in todays solver era we often use the macro context to inform our strategy on a micro level

IMO it is possible that in our focus on macro-dynamics we are often failing to incorporate important details from the micro context into our strategies. Details that are actually part of an 'optimal' strat. before going any further i should say that players naturally do focus on the micro factors, but the focus on GTO can certainly distract from them

Here are some micro factors that im referring to

-Awarding our actual combos slightly more importance, instead of hyper-focusing on range dynamics

-the opportunity cost of taking marginal chip-ev spots in great cash games that occur infrequently, like ICM for cash

-using all kinds of apps and gadgets to randomize instead of awarding the secondary characteristics of a situation enough value to sway our decision one way or another

-the removal effects that our actual combo's have on our/villains 'GTO' distributions, especially when two condensed ranges are facing off and removal effects are more pronounced

Anyway you get it

I really don't.

I GET IT !!!!!!!

Well actually..... not really
what the hell are you talking about?

Not sure what you mean by actual combos. Do you mean our current hand? How is playing our current hand without the context of the rest of our range or villain's range better than considering those things?

I am not an economist but my understandimg of opportunity cost is simply comparing two options and if you choose option 1 the cost is whatever option 2 was worth (or perhaps the difference between option 1 and option 2 if they are comparable).

So if we look at a spot and it is +EV what are we comparing as our option 2? What opportunity are we missing out on by taking the +EV spot?

As an aside ICM only exists for tournaments because chips in play don't convert directly to money won. In cash games that is not so - chips = $$.

This I can actually agree with especially in live play or where we have history.

But humans also tend to over estimate their ability to correctly identify and apply information. It could very well be your secondary characteristics shouldn't be trusted enough to over rule a more logical decision.

I don't know any serious poker player who hasn't at least tangentially heard of or considered card removal.

hi just grinding!

my post is definitely a little verbose, but overall my thought was that GTO ideas can harm some players decision making, and cause them to undervalue 'micro' variables of the actual situation.

yes opportunity cost might have a different definition, im more talking about the fact that if we take a marginal chip-EV spot in a great cash game and lose, this might cost us the potential opportunity that preserving our stack in these games offers. instead of taking any +EV spot, we might weigh the value of the opportunity at hand with our decision. yes ICM only exists in tournaments, im saying its a similar logic: we might decide to pass on a marginal chip-ev spot because if we can preserve our stack there might be a higher value opportunity ahead, and if this great hypothetical cash game happens infrequently we might want to protect ourselves from the downside of a marginal chip-EV decision

yes everyone thinks about removal, what i mean is that some people may think of their ranges in a vacuum without applying the removal effects of their actual combo in game, which may be significant

To a certain extent I agree that players tend to take lines that they think are 'optimal', but in reality would be better off taking lines more appropriate for their game.

As a poster in this subforum pointed out to me that is a problem with the way the player is using the model not the model itself.

Classic example I can think of off the top of my head is minimum defense frequency. Some people think that by calculating that and sticking to it regardless of say the betting line or opponent tendencies they are always making the optimal play.

That is the purpose of a bankroll. You have more money with which you can still place maximum bets. Sure this may not help you with a game that has a capped buy-in but just generalizing that is what a bankroll is for - to allow you to put your money into +EV situations while absorbing negative variance.

In cash there is no "better opportunity". Either your bet makes money or it doesn't. Passing up on many small EV opportunities can add up in the end. Again that is what a bankroll is for - to help ensure you have money to invest in +EV situations.

Okay fair enough.

The remarks about opportunity cost are legitimate, although I've never had them cross my mind. For an easy to understand example that doesn't depend on our bankroll, consider this game:

Stacks are 100 each, heads up, no blinds or antes. Two hands will be played where our opponent shoves blind. The re-buy is 10. On the first decision we should consider the EV of being able to play the next game with our stack. EV of the next hand after folding is going to be about $8. Ignoring chops, EV of the next hand after calling is going to be $.80. Calling has an opportunity cost of $7.20, so we should only call if a hand is at least $7.20 +EV.

The calling range of the first hand should be:
{33+,A2s+,K3s+,Q6s+,J8s+,T9s,A2o+,K6o+,Q9o+,JTo}
The calling range of the second hand should be:
{22+,A2s+,K2s+,Q2s+,J6s+,T7s+,98s,A2o+,K2o+,Q5o+,J 8o+,T9o}

This example models a real life situation where we are deeper than the max buy-in with a fish who is playing for a finite amount of time.

All solvers account for card removal of individual combos in their algorithms.

This makes sense in terms of opportunity cost. Key assumptions: Can't rebuy back up deep, fish will be there for finite time, and your edge isn't falling over time (i.e., he's not tightening up for the last orbit before picking up).

great points all. In poker it is necessary to look at every spot individually, but i think opportunity itself is a factor that should be plugged in as well. opportunity is not a constant/fixed variable

If your in a 'once-a-month' type game, you dont have to blindly commit to any marginal +EV spot just because your rolled for the game

if we can avoid getting stacked in one of these rare cash games, we get a huge boost in our win-rate. whereas we might take an unnecessary hit to our WR dumping chips in one of these spots just because we make 'more than nothing'

This is something ive thought about a lot, and i believe there is a ton of practical utility in this idea.

In live cash we might find ourselves a spot where we can win at an insane clip for a 10 hour window of time. If we are in this kind of spot then it makes no sense to torch marginal spots.

That shouldn't be the takeaway. The point is that sometimes taking one spot means you won't get to take future +EV spots. Most of the time this is not the case and we can just take every +EV spot that comes to us. You should never think "lot's of better spots exist, so it's not necessary to take this one," but "if I take this spot I worth $X EV I will miss out on $Y EV later. $X < $Y so I fold."

There is value in having deep effective stacks. If you are a starting stack you should be slightly more inclined to gamble, and can even take flips or slightly -EV spots in order to hope to build a stack. If you have a large stack already then there is some value in trying to maintain it by declining flips and slight +EV spots.