Arty, you say that you will bet when it will make you the most money and this is true. It's true for exploitation. However, that logic doesn't apply to GTO. That is not why you make a bet using GTO. In your GTO example, you make a bet which will usually not make you more money than a check. Although I do think you will struggle to accept it.

The over-bet you opted to make is a good play if you truly hold the nuts. Your perceived range contains draws, and so you're likely to get called down by all kinds of Ax. However, when you hold the draw, or air, the overbet is not the play that will make you the most money for this exact same reason. You have draws in your perceived range and so might well get called down by Ax.

You are more polite than many of the players here. And so I've been considering recently what is wrong with your game and I am pretty sure I have found it but you wont like it. If you can get your head around it you will feel comfortable in those low stakes games. But yeah, the chances are you wont like it at all... Do you see what was missing from that assessment of yours? Why mine was different? It was the perceived range. Now, this is interesting, because I have seen you speak of your image before, and so are clearly capable of considering this perceived range. However, at times, you replace the perceived range with the actual range so as to make your GTO plays. You dont consider them both, as you should, to use your style. You often forget about your image so as to make a GTO play that you have learnt to trust in. It's the trust itself that will make your mind reject the advice that I have to give you. This trust will stop you working out how to use your perceived range for all your decisions because once you realise how to use it you will realise that the trust you have put in plays like this overbet is poorly placed. Your mind will defend the trust in the GTO plays, by coming up with some trick to make you dismiss what I say.

Your entire style is very confused between GTO and exploitation. And so my advice to you is to concentrate only on that perceived range for a while. Once you manage to separate it from your actual range you will do far, far better at the tables.

Yes, I am sure you will thank me with something derogative. But I am right. You are a player who confuses GTO and exploitation. This is quite common. Once you solve it you will kill it. Once you do fully get your head around it, give me proper thanks and I will teach you Level Four. The last of the exploitative Levels.

I must say Arty your initial reply is very well put. The follow ups were good, too but obviously just elaborating on your initial post.

The thing it s always risky to jump in a pool if dont know how to swim.

Also zkesic I dont agree with your idea that sharing a strategy is counterproductive. Because I beleive people must be able to give in order to receive. This is Karma. That s why most poor people always stAy Poor. It happens all the time for example in a live game I see 'standard players' chasing bad players because they dont like to play slow, Or talking loud, or bad jokes or whatever .

The thing is if you have nothing to give you never receive nothing. And I m sure Yadoula as a buddhist know about it.

Also the poor people when you give them sometjing for free they always think tuere s a catch.

Well me I dont know Arty well but about his example on A-4-5-K, I think it s a mistake to overbet all value hands on turn. I think you then overbet too much and then your villain has an incentive to slowplay. I think this is a great spot to have 2 sizings one more normal and one overbet. So it s harder to play against. And I think you have a lot of Ax who may want to get some value & protection but will not get called by worse. And Ax can also fit in a checking range because difficult to have 3 streets of value. Of course the overbet is more polarizef but some combos are going to go in the 'wrong' ranges to be less transparent. And some players are going to say : you sayin we should lose ev ??) the thing is there is also ev in deception .

Arty specifically mentioned over betting sets, A5 and A4 not just any Ax.

But yeah if you're going to choose multiple sizings you might have to mix your play with some of those to make sure you're not giving off a tell with your bet size.

And also you have pocket pair who like to have some Ax in the checking range even tough maybe you dont cbet all pp on A45, but i think for small sizing many pocket pair like protection so yes.

No no no is optimal have 2 sizings there. Not 'if' you want have 2 sizings

It might be optimal but difficult for a human to manage and typically makes decision making harder in game which might cause you to lose EV.

So I concede that it may be truly optimal that there are multiple bet sizings. I have no idea as I have don't have Pio, snowie, etc.

Difficult... sure but not extremely difficult. I m not talking about a 2* size 1.5 size pot size and half size... i m talking about 2 sizes . Nothing is free in life, yes to have to work on it. If you want one size then bet 2/3 and check. But you stî' have 2 ranges to think. Bet and check

There are many spots in which having only 1 bet size is optimal.

It's not that easy to mix even 2 bet sizes because as you pointed out you have to start mixing with hands that don't occur very frequently and then are very small combinations in your range.

