you can't play exactly like PIO so it doesn't really matter, pretty sure a bot based entirely on PIO's solutions would easily win at 10bb+ at z200

Probably true, but is an unassisted approximation of PIO strat with significant human error winning at 7bb+?

well it would depend on the human... but yes of course it can

call

I'm not sure why you think this is wrong haha

I play fr because I think most regs there don't know what pio is.

software

Haha for someone pretending to know so much in the forums you seem rather clueless. GTO is a defensive strategy. Its good as a fundamental base, but higher winrates are achieved through having a solid game based on GTO and exploiting weaker players.

And there was this guy called OBORRA which didnt missplay a single hand postflop in 25 years they said, its very possible to play exactly like pio.

Stopped reading at GTO being defensive. It's not offensive or defensive, it's just GTO.

Thinking that GTO would crush the games hard is at least dellusional. Also making statements like "GTO would win at X bb/100 winrate" also doesn't mean anything cuz you can't calculate that. So your just guessing based on your experience and knowledge about equillibrium and population tendencies, which in the end is not enough to make a reasonable approximation.

GTO bluffcatches aggressively in every single line and almost all player profiles are heavily underbluffing in every single line. At the same time, most player profiles are overfolding in most lines so GTO would be leaving money at the tables by not overbluffing. GTO would perform better than a human in a sense that it wouldnt make mistakes caused by emotion or tilt and it also would give up on less pots compared to the average player, but that alone can't be enough to assume it would crush the games, given that it would burn the blue line so often and would miss red line spots so often.

I would expect a true GTO bot to perform close to the best regs at a given limit, but definitely not much better and likely worse. Burning money vs ranges with no bluffs is one of the easiest ways to kill your winrate.

well if anybody thinks their strategy outperforms GTO, by all mean, move the **** up

This also operates under the assumption that GTO has a good winrate, which can't be proved. I would love to see someone prove to me that a GTO bot would make 7bb/100 at 200z.

If we discovered that GTO would make 2bb/100 at a given limit, outperforming GTO wouldnt mean much.

I don't agree. Perfect GTO mix strat is close enough to infinitely complex that without real time access to the strat it's impossible to even get close to implementing it. Whether or not an imperfect attempt at PIO solution beats intuition and exploitative I'm not sure about.

This is all without even considering node locking, and most game tree points should be heavily node locked.

I guess we don't have any actual proof of it, I do believe personally that a perfect GTO mix strat would far outperform my measly attempt at playing a somewhat balanced strategy based on PIO lines, admittedly I throw most of that out the window when facing a recreational player

The debate was never whether GTO would outperform your attempt at playing a pseudo GTO strat, it was pretty clear that we were debating wether it would be good enough to crush the games. So unless you are a crusher yourself, this is not in discussion.

And yes, you believe blindly in something that you have no mathematical or empirical proof of, when it is actually a very complex/non trivial question with multiple levels and possibilities. Can't you see that your belief is actually pointless? It's like picking a jacket for the next day because you believe that the temperature will be low without existing any indicative that this is the right thing to do. It's all based on your intuition and subjectivity. How can you make statements like "pretty sure a bot based entirely on PIO's solutions would easily win at 10bb+ at z200" based on that?

Also you seem to play somewhere where regs are unexploitable lol regs are extremely exploitable, they are just capable of adapting quicker, which doesnt mean you should play GTO vs them. In fact, when you try to exploit a reg most of the time he will try to adapt and make even more mistakes, which is then a bigger incentive to exploit him.

nevermind

Taking the Hu libratus results into account I think it is pretty likely pio would win at a decent clip if opponents ranges were known at every poiint

Can't translate a HU challenge into 6-max ssnl-msnl and can't compare top HUNL regs tendencies with all the player profiles and their tendencies that exist in 200nl pools out there. And there was never the assumption that it would know people's ranges everywhere. That would be playing maximally exploitative with node lock, not 'GTO'.

you do realize pio's lines change according to pre flop ranges right?

funny thing is people think their exploitative strategy is better than the GTO one from PIO, yes if you manage to take the maximally exploitative lines by knowing exactly the ranges of your opponents you're going to make more $, but nobody is able to do that, not even close, it's still very ****in complicated

I know GTO is maximally explotative, I was just trying to say that one thing is the equillibrium strat that Pio spits out and another completely different if you know the exact strat your opponent is using (non GTO player). Perhaps I dindt understand what brokenstars said. He might have said 'ranges in every point' as preflop ranges in every point, if so then my comment makes no sense. But what I'm talking about is taking a perfect GTO solution from 2 preflop ranges and them using that ingame

Oh thanks for enlightening me Sherlock

If you decided to let go on the arrogance and insistence you would know that it is actually possible to model someone else's play very accurately with mass database analysis

and you think a bot wouldn't be more effective at doing that?

I also don't see how any of what I said is arrogant, if anything thinking that a human can outperform a bot who plays perfect poker is pretty arrogant