I’d say GTO play is playing in a way that minimises the maximum value an opponent can obtain.

Is that right?

Also a question. Is there a difference between playing GTO and playing in a ‘balanced’ way? If so, please explain ... thanks

I’ve read various articles about GTO so am not looking to be given links to articles like that, I’m just asking in my OP whether that statement is correct

Thanks

Maybe this is just semantics, but I think of the GTO strategy as the one that maximises your own EV given the assumption that villain (or villains) is/are trying to maximise his/hers/theirs.
In a heads up pot, minimizing your opponent's EV is essentially the same thing as maximising your own, but in multiway games, it seems odd to think in terms of minimizing other people's value. The aim of the game is to maximise your own profit.

More thorough definitions are given in the sticky threads for this forum.

Balance is a feature of GTO play, but it's not precisely the same thing, as bluffing combos that help balance your value-bets get folded when there is a lot of action. e.g. To take an extreme example, you can't balance a 7-bet jamming range, because you fold some of your bluffs to a 4-bet, and the rest to a 6-bet, leaving you with just the nuts.

I like your quote that balance is a ‘feature’ of GTO play. We can probably leave that one there!

That sticky thread on GTO was very interesting thanks. I see the term ‘minimax’ is used in post #9 and also I think later on by Jerrod Ankenman. I think it’s a useful way of thinking of things as I think it neatly captures the essence of the GTO concept:

Let’s say both Hero and Villain are playing GTO. Let’s say the payoff for V in a particular spot is X (X can be a positive or negative number). Btw Hero’s payoff is therefore -X but this isn’t of interest.

Let’s say that Hero deviates from GTO play and Villain is a nemesis villain (full definition in the sticky thread, but basically this is a villain who magically sees your strategies and adjusts optimally to maximally exploit you).
Payoff for Villain then becomes X+Y (where Y is a positive number)
I think the point here is that the defining characteristic of the GTO play was that it minimised the V’s maximum value over all the strategies he could use.
I find this helps me think about it.
Thanks again, that’s probably enough for now .... this discussion has already been very well done in the sticky thread I think.

GTO = Minimax in heads-up play only.

Why would you want to sum up game theory optimization into a tweet. Whatever definition you decide on better have a damn epsilon in it.

GTO is a way of life.

Balanced = In the poker world "balanced" is often used with people who are making guesstimations of actual GTO play or is used just as a word to illustrate points, well balance is mainly use to describe what a GTO strategy looks like lets put it that way i'm guessing it was thrown around a lot back in the day

GTO/Nash equilibrium = Depending on the type of game you are playing there can be a nash equilbrium strategy such as things like chess