Maybe blinds are not the only difference, but you couldn't play RPS with blinds without the action being sequential rather than simultaneous. Maybe that is a bigger difference between poker and RPS, action being sequential rather than simultaneous.

However, my point remains, if you play poker without blinds, an optimal strategy will be to fold every hand. There may be other optimal strategies (as there is no guarantee that there is only one equilibrium strategy), but, by definition, an optimal strategy in a game such as poker (assuming no rake) will have an EV of 0 against another optimal strategy. Therefore, folding 100% of the time will be an optimal strategy, as it is unexploitable by any other strategy, and will achieve the same EV (0) against any possible optimal strategy. And if hero plays poker with no blinds vs someone who is playing a GTO strategy for that game consisting of folding every hand, then hero cannot make a mistake. Which is pretty similar to the situation OP was describing. This may not be the case if hero is playing against a player who is playing an optimal strategy which doesn't involve folding 100% of the time (as there may be more than one optimal strategy, this is a conceivable situation). In this case, then hero may easily have a strategy which has negative EV, and make costly mistakes (which they can improve by folding every hand).

Introduce blinds, and clearly folding every hand is now a dominated strategy, as it can be improved by folding every hand except from AA, which you jam. Obviously, there are many more ways in which it can be improved, but you only need to find one to demonstrate it is now a dominated strategy. On top of this, with blinds and no rake, it still holds true that an equilibrium strategy will have an EV of exactly 0 against another equilibrium strategy, and clearly, folding every hand will have a negative EV, so by definition cannot be an equilibrium strategy.

None of my comments were about how using a GTO strategy will win at poker against people not playing a GTO strategy, or why you can lose EV against a GTO strategy. All the comments I made, someone with knowledge of game theory and who has just been introduced to the rules of poker should be able to make. I was just trying to show a theoretical example of how it may be possible to slightly manipulate the rules of poker to get to a situation like OP described, where a player cannot make a mistake when playing against a GTO strategy. Which is limited to playing poker with no blinds. Once blinds are introduced, this doesn't hold true anymore. So, seen as I've showed that in poker without blinds, you can play a GTO strategy against which it is impossible to make a mistake, and that in RPS, a GTO strategy exists against which it is impossible to make a mistake, I think it is fair to say that there are some similarities between RPS and poker without blinds. If we assume that it is possible to make a mistake against a player playing a GTO equilibrium poker strategy (and this seems like a very reasonable assumption), I feel like it is a reasonable conclusion that the introduction of blinds to poker is a source of major complexity in the game, and also a point of difference when comparing poker to RPS. But maybe not the only one.

On no blinds poker there is a dominant GTO strategy which is to only put in money with the nuts (AA or the nuts postflop), and anyone doing anything else would be losing EV to GTO (besides folding 100% as you said which yields 0 EV). This couldn't happen in RPS

As an aside, what you state above is not at all the optimal approach to Rock-Paper-Scissors

Video goes on to explain how 33.3% each is the GTO strategy in the first min lol, and how anything else is exploiting human nature

Yea....that's the difference between optimal approach overall and GTO, lol.

Also, to short-circuit your inpending response and save us both some time:

as an aside
"A phrase that prefaces a comment indirectly related to the topic being discussed."

https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/as+an+aside

My bad, my bad

The term "GTO" is used in this forum to describe game theoretical poker strategy. Game theorists do not use that term in any capacity, in any textbook I have read.

I don't know to what the rest of your post is regarding. I made my post clear, concise, and in my opinion correct.

In any case, I imagine there will be some other equilibrium strategy (or more than one) for poker without blinds, and indefinitely agree that poker, with or without blinds, is infinitely (or close enough) more complex than rps. Also, I feel like my last couple of comments weren't phrased in the most constructive way possible, and I felt like the way I put it was being a bit of a prick. So apologies to you and robert_utk for that.

Don't worry, these threads often go down that path.

nah man its all good i like me some internet banter

There are an infinite number of equilibrium strategies for NLHE without blinds. You can go allin with AA at any frequency from 0-1, and fold all other hands, and you're at equilibrium with other players playing the same strategy. Some non allin strategies could also work as long as the SPR isn't high enough for the opener with AA to be exploited for only having AA. Some people will argue that folding AA is worse than shoving with it because shoving gives the opponent an opportunity to make a mistake, but folding can still be part of a strategy that meets the requirements of a NE. No player has an incentive to deviate from always folding at the equilibrium because nobody makes money from AA in any equilibrium.

