6-max. I assume if we're trying to play GTO the stakes don't matter.

UTG and MP fold.
Hero is in CO and raises this range:
55+, A2s+, A5o+, K5s+, K8o+, Q8s+, Q9o+, J8s+, J9o+, T8s+, T9o+, 97s, 76sc+
BTN and SB fold, BB defends. 4.5SB in the pot.

Flop comes, let's say, A92r (a flop that's extremely likely to have any significant draws, and ace high for the scare card). BB checks (as expected).

So now, what is our GTO thought process as far as what part of our PF raising range is appropriate to check/fold, check/call, bet/fold, bet/call or bet/reraise?

Hope the question made sense.

DTXCF

http://gtorangebuilder.com/#home

I would have to be crushing $5/$10LHE in the first place to consider paying $70 a month for a tool hahahaha .

I think I didn't make myself clear in the question - the point of emphasizing when I'm in the betting lead was to contrast it to when we're the one in the BB. For example if hero is in the BB, we check the flop and CO c-bets, we need to make sure we're continuing with enough of our range that he can't profit by c-betting 100% and having us fold the flop.

Also, we would usually raise an ace or a 9 on this dry board, and therefore need to balance these raises with semibluffs - but what can we semibluff on a dry board like this?

Hope I'm not muddying the waters too much, but it seems like the question of how to set up ranges is more difficult when we're in the betting lead than it is when we're the one who defended in the BB.

Hope that made sense.

inb4 "sounds like you don't understand what to do in the simpler case either"

this is primarily a math question. the real question is do you know how to do it?
if yes, then you should cut the ranges yourself and ask for feedback
if no, then my favorite poster on this topic is fretelöo

Agreed try this http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/35...e-post-923166/

I will read those 2 posts thoroughly and then attempt to construct ranges myself - it'll probably be awhile though - gotta go pretend I'm actually working .

FWIW I do have Phillip Newall's book The Intelligent Poker Player and a private coach with whom I've discussed this topic - it's just that sometimes I need to have material presented to me from multiple points of view before it finally penetrates my skull.

I will review all information before returning to this thread.

I think the board is static, which means that it benefits the preflop raiser so much that the big blind must allow the cutoff an immediate profit with his low equity bluffs. I'd check the flop 100% as the big blind and I'd bet the flop 100% as the cutoff. As the big blind, I'd check fold enough that the cutoff earns an immediate profit.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/15...xture-1471300/

I wouldn't check raise a nine on the flop as the big blind, but I would have a bluffing range. I'd build that bluffing range with hands that can't profitably check call that can make straights and flushes.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/35...oards-1259917/

this is an epic pull rugby. fret did incredible work in this thread imo

Quick question as I'm reading:

Are we saying that it's GTO to assume that BTN is openraising 40-50% of his hands until we see definitive evidence that he's nittier or laggier than that?

Or is more the mindset of making sure WE do not give off exploitable tendencies? I.e. if we assume he's a nit and always has it when really he's raising 75% *he* can adjust to *us* and we want to *prevent* that from ever happening in the first place, and it's worth sacrificing a bet or two early to make sure we don't get exploited for a lot more than that down the road?

gto is not a range estimation tool. It's a mathematical concept. But it's only as good in application as your ability to estimate ranges while applying the concept.

It's like this, if you know how to maximize your advantage against a given opponent, you should do it. That would be called exploitative play, since it's not optimal and both exploits and can be exploited. If you do not know how to maximize your advantage, gto is a good standard since it's not exploitable. However it is also unlikely to maximize expectation because it doesn't exploit.

Gto doesn't care what % the opponent is raising.
It's not about sacrificing bets. That would be bad. I think you and many others have this notion that gto is unexploitable and therefore any ev gained by the opponent means you're not playing gto. This is not the case.

What you describe as unexploitable frequencies are really just unfounded reasons to make -ev calls.

If instead, you consider that the cutoff can profit from checking back, you'll see that if you wanted to make the cutoff indifferent to checking back or betting the flop, then you'd have to allow an immediate profit as the big blind.

Don't take it from me. Take it from Avoidthe9to5:

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/17...ually-1509305/

cliffs:

big blind faces a cbet on the flop. Avoidthe9to5 says check fold 50%:

What happened to the gto frequencies? They are abandoned when the in position player has a clear range vs range advantage.

