off access to all things deceptive. And all low level players are the same. You only start getting Level Three experienced players in the $100 cash games, and in tourneys there are very few. If you can follow the cards it looks like you hold, and predict how your image will change when you make a manoeuvre, you will literally destroy them all. I can teach a beginner this in 5 minutes, but you already know how to do it anyway. Just pretend to hold something you don't actually hold.

Avoiding your perceived range with your actual hand is pretty much all you do at Level Three. Its really obvious and really easy to do, but these CogD sufferers cant comprehend it - You need to consider the profit you will make from your deception for it to be worthwhile. You don't just pretend to hold 23 when you have AA, but, pretending to hold a draw when you actually hold the nuts, this is usually worth loads of Yadi bucks.

We all agree that deception makes money in poker. We disagree how we achieve that deception.

Most "GTO players" achieve deception by realizing:

1. There are a variety of hands we play exactly the same way

2. Some of these hands have different objectives (i.e. to gain additional value vs our opponent's range, to capture the pot immediately, or some combination of both of those things). Traditionally we have called these value hands, semi-bluffs, or pure bluffs.

3. The combinations of these hands together compromise our range (what you call our actual range).

Notice no where in there does it say our ranges are static - that is to say GTO players only play the same hands the same way every time they play.

What you seem to see as deception is:

1. Estimate what it looks like we have to our opponent in each individual hand

2. Play our hand as if it was different

What most of us are arguing against is that estimating what our hand looks like to our opponent involves information about our actual range and our opponent.

In any scenario knowing what hands we ACTUALLY have when we take a certain line IS important. There's really no other way to say it and there's not really a much better way to guess what my opponent thinks I'm holding without playing more with the opponent, at which point we can adjust with exploitation.

Yadoula's do you play online or live and what stakes?

Yeah but it doesn't have to make sense to your actual villain, only to a hypothetical villain with perfect knowledge of your true range. The GTO line is the same regardless of what they perceive your range to be. GTO couldn't care less how Hero's range is perceived.

You two are talking about different things. You're clearly an online player and used to villains who are competent enough to tie their own shoes. But have you ever played live low stakes? Bring your online 9max ranges to a live $1/2nl table and let me know if the range they perceived you to have was in the same galaxy as your actual range.

This poor fellow thinks that he can deceive his opponent when he actually holds exactly what his opponent thinks he holds. I'm sorry kidda, thats not gonna work.

GTO players do something similar to deception, which is where a lot of their confusion comes from, but it is not deception. GTO players make the same plays whilst they are both strong and weak. At first glance this looks deceptive, but it isnt. This actually stops them from being able to deceive their opponent. Whilst they are doing this, balancing, they cannot pretend that they are stronger than they appear to be, they cannot pretend to be weaker than they appear to be. All they can do is balance.

You do realize that if I am playing one part of a Nash equilibrium strategy I could quite literally hand you my entire strategy and the best you could do is play the other part of the strategy and break even?

I.e. you could know my range EXACTLY and couldn't do anything about it except break even. So yes there is inherent deception in ranges that we actually play because poker is a game of incomplete information.

The only way my opponent can perceive my range is:

1. Based on his analysis of information that could contribute to my playing tendencies (i.e. age, race, appearance, how I handle chips, how I size my bets).

2. The stakes I play and the general tendencies of the population of players at that stake.

3. Direct observation

1 and 2 amount to basically guessing using some applied heuristics so you could reduce these to "an opponent perceives my range by"


1. Guessing

2. Direct observation

Since guessing only loosely correlates to my actual range/hand in a given situation and you can't argue with direct observation (though you can improperly weight observations) then knowing what hands my opponent will observe from me becomes a very big deal. Ergo knowing my actual range can help me understand and manipulate how my opponent perceives my range.

This makes 0 sense. I don't know how you contradict yourself in the same paragraph all the time

You raise 5h6h from the button and the big blind calls. Flop comes Ah4c2h. You cbet to make it look like you represent the A. Villain open folds 77.

How is it any different if I know I can show up with a bunch of A's and 2 pair here or if I just think I am avoiding playing my hand in a way my villain makes a mistakes? How is one deception and the other not deception?

See my above example. I include 5h6h in my range for a cbet and I know this. I can also know that I would take the same line with AT+, 2 pair, sets etc. How is it any different then you taking a line and me understanding all the hands I could take that line with.

It's like you think a range is some magical, mystical, mathematical thing that's set in stone when it's just really people understanding what hands they could have in a particular spot so that the story they tell through their betting sizes and actions make sense and achieve the result they want (fold, call, raise, etc.).

I wondering if just_grinding would notice if you bet more to value bet and less as a bluff.

Personally, I can't wait for the book.

Not sure what you are implying but feel free to expand and I would be happy to discuss anything you like on topic with the themes of the thread.

I m not criticzing i m just thinking. Bc sometimes people get very complex strategy you beat them with a very simple strategy. It happens everywhere. I think maybe they talk about it in 'the art of war' ?

FWIW, I agree with much of what JG has written in his/her last few posts. I'm not going to respond directly to Yadoula's tiresome insults (e.g. post #12) any more.

When I was teenager I was very strong with taekwondo. And many world class competitors happen to only do 1 or 2 basic kicks. The rest was distance, timing, etc... but kick was basic

I did not mean to imply you were criticizing me, I just didn't understand the point you were trying to make so I was just asking you to elaborate. That's all.

I certainly agree that a human will never play an optimal strategy perfectly because we just don't have the mental capacity or tools to do it.

But I do not agree that a player trying to emulate a somewhat optimal strategy will be at a disadvantage vs a player who has a more simplistic strategy. It's fairly evident in the difficulty of games today as well as the work being done in the field of AI to train solvers, that striving for an optimal or semi-optimal strategy nets more money than not (at least online).