Another difference that I haven’t seen discussed between RPS and NLHE is that each game of RPS has the same value - a win is a win at RPS. The Nash equilibrium strategy will give opponents no way to increase the percentage of wins against you. This is certainly not the case do NLHE. Not all winning hands are equal, obviously. An NE strategy for NLHE will ignore winning pots entirely and focus on winning money - there’s no counter strategy that can be used to reduce your EV, but certainly there are counter strategies to reduce the percentage of pots you win.

As a toy example, assume HU NLHE and an opponent that shoves ATC. Proper GTO strategy would be to fold quite a lot, losing many small pots but winning a few huge ones. Comparing a GTO strategy for RPS to one for NLHE is really an apples to oranges comparison.

Many times, the technical situation tells what is clearly the best play, and the GTO plays there often better. Not sure about the better value bets, as they can suck vs. the field, just as GTO calls regularly suck.

A bot assisted human is tougher, but I doubt the player using it is a very good player. A smart botter would make his bot to adjust to the field, and considering how much money one makes like that, they have a better chance to beat the field.

I am not at the level where I understand GTO, I just wanted to point out that in the game of rock-paper-scissors, using your example of "GTO" strategy would be a losing endeavor if any type of rake was involved.

The link for the video is not working, but I understood the 33% idea. Could you please state your opinion about the rock/paper/scissors example, even for the first minute? Is that really a simplified version of GTO strategy? Because if the game was played with any type of rake, it would be a losing strategy not a break even one.

33% is the best strategy, no matter if there is rake or not. even though it will be a losing strategy with rake.

nobody should want to play RPS if there is rake because everyone loses

33% is not the best strategy, it is just the safest strategy against a player of superior skill, and, as we both agree, a losing strategy if rake is applied.

If you watched two brothers playing RPS you would notice that one of them crushes the other almost every time, and would be a consistent winner even with rake. He does that by exploiting his brother's tendencies, not by using the 33% strategy.

Poker is vastly more complex than RPS, but if the 33% example is a simplified version of GTO strategy, it raises a question about the much advertised GTO profitability claims IMHO. Not based on GTO knowledge which I don't even have, just on simple logic and common sense.

I am not by any means questioning the value of studying GTO here, just the ubiquitous claims on internet poker forums that "GTO is all you need to be profitable". GTO knowledge is a great tool in one's arsenal, but far for being enough by itself, that's what I personally understand from the RPS 33% example.

You couldn't be more wrong.
There's a thread right below this one that explains why GTO wins in poker but not in RPS.

Playing anywhere near decent GTO will make you a huge winner in nearly every poker game.
In and by itself, no questions asked.

Could you please specify the name of that thread? I can't find it, threads change places all the time.

Let's assume that your statements are correct. Who has more knowledge and could play closer to GTO than the game theorists who created and are perfecting it? Everyone else is a step behind.

If GTO knowledge "in and by itself" would make one a huge winner, how come that the game theorists are not crushing the high stakes games in Vegas? Are they not allowed to play or don't they like money? How come the final table at the WSOP Main Event is not full of game theorists?

You clearly have a flawed understanding of what "GTO" means in a poker setting. Your posts have become indistinguishable from trolling at this point and are diminishing this thread.

Sorry you fell that way. And you are correct, I do not understand how GTO works, I'm just trying to figure that out.

"How does GTO win?"
Too obvious?

https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/1...o-win-1791115/


There's a huge difference between knowing something and being able to apply it.
Much like in any other sport, basketball for example, knowing the theory on how to take a perfect shot, doesn't mean you can actually do it during a real game.

All of the high stakes crushers are using GTO.
That doesn't mean they're playing perfect GTO, it means they're studying it and have an understanding of it.

There's no one, who can play a perfect GTO game or even knows what such a strategy would look like.

The people who invented solvers don't necessarily know GTO.
They've just created a program that can calculate the GTO play in one very specific situation, and then only after inputting the pre-flop ranges first.

Fair enough and I applaud your willingness to learn.

There are several stickied threads at the top of the forum you may want to read. There are numerous other threads on "GTO" in poker in this forum that also contain a lot of information. And, of course, there have been several books on the subject that have come out in the past few years.

If you have specific questions, you could even start a new thread that could also be a way to jump-start your learning.

Guys, I have started a thread under "Beginners Questions" entitled "Question about GTO". If you had the time to read it and state your opinion, I would certainly appreciate it.