I think we'd all be better off mate

I think what he is saying is that on that board the villain will over call (call more often than theoretically correct) the overbet and, therefore, the exploit is for hero to make the overbet with value hands more often than is theoretically correct and not bluff as much as theoretically correct.

It obviously depends on the villain, but I think it could be correct, particularly in a microstakes pool, on that A high board. I'm guessing there are a bunch of players who won't fold any A.

Well from what I understood, and I m not sure, is snowie is kind of a expert exploit ? Bc his AI comes from trillions of hands played vs general population and keep track what makes the most money ?

I do not think so. My understanding is that Snowie's AI comes from trillions of hands played against itself and it keeps track of what makes the most money. So, against worse players there may be lines that make more money than the line that Snowie would take against itself.

Surely you bet because you have the better hand, and if everyone puts in the same money, you will win.

Or because you are pretending to.

I'm saying more than that Lego... I'm saying that your actual range doesn't matter. The cards that we could actually hold don't matter in the slightest. Exploitative players use their perceived range instead, for all decisions, and it makes way more money. Just like it would in that example. Once you can consider both, perceived range and actual range, you realise that if these two ever match there is no point in you playing.

BTW, I've cracked the original question... Why do we bet?

Exploitative players bet for cold hard profit. The goal in Poker is to make money. If our bet won't make us money we wont make the bet.

GTO players bet because if they don't, their opponent will hold an advantage over them.

Exploitative players go straight for the goal. The GTO players just ensure that the opponent won't reach the goal before them. Exploitation takes all the profit it can get. GTO stops the opponents taking more profit than they do. Exploitative is sweet golden goodness. GTO is the forbidden fruit.

I think we humans are always trying to apply our own thought process to GTO. But GTO doesn't discriminate between the Levels in the same way as the human mind does. GTO doesn't care if we are making an honest play (Level Two) or a deceptive play (Level Three). This is why a GTO bet is never a bluff, a bluff is deceptive, those plays GTO players have named "a bluff" is just a bet with the weaker part of their actual range. In the same way, GTO doesn't discriminate between offensive plays (Level Three) and defensive plays (Level Two). Our struggle to understand why a GTO player makes an offensive play is caused only by cognitive dissonance, our own mind attempting to stop us seeing Level Three logic even though its exactly the same as the Level Two logic. GTO players bet for the same reason they call, for the same reason they fold - To stop others getting ahead.

My post specifically mentioned how the overbet is balanced:
Making overbets like that has been an important contributor to my winrate. Bad regs immediately put you on the nuts if you bet 2x pot, and you can exploit that tendency by making "crazy" overbet bluffs. I've got hundreds of examples on my twitter. Some of my overbets are "GTO" (or at least approved by Snowie), but many are "spews" that happen to work incredibly often, because the microstakes zoom pools are full of regnits that are addicted to folding.

I was only talking about what you were saying about what action to take on that particular turn in that particular hand with different holdings (i.e. simplistically value or bluff hands).

You bet to increase the number of unprofitable hands that your opponent must fold, and you reduce the profitability of your opponents continuing range, and you increase the possibility of winning part or all of your opponents stack.

You bet because you want a good return on your investment.

Yeah so this is a GTO answer.

And this is an exploitative answer.

It's quite clear once you understand how it works eh

Actually, even when you exploit, one of those three ev sources will increase.

Yeah they might, but that isn't the reason an exploitative player bets.

In the same way, the GTO player might make the most money possible, but that isn't the reason he bets.

That is literally the very definition of what an optimal strategy solution is. It can't make any more money vs the other optimal strategy.

Sure it's not maximizing profit vs players making mistakes, but now YOU are just arguing semantics.

You're wrong. Those are precisely the only reasons to bet whether its gto or exploitive. To do otherwise is indicative of a gross misunderstanding of where the profits come from in a hand of poker.

No I'm not. A GTO player makes the most money against a GTO player. He makes the most money whilst remaining unexploitable. He doesn't just aim for the most money.

Typical 2+2 thanks eh. Well done Yadi. You're right. You're welcome 2+2. Merry Christmas!!!!

no he doesnt. he breaks even.

What am I thanking you for? You literally repeated what I said in your own words?

But happy holidays for sure. Hope you get everything you want this holiday season.

But breaking even might be the most money he can make vs the other optimal strategy.

I mean we agree it's correct to say each of the strategies in the strategy set are maximizing their EV vs the other strategy, right? It's just that EV happens to be 0 because poker is 0 sum.

