Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob148
It used to be this way. If I may make an analogy: Much like how I am not defined by my anger, yet I do exhibit anger from time to time; gto is not defined by balance, yet gto exhibits balance from time to time.
Is there such a thing as an unbalanced GTO strategy for a game of incomplete information?
I can think of games of complete information in which balance disappears, but that's because the value of deception is completely gone.
Quote:
Balance is a byproduct of good poker; Good poker is not a byproduct of balance.
This reminds me a the "shania" conversations that date back to who knows when. (I think 2+2 still had wood paneling at the time.)
You're right here. Merely having a balanced range does not immediately equate to good poker. Otherwise, raising 72o UTG because you also raise AA UTG would always be considered good poker. But I will say that sometimes raising 72o sometimes in addition to raising AA is probably better poker than only raising AA.
The obvious questions that come up would be things like "Why 72o? Why not some other hand?" And this is where Fret's approach at least has the advantage of moving players into a new level of understanding of GTO poker. It's not GTO. As you've stated, nobody actually knows what that is. But it seems unnecessarily restrictive to deny that it's moving in that direction.
The idea of making categories for hands that create balance begins the process of understanding how range vs range works instead of thinking in terms of hand vs range. There's very little natural intuition for that sort of thinking, and without a systematic approach, there's no good way of moving forward.
Quote:
Including value hands and bluffs at 100% frequency may in fact make a hand or two in your opponent's range indifferent. However, true indifference means something else. When two equilibrium strategies face off against each other in a heads up situation on the flop or turn, for example, we will see many combinations within those ranges using a mixed strategy at different frequencies. This is precisely because the opposing equilibrium strategy makes those combinations indifferent; the ev will be identical whether the equilibrium strategy chooses to bet or check those combinations.
This is also true, but it's also not new. But where does one even begin to think about calling with such-and-such a hand 30% of the time and raising 70% of the time? And with which hands? Again, Fret's approach creates a baseline to begin starting the process of thinking about it.
Quote:
The fact that the opposing equilibrium strategy is constructed in such a way that these combinations are indifferent to a bet or a check is exactly why a mixed strategy is necessary. If the opposing strategy isn't an equilibrium strategy, then the equilibrium will cease to function; in this case those hands that were indifferent under the conditions of the equilibrium will now have a clear maximally exploitive choice, which will be a pure, unmixed strategy. This pure and maximally exploitive strategy will give a higher expected value than the equilibrium strategy both for individual hand combinations, and as a whole.
The bolded statement isn't true, unless by "cease to function" you mean "is no longer the most profitable." But that would have less to do with GTO strategies and more to do with implementing exploitative strategies.
GTO is its own thing. It is independent of what your opponent does. And GTO does not imply "mixed." When HU limit was solved a few years back, some people were surprised that AA was raised 100% of the time. Don't you need to mix it up sometimes? No. You don't. Rather than raising less frequently with AA for deception, it was determined to be better to just raise more hands!