Hey guys,
Month off poker has been fairly satisfying thus far. There's a lot more time in the day where I'll be pondering how I can spend some time and instead of just resorting to poker I've been allocating that time to things deserving of my attention instead. Only 4 days into the month and I've already got several errands off my plate that I've been putting aside for months. Overall, things have been quite productive on my end and it's been nice to just take a step outside of the poker realm and not feel obliged to grind day in and day out.
I know I said I would try to avoid talking about poker during the month of March but here's a little bit of an "epiphany" that I've had recently (Charlie Carrel pun for those who get it). Will try my best not to talk too much about GTO and actually relate this to irl bs too.
------------
In my final year of University there is this class called "Policy" which is a mandatory summative course for all Business students. The course is taken very seriously by all of the students because the course is cumulative of everything you've learned throughout your time studying. At the beginning of the semester you have to pick a team of 6 people and do various challenges throughout. At the very end of the year you have to prepare a 1 hour presentation on a "case" given out at the start of the semester and compete against all other graduates in front of judges. The case we were given was basically on McDonald's restaurants recent struggles (at the time) and to provide strategic recommendations for the company moving forward. I believe they had just had 2-3 consecutive losing quarters at the time.
Upon being assigned this case we had about ~4 months to work on it. My team spent so many hours researching, debating, planning, preparing etc. I can think of a few times where we debated hard and came up with a plan only to change it a few days later.
Obviously, the problem was that times were changing and McDonalds is such a massive company that large scale changes are very costly and difficult to implement. For example there has been trends moving towards healthy eating, or having a "cafe experience", or having a "gourmet experience". I guess when we looked at the case it was evident that McDonald's was trying to cater to several different target groups.
Our first instinct was to think "how can we boost sales?" We discussed everything from promotions to structural changes to marketing changes to menu changes that appeal to many target groups. Everyone was sort of stumped and we spent so much time debating and eventually decided on a plan, only to scrap all of our work a few weeks later.
The plan to scrap it came when a heated debate arose between our team and one guy just stopped and said "Guys, every other team is going to be fighting over the same ball meanwhile there is a ball off in the distance that is all ours. Look, the answer is right in front of our faces but we've been way over-complicating this whole thing." He wrote out the core-competencies of McDonald's on the black board which were something like: speed, convenience, consistency, and price. He then explained how everything the company was currently implementing hurt their core competencies. (McDonald's was experimenting with gourmet burgers, building cafes within their stores, expanding their menu etc)...all of this increased prices, decreased speed, and decreased convenience.
All of us had some major epiphanies about this and instantly our case presentation became extremely easy. Scrap all of these fancy additions and focus strictly on speed, price, consistency, and convenience. Sure you might not be able to appeal to the vegan soccer mom-but you don't hurt valuable customers by catering to her. (Obviously our case was much more in depth but for the lack of boring the fk out of everybody I'll keep it at that).
Our final presentation came and we blew the judges out of the water. The one professor said this was the best Policy presentation he'd seen in all of his years teaching the course. I remember in the award ceremony our team got announced as the winners and all of the other teams scoffed at us and couldn't believe why "adding organic options to the menu" couldn't have won them the competition.
So, how does this random anecdote apply to poker?
I spent so much time chasing this "GTO" ball. In the last 2 years or so I was constantly studying hands in pio solver and really focusing on implementing a theoretically sound strategy. Much like in the case above, I've realized the answers aren't in running millions of pio sims and developing a perfectly unexploitable strategy. The answer was right in front of my face the whole time and was so simple...but I was too distracted by the "GTO" ball to see it.
The thing is as humans we're always looking for definite answers that come out of the solver as black and white, or right or wrong. We like to think "oh, well pio checks this hand on this flop 80% of the time, so we need to check this hand 80% of the time and that is correct." I mean, I wish poker was this simple, where you could just have a clear cut decision every time. The reality is that NOBODY is playing theoretically perfect. Why are we trying to create a strategy that breaks even against another perfect strategy? Why are we not choosing a strategy that wins the most against an unbalanced strategy?
On another tangent I think assuming that pio solver plays perfect in MTTs is also a massive misconception. The solvers seem to miss some massively important factors: stack utility, edge of x option compared to edge of remaining stack when lose/edge of stack when win, how many hands until the blinds increase, strength of remaining field.
When I was deep in that live tournament there was an occasion where 2 short stack players jammed all in and I folded AKo, a spot where SB jammed 15bbs and I folded ATo in the BB, and a spot SB jammed 12bbs and I folded KJss in the BB. Under every theoretical calculator these spots are clear calls. However, do the calculators factor in that you're able to open almost every hand and take the blinds down with very little resistance? Do they factor in that players are jamming much tighter than optimal? Do they factor in that your stack getting corrupted by losing an all in drastically hurts your EV?
In a hypothetical example: if you are playing heads up and can steal a player's big blind every time you're on the button with 100% efficiency-why would you give him the chance to take all of your chips when he jams from the SB and you have pocket aces in the big blind? Why would you give him any chance to get your stack when you know you can wither it down hand by hand eventually?
In tournaments why are we caring about being unexploitable? We should be asking ourselves what is the highest EV option against our opponent's strategy. Understanding this is the easy part: calculating it is the hard/impossible part
DISCLAIMER: By no means am I saying FK GTO. It is actually extremely useful to know what optimal solutions are because you can understand how much you need to deviate exploitatively. Obviously, if our opponent plays perfect GTO poker...we need to play perfect GTO poker to break even...if we see too many perfect GTO players...it's time to retire from poker.
-------------
Can you tell I've had a lot of free time today? I could be completely wrong here and maybe GTO is the way forward and playing a perfect GTO strategy will win you more money than an exploitative strategy.
All I'm saying is that the masses seem to be fighting over one ball...but there's another one right in the open that is all ours...in school competitions, in poker, and in life. Just because a belief is popularly held does not mean it's correct.
--------
Same **** I've been finding out about life. Contrary to popular belief the masses are often extremely uneducated and misinformed. I probably sound like some wack job conspiracy theorist here but we'll talk about some misbeliefs another day
Back to vacation I go, hope someone out there enjoyed the rant (if you all didn't fall asleep).
Peace!