No, I don't agree.

I didn’t specify who bets because it won’t matter.

If there are blinds or antes and a player only plays aces, he is a big loser to a betting opponent, even to a non-GTO player, which is hard, no, impossible, to correctly state otherwise from a game POV, not just specific hands.

The only way an aces-only player doesn’t lose big is if there are no blinds or antes but in that case the GTO strategy is to also only play aces.

If you are arguing that if you tighten your range to only play aces you are likely a winner against a GTO betting player in those hands when you have aces is a “so, what’s new?”

As others have said, the GTO strategy is unexploitable. Your thread is titled How to Exploit the GTO 3 Bet.

Do you see any problem with this dichotomy?

Nice Faz, I am obviously right! I DO choose my words extremely carefully. I DONT miss the bigger picture, I’m just taking you through this step by step.

So, you should now realise that this statement is most certainly not true?

It should read: “By definition, the GTO strategy is unexploitable”.

Your argument is equivalent to the following:

If I say Paper and you say Rock, I'll beat your every time!

We all know the RPS GTO strategy. So, why don't you tell us how to exploit a GTO RPS player.

Edit: I really don't know why I am continuing to respond to this OP nonsense.

I was going to say basically the identical thing by using the RPS example, but didn't for the same reason as your edit.

A distinction without a difference.

So obviously you cannot exploit a strategy that is, by definition, unexploitable. That's why most people (including me) thought he was just being a troll. But it seems Y.J. was being genuine and actually wants to discuss strategy. Instead of focusing on the poor title, let's discuss the merits and drawbacks to having a limping range on the BTN. (Long post incoming).

The main advantage of limping is that it allows you to expand your VPIP range. You should generally polarize your limping range such that it contains bottom-of-range hands that happily fold to a raise, and a few traps/high-value hands that happily continue against a raise. But it's a trade-off. You pay more rake, you have to play more pots postflop, you allow your opponent to realize more equity, you weaken your opening range, you increase variance, and you don't get to steal as often.

Limping is primarily used when one or many of the following factors are in play:
1) There's little-to-no rake;
2) You have a discount to enter the pot;
3) Stacks are short enough that you want to keep the SPR high and/or give a bad price on a raise;
4) There are antes and/or other dead money in the pot.

Here is a comparison between two heads-up charts, no rake and with rake. Note that the BTN/SB gets a discount entering the pot:



So limping strategies definitely exists in 100bb HU matches with little-to-no rake. Higher rake = less limping.

But that's HU, let's take a look at multiplayer strategies. In tournament games, limping the BTN is a valid strategy (with 12.5% antes) at stack depths below 40bb. At stacks greater than 40bb, even with no rake and antes, solvers do not use a limping strategy.



12bb eff BTN strategy:


30bb eff BTN strategy:


-----

Other considerations:

Most players under-defend their blinds, over-fold to c-bets, don’t 3-bet often enough, and don’t peel as often as they should. These exploitative factors make open-raising much more lucrative than limping.

For the vast majority of us playing high-rake 100bb cash games, limping is incorrect both exploitatively, and theoretically.

Limping strategies are super interesting in tournament play where there are a lot of short stacks. Especially limping strategies that take place on other positions than the SB.

Your 12bb eff BU range is a great example. We see a lot of hands that aren't quite good enough for a raise, but at the same time we would really like to realize the equity of these hands for cheap. And to balance our range correctly there is also a good chunk of premiums in there.

Another situation where one might employ a limping strategy is when there are serious ICM-implications. I have not studied these situations so I can't employ them myself, but in this youtube video you see bencb789 (A high-stakes tournament crusher) make an UTG-limp! The hand where the limp takes place is at 15:30.

What do you think is the reasoning/intuition behind such a strategy?

Yeah and you can also get rich by never bluffing the river vs a GTO bot because he will always call according to 1 minus alpha, totally ignoring you have the nuts every time.

This is your argument, seriously?

I don't regret my post in your earlier thread. If you came across less arrogant in every post someone could break down the massive flaws in your logic.

Your strategy is giving up EV vs a GTO bot, and getting totally destroyed vs a player with a brain.