But surely it makes some assumptions? I mean the GTO play against an EP raise can't possibly be the same as the GTO play against a BTN raise?

This must be true. However, there is no solution for 3+ player situations. While the above must be true, it's merely an undistinguished mile marker on a very long highway.

Don't know if it makes a difference in your answer but I meant that in each case after the open raise it's folded around to the bb, not 3+ players.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using 2+2 Forums

Actually it is the same.

GTO is about your own range and not about others range.
Playing GTO means the range you play cannot be exploited no mater what your opponent does.
So the frequency of calling/raising,etc. is base on the pot size and not on villain range.

Now this is in theory, HU with both players having identical range...

In practice you do play vs different range and the adjustment you should do trying to play GTO is not to change the frequency but changing your range and keeping the same frequency of calling,raising,etc.

Btw no one has a clue on what a GTO pf is in any positions in any games yet.

So you can use a GTO approach to see leaks in your play where you are not balance enough or see how your opponent are not balance.

I don't think so. If you think of it as the strategy that maximally exploits the best counter strategy, you'll see why gto will not defend the same % against different preflop positions.

This is most definitely not the case on different board textures.

The other players were there preflop though. They impact the hands that the opener can profitably raise. The best counter strategy to that will be to defend a different range against different positions. It's about making the most +ev play. Forget unexploitability unless someone's all in heads up or on the river heads up.

And how would you define the best explotive strategy than ?

The proof that GTO play do not care at all on what your opponent does is pretty easy to prove.

Let just take roshambo.
The GTO solution is choosing each items 33% of the time.
If by some miracle you would know your opponent would play 50% rock and 25% the other 2, maximally exploiting him would divert you from playing GTO.


Point is a GTO solution do not care about what your opponent do, pretty simple...
GTO solution do not have the best return of investment because you do not care what your opponent do.

i agree with what your are saying and i do not see why you think i am against this quote ?

Let just take this example from this thread.




If you think on some board a GTO solution do not exist, why on earth would you try to find a c/r bluff range here ???

The problem is if some board helps villain so much it might means the range you play pf is too wide , preventing you to use a GTO solution because you do not have at the start a GTO range pf.

Hence we end up again here on what you said earlier.


Imo something do not match up with this hand example and what you believe about GTO.
Seem to me there is a contradiction.


If you adjust correctly pf, no matter the board, you should be able to find a GTO solution.
This is why true GTO play is about frequency depending on pot size and not about ranges.

Obviously, a GTO solution in BB is different when you face UTG player or SB, but there is a solution for it pf.
What i means is if you adjust correctly pf, different board texture should not matter.
Some board you might lose bit of money by force and other board you will make more money.
But if you adjust depending on board texture, you are surely not playing GTO for sure.
This why we defend less vs an UTG opener and a BU at the start.
GTO is entirely base on the size of the pot and the range of the player who use GTO strategy.

Because I think bluffing is profitable.
I think that if you tightened up in order to attain these frequencies on static boards, that you'd miss lots of value on dynamic boards. Since gto should be about maximizing value against the best counter strategy on all board textures, this seems wrong to me.

This is true in symmetrical range situations, but not in asymmetrical range situations. Ranges matter. You say so yourself here:

I agree that it exists, but we're not anywhere close to having it figured out.
Where did you learn this? I think it's wrong. Board texture matters.

Where did you learn this? I think it's wrong. Your opponent's preflop position matters therefore his range matters.

Here's a link that I think you might find interesting:

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/15...games-1552196/

It has nothing to do with predefined frequencies and everything to do with maximizing the ev of your strategy against the best counter strategy.

Poker and RPS are very different. I'm not sure why you think this proves anything about poker.

You do not need to tighten up has much to have an identical range because it cost less for you pf.
You can call a wider range pf and accept a natural lost on static high card board while gaining more on low and mid card texture which should cancel each other out.

But you should still tighten up a lot more facing UTG raisor compared to a BU raisor.

Once you have find a range pf that you think is optimal, taking into account your opponent range and the size of the pot, the rest stay basically the same postflop for GTO strats.

If form instance you loose a lot of money because an A flop vs an UTG raisor it just means you play too loose pf obv. and has nothing to do about the GTO strategy change based on the community card.
Well that is how i see it anyway.

for the rest i shall continue later on....

ps: did you read both Newall book and mathematics of poker ?