I know you are right it s difficult. But at the same time 2 betsizes you have a general guideline that nutty hands are overbet balanced with different bluffs, and once in a while more nornal bet. And medium hands bet normal and once in a while check balanced witj bluffs. I like also check back draw with showdown value. I think 2 betsizes still allow rules of thumbs.

I agree. I didn't mean to imply some mixing was impossible for humans.

Hahaha. I'm the first to admit that I sometimes have trouble playing against massively exploitable fish, because I've done so much "GTO" training that I find it hard to perceive the range of random players. (They show up with weird combos that I don't have on my radar). Nevertheless, I've been making both GTO and exploitative overbets more frequently than anyone in the player pool and I've got an EV winrate of over 10bb/100 for my last 25,000 hands in the micros. In short, I feel comfortable in low stakes games.

As for the example hand I posted, it may well be true that utilizing 2 or more betsizes is slightly better for that spot, but Snowie picks one: 2x pot with a polarized range of high equity hands, and it's what I usually use in the same spot.

Told you your mind would do something to avoid the point I was making. You laugh but I just see an emotion caused by cognitive dissonance. Your mind throws these emotions at you to distract you from looking at this clearly. The emotions stupefy you.

I said you need to consider your perceived range more and you said nothing about it. You laughed about something else, something that doesn't really make any sense. It was only the other day that you told me you play in the micros because you're comfortable there. Well, I obviously meant that you will be able to move up once you learn to use your perceived range. You will feel comfortable all the way up to the $100 cash games if you learn to consider it for every play.. Most probably. Once you learn Level Four, you understand all Poker so you can play anywhere. I haven't actually played much since I cracked this penultimate Level, I've been working on my book. I made all my profit as a Level Three player.

Only one question: Do you balance this? If yes the main problem is that you get a lot value from draws but you have to pay a lot with bluffs.

That's what I'm saying. All GTO plays are the same. Balancing will always give away more cash than is needed. The exploitative line is far better, and you needn't know anything about the villain to check this one back.

But it doesn't give away more cash because you also have value bets which compensate your bluffs being callled. That's the whole point.

Edit: Cue you saying that's not what you meant, attacking me personally and or complaining about me attacking you, and then magically changing your position to something that semi makes it look like you weren't wrong.

Yes you do balance this. Not sure what you mean with a lot of value with draws? If you bet draws as bluffs here they are bluff and make as much money as fold equity + pot equity*pot + future betting.

Your bluffs are compensated by the money you make with your value hands.

Edit: I should say that last comment assumes you are bluffing at the appropriate ratio.

We're not saying you should do anything different with your value hands. We're saying you're giving money away with this bluff.

Your comment literally says all gto plays?

I wasn't considering the value bet a GTO play when it isn't balanced.

Many GTO plays are identical to the exploitative plays and so I obviously didn't mean every action a GTO player makes gives away money. I mean that the GTO play for any given situation will give away money in the same way as we can see clearly in this example.

You're confusing this all up with semantics, as you usually do. I think I am just going to ignore you from now on.

What does that even mean? GTO has value bets? You're saying there's a difference between a value bet when it's made in an "exploitive play" and a "GTO play" even when they are the exact same hand? Seems pretty silly differentiation to me and unnecessarily complicates discussion.

If they are identical how or why do you differentiate the two?

Why is this example clear? The solver wouldn't bluff with this hand if it didn't think it was at least 0 ev so the hand doesn't "needlessly give away money".

If you're saying bluffing in some context in real games is needless I certainly agree given information about an individual spot, but in theory there is nothing needless about it. It's just the most profitable line with that hand.

I can only comment on what you posted and not what you intended to post. From your exact words it's not clear to me you weren't generalizing to "all GTO plays" which seeing your above comments I am not even sure what you're talking about anymore.

Perhaps if you paid more attention to semantics and clarity of your thoughts you wouldn't get caught up in needless arguments?

You are free to ignore me. I don't really comment for your benefit but for the benefit of people that read your posts and get incorrect ideas from them or need some clarity on what you're talking about.

I think for some players it would be better if they just never heard about the word gto

I certainly agree that concepts from theory are consistently misapplied by people that skim the surface and think they have an edge now, or even people that can/do know better and aren't thinking clearly during a session.

Sometimes the mistake is so nuanced it's hard to recognize.