Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Meh
What percentage of players expertly play GTO style? Do these experts sometimes play sub GTO? If so, why do you think that is? If not, wouldn't that make the game terribly robotic and boring (as I find blackjack to be)?
Your comparison greatly minimizes the effect competing against other players who are trying to trap you, bluff you, bully you, and exploit your weaknesses for their personal profit has on your emotions and psyche versus the effect of playing a game against a faceless house. You're acting as though wit and cunning has no bearing on how one plays poker. It's a very poor comparison with the exception of maybe the top .01% of math oriented poker players who robotically play every hand optimally.
When loball draw was the main game in California, every single successful pro played the game rather robotically (which include bluffing and bluff catching) even though it was not against a faceless house. They deviated from optimal strategy when facing poor opponents but they always knew, approximately, what that optimal strategy was. And when they did deviate it wasn't based on emotion.
But the converse was also true. Not only did every successful pro play robotically, but virtually every single player who knew how to play that way did in fact do it (except for possibly during a few moments of insanity). To think otherwise is ridiculous. Do you really think that someone who knew loball basic strategy wouldn't have the self control to stick with it if the alternative was being a (serious money) loser?
Thirty years later we have reached a similar situation in other games.