Everyone, just stop responding please... This guy opens a few threads like this one every year or so and always gets banned shortly after. His name is Yadi Javadi aka Yadoula. You won't ever convince him that GTO can't be exploited. Just give up.

Psychologically though, it could be interesting why he believes this despite reason, logic, and evidence showing this isn't true. It's doubly interesting coming from an individual who talked so much about cognitive dissonance. I wonder if he is also a flat-earther?

In Rock, Paper, Scissors it works in a very similar way to how it works in Poker... To help you understand it, I’ve dubbed this new this piece of theory with it’s very own name...

How to Counter-Balance in Rock, Paper, Scissors

You can only “counter-balance” against a player who is using a partial GTO strategy. So, let’s say that our opponent uses:

- Rock 1/3 of the time. Which is the GTO ratio.
- Paper 2/3 of the time. This is where his mistake lies.

To exploit his mistake, our best play is to use Scissors every time. When he holds:

- Rock: We Always lose. In total this happens 1/3 of the time.
- Paper: We always win. In total we win 2/3 of the time.

For every 3 games we win 1 more game than our opponent. Please note that when the villain used his GTO strategy against our exploitative play, he won. As you’d expect…

There is another way to exploit this opponent which is equally as effective. We can use a Counter-Balance: Instead of playing the scissors everytime, we can use Paper everytime. When he holds:

- Rock, WE WIN EVERYTIME
- Paper, we draw everytime.

In total, we win 1/3 of the time, but never lose.

Our potential profit from both of these exploitative strategies is the same. The difference lies in the part of the opponents strategy targeted by the exploitation. You can take your profit from the opponent when he makes his mistake, or, you can take the profit from him when he makes his GTO play by applying a counter-balance.

Counter-Balancing in Poker

Vs an open-bet, to give the villain a partial GTO strategy, let’s say he uses;

- GTO 3bet ratio
- Calls a wider range than GTO.

As the opponent has offered more profit when he calls, this makes our opening range more profitable and so we can exploit the mistake by widening our opening range. When we do this:

- Against his GTO 3bet we lose profit share, as we did in RPS.
- Against his calls, we gain profit, as we did in RPS.

As with RPS, there is another way to exploit this opponent. We can also tighten up. Wheh we tighten up:

- Against his GTO plays we improve our profit share.
- Against his calls, as he is opening a wider range than GTO, we can afford to tighten up without losing our GTO profit share.

You can always choose between these same two exploitative options regardless of which game you’re playing. You can choose to either; take your exploitative profit from the opponent when he makes his mistaken plays, or, you can take your profit from his GTO plays by applying a counter-balance.

^^ All that only says that you can exploit a "partial" (non-)GTO strategy which everyone here already knows, it in no way allows for a true GTO strategy to be exploited which, again, is impossible.

Do I have this right? If my opponent makes mistakes I can profit from it?

And exploiting other peoples mistakes should be a good approach to maximize winrate, right?

This thread title should have been How to Exploit the GTO 3bet when that player is not playing real GTO and has leaks when calling preflop.

Yadoula! Bubby! Why don't you test your exploits against Cepheus? Beating the "unexploitable" Cepheus would be the ultimate promotion for your upcoming book.

^^ More of this please! 2nd book idea: a comprehensive collection of sage tips from live 1/2 NL players, including trade secrets such as "Don't raise AK because it's a drawing hand," and, "When fives have been hitting many flops in the past hour, play more hands with a five until they cool down."

Not to encourage OP, but the "GTO play is unexploitable by definition end of story" response isn't quite accurate. In multiplayer games, two players can collude and gain an advantage against a third who is playing GTO even if they aren't sharing hole card information or somehow signaling. GTO is only unexploitable (in the unbeatable sense) when only one other player is allowed to change their strategy and when the game conditions are symmetrical. In a 3 handed game (BB, SB, and BU) normally a GTO SB 3bet range is protected from a BB 4bet in some sense because the BB also has to contend with a BU flat or 5bet possibility. If a 5bet or flat possibility is severely reduced (either to BU just being a nit or being in cahoots with the BB), this allows the BB to open up their 4betting range against the SB. This advantage would likely be minuscule in a cash game (maybe your 4bet range changes like 1%) but it does exist. I can't really imagine a situation where two or more players could exploit a GTO player by playing tighter than GTO, but I won't rule out that its possible.