Seems like you're missing a key ingredient:

any deviation from gto by player x will result in a loss of ev equal to or greater than zero.

Sorry mate. You're showing your GTO roots right now. You can't even comprehend a strategy different to it.

When I make a play in Poker I am never trying to stop the opponent making profit. This only occurs by happenstance. All I do, all ANY player who is not trained in GTO does, is attempt to make the most money with our current hand.

- We don't aim to decrease the amount of hands the opponent can play profitably against us, all we do is aim to make money by making the opponent fold. The same result is achieved.
- We don't try to reduce the profitability of our opponents continuing range, all we do is aim to make money when he continues... We don't try to reduce his profit. We just try to increase ours.

No, Grinding, this is not just semantics. We don't try to stop the opponent making profit and our thought process is far more efficient than yours. You guys twist it all around and complicate everything in your attempt to stay unexploitable but there is no need. To remain unexploitable you have to consider your actual range, all the different hands you could actually hold in any given situation and then you need to balance these against the price of continuing. Your aim is to remain unexploitable by stopping the opponent from making profit against you. But we don't need to do any of that. Our style is far simpler and it makes far more money.

You guys who follow the GTO strategic thought process seem to think that I think myself a genius, but I do not. I do, however, think that I have painstakingly managed to achieve something real special. Remember, I learnt Poker the same way as you guys did. You guys can't comprehend this exploitative logic when I am good enough to explain it to you but I didn't have anybody to explain it to me. I had to work it all out for myself. Years and years ago I set out to find the most efficient way to consider a Poker play, and it was only once that task was complete that I realised beginners already use that exact same thought process!! That is huge!! The perfect strategic thought process is already built into our minds. And the only reason I had been struggling to understand it was because I had cognitive dissonance stopping me! I had learnt to trust in a strategy that conflicted with my natural strategic thought process and so my own mind was taking advantage of all my own weaknesses in an attempt to stop me understanding it. Not only was my own mind against me. Every single one of you GTO guys were against me too. I didn't simply have to get past my own mental blocks, I had to get past yours as well. I am proud of myself because I have taken on the entire poker world and I have won. I don't think myself a genius. I think that I am the only poker player who made £50 an hour and then stopped playing because he felt bad for his opponents. I'm the honest poker player. The Buddhist poker player. I am extremely open-minded, extremely persistent and very kind too. These are the qualities that enabled me to unlock these Levels in my mind. These are the qualities that I'm proud of. The logic I describe isn't genius, it is as simple as it can be. Beginners naturally understand it all.

Now that I have achieved all that I have achieved I can explain to beginners how their own thought process works so that they will never suffer from cognitive dissonance like I did, like GTO players do. I can now explain to everyone the most efficient strategic thought process possible. I can decipher your own GTO problems quicker than you can. I have mapped out the minds own calculative process. The boundaries surrounding all comprehendible strategies! I even worked out how to obliterate Sun Tzu! It really doesn't matter to me that all you GTO guys are still against me. It would be nice, and it would have been useful to have some of you on my side four years ago! When you could have helped. But my book is done now. You guys have all hindered me all the way and you try to hinder me still but it doesn't matter to me anymore. You wont beat me. I have something you don't have. I have the truth on my side. I am right. And you are wrong. I will teach beginners this logic and they will understand it clearly and easily and then they will walk all over you. A new generation of poker player is about to appear. You guys can either accept that what I have done is awesome, and try to get over your own mental deficiencies, learn this stuff, Arty, learn to use your perceived range, or, you will be left behind.

Yeah Bob, that is the most he can make against a GTO player. Nothing. And it is the only time GTO is the best play you can make. When it is at equilibrium.

I think I misunderstood your comment in the context of Yadula's post.

I agree with you a GTO player doesn't make the most money for itself vs a GTO player it would make more money relatively speaking playing a non-GTO player.

I thought for some reason you were questioning the definition of equilibrium hence my previous reply. My apologies.

Oh man you guys make everything so confusing!!!

There was nothing wrong with my English. Just, work it out for yourselves. I think I'm done with thread. I solved it. Job done. Yay for me.

I have to admit it sounds a lot like semantics.

I make a play to try to make my opponent lose $3. I make a play to try to make myself gain $3. What's the difference? If my opponent's loss is my gain and my gain is my opponent's loss, then it is just saying the same thing two different ways. Either way I am making a play with the goal of $3 leaving my opponent and coming to me.



As to the rest of your post, you are super egotistical and condescending, but that isn't new and it is one reason you rub people the wrong way and get some of the responses you get.