Quote:
Originally Posted by Nooseknot
We always analyze our spots AFTER considering the GTO framework:
I thought you will say that, you had to based on the GTO approach you're proposing, that's why I ended my post with that question, but:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nooseknot
That's why I quoted/cited Wil Tipton explaining the crux of game theory and how and why we apply it to poker.
The main question was/still is how and most importantly why we apply it to implementation of decentralized model, not poker. A lot of people ITT are already familiar with it’s approach as it relates to poker.
That's what I was hoping you will explain as frankly I don't see it. Entirely possible that I just lack adequate knowledge to grasp it.
And due to the popular demand, if you choose to share your thoughts on this topic maybe a separate thread would be most appropriate titled something like "Decentralized poker model's implementation and player acquisition GTO style"
I promise, this was my last reply to this more esoteric branch of the discussion ITT.
And for those who care a short and simple summary of it would be:
Noose introduces GTO into implementation of decentralized model and player acquisition but doesn't explain hows and whys. His starting point is the objective framework required by GTO, which means two models, legacy and decentralized in equilibrium, or of equal profitability to the player.
I propose that the only way decentralized model can succeed is by offering players increased profitability compared to the legacy model and that's what is most productive to focus on. Which in the context of GTO is an exploitative approach, because I'm basing my approach on the specifics of the current market. In that same context such approach is impossible without the objective GTO framework. I fail to grasp how and why GTO relates to the main topic discussed ITT while getting reamed by Gzesh for poluting this thread with incoherent gibberish.