Yeah, but he is talking about it supposedly being possible to exploit a GTO-bot unilaterally, not via any form of collusion. And really in his last post he isn't even saying that. The last post basically said he could exploit a player who calls too often (compared to optimal) after using a theoretically correct 3bet frequency. So he's now talking about a player who only uses an optimal strategy in one node of the game-tree and not in others, so therefore, *isn't* playing optimal.

In my opinion, GTO assumes non-cooperative players. (They don't share a bankroll like Phil Laak and Antonio back in the early 2000's)

If there is a GTO strategy to temporarily coalition with another player against a third player just for one hand of poker because of draws etc., then GTO will account for that. Poker always has Nash Equilibrium (in fact, not my opinion).

a
In games with more then 2 players you can lose even if they don't could against you. That happens when one of the players playes nonGTO strategy.

Great point Haizemberg93!

For this reason, with three or more players the GTO strategy is to minimize your own maximum loss (on average). Sometimes if the board favors you this is actually a small positive number. Sometimes when the board does not favor you this is a small negative number. If one or more of the other players is not GTO, then this is almost always a profit. The farther off they are, the more money you win.

Line up the GTO 4-bet and let them worry about it.

OMG, I just got way dumber after reading this post..

My point is that you can exploit the villain WHEN he makes his GTO 3bet. You can take your profit from him when he makes his GTO plays by tightening up when you exploit.

You called for a RPS example and I explained exactly how it works, but instead of offering me praise, you still don’t even see my point. You’ve all gone off topic again... Doesn’t anyone here see what’s happening: ITS LIKE INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS!! In that RPS post I explained some amazing exploitative theory, I explained the fundamental advantage in tightening up to exploit rather than loosening up. And, like drones humming the tune of GTO, the respondents all completely miss my exploitative theory and instead laugh about how obvious it is that you can beat a partial GTO strategy. They slate me, whilst chanting: “GTO is so unbeatable, I love it so much”.

I can’t think of any way to make my point any more clearer, so I think it’s time to move on.

If anyone here isn’t possessed with a demonic obsession with GTO, if anyone here is able to follow my exploitative logic, let me summarise for you:

In real life the villains don’t know the full GTO strategy for any decision, so, if you aim to play slightly tighter than GTO on each street you’ll beat them on each street.

This doesn’t mean you should fold those extra hands, you could fold them, but it’s better to play them by creating situations that the villain doesn’t know the GTO strategy for. Situations like: Limp pots.

In short: To exploit today’s GTO regs, you can simply limp some of the weaker hands that you’d usually open.

... What I’m wondering is this:

In RPS, for the villain to have a partial GTO strategy he must always play 1/3 of the GTO strategy, but in poker, for any one decision, he could be using a strategy that matches GTO 99% of the time, or his strategy could match GTO only 1% of the time. In RPS the profit gained from exploiting him in either way is the same, but in poker does the profit gained from tightening up differ from the profit made by loosening up depending on how close the opponent is to GTO?

This seems unlikely in regard to any one decision, but how then does multiple streets effect matters? If we tighten up our range preflop we can take an advantage against the opponents GTO strategy post flop, but, if he is playing closer to GTO in the future would that mean our potential profit gained from tightening up will be magnified on future streets?

This post made no sense lol, but it made way more sense than any other reply. I think you’re pointing out that all you need to beat GTO is one non GTO player in the game.

This is true, and it doesn’t just relate to the table or tournament. In the game that we call “cash game”: Exploitation will always beat GTO provided there is 1 imperfect player who plays the game.

If you sat the perfect exploitative player and the perfect GTO bot in today’s cash games. The exploitative player would start strong and stay ahead of his opponent for all time. In real life, exploitation is simply better. GTO is only better in a bubble.

This is actually off topic, but glad to see you’re not as obsessed as most.

In fact, I apologise for saying that was off topic... there’s more to it than I realised:

If you face two opponents, only one of which were using GTO, you could use the counter balance to turn what was an advantage against a fish into an advantage over the GTO player.

It works the same sort of way: if you tighten up, you are sacrificing the profit from the fish so that you can take your profit from the GTO player.