What is more stupid: saying you dont know something; or saying you are certain of something based on a reason that is blatantly wrong?

what you just typed made no sense. what is blatantly wrong about what anyone is saying?

It's not wrong.

durrr is going to crush this bot. durrrr is one of the best ever and is capable of learning its strat and countering it, who has this bot beat?

I am not really sure what else to say as of now to convince you that using the example of folding 100% does not prove anything.

it proves that there is a strategy that the bot is +ev against... which was the point that it was supposed to illustrate. the question was whether the bot is 0ev against all strategies which it obviously is not.

cant tell if you are trolling or just thick at this point.

It proves that a GTO strategy dominates a strategy that involves folding 100% of hands preflop. GTO also dominates a strategy of folding everything except for 23o which shoves preflop. So, we now know that a GTO NLHE strategy dominates multiple complete strategies.

I'm going with thick. Very, very, thick.

if this bot is so good, why does durrr have all the money and not the bot? doesn't make any sense, durrrr has been one of the best in the game for years.

Im not trolling, and Im not thick.

I am saying that folding 100% should not be considered a strategy or even playing.

here is a wiki thing on strategy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategy_(game_theory)

A player's strategy, in game theory, refers to one of the options he can choose in a setting where the outcome depends not only on his own actions but on the action of others.[1] A player's strategy will determine the action the player will take at any stage of the game.
The strategy concept is sometimes (wrongly) confused with that of a move. A move is an action taken by a player at some point during the play of a game (e.g., in chess, moving white's Bishop a2 to b3). A strategy on the other hand is a complete algorithm for playing the game, telling a player what to do for every possible situation throughout the game.

Maybe that fits into what I am trying to say, still not totally sure though.

I also think other things cannot be used as examples as I said earlier, such as: folding the nuts, checking back the nuts on the river. Things like that.

yeah honestly, this is just nonsense parading around as reasoning.

no it isnt

Move = Fold one hand.

Strategy = Ima fold errr hand.

Going into the game intending to fold every hand fits the definition of "strategy" that you provided so I'm not sure of your point.

The last sentence should answer the problem. The player is employing a strategy of 100% fold, 0% call, 0% raise for every possible situation.

You would be wrong, because its this very example that helped explain to critics that poker is a game of strategy and not simply gambling. In a game of skill, you must be able to intentionally lose.

I don't know where Blackjack sits on an example like that (keep hitting until bust?) but the fact remains that their point is valid and yours is not, and its time to stop arguing this point because you're cluttering this thread.

[Yet another example] Polarized Bob and GTO bot are playing HUNLHE 1-million big blinds deep. Polarized Bob shoves AA and 23o preflop and folds everything else. One million big blinds deep, GTO can only call an open shove preflop with AA. Is GTO bot 0EV against Polarized Bob?

So, in short... it's very possible, and maybe even likely, that a GTO bot (one that is best against all strategies) may not necessarily be maximizing EV (making the most money) against one specific strategy. Correct? If this is the case, then why do players try to approach the game from a GTO standpoint, and not a standpoint that is more exploitative against their opponent's specific strategy?

correct vs exploitable opponents, but at the highest level of HUNL every player is trying to exploit one another and the point where they will finally even out and be playing the same unexploitable strategy which would be GTO. for humans it would be more interesting as a tool to learn from than to try and actually emulate exactly.

clearly if you're going to filter for hands where you have the initiative you're going to show a profit against a GTO bot. but that represents half of the hands played. what about when it has the initiative? you can't just 3bet or 4bet your way out of every situation to take the initiative. it'll work most of the time and let you break even on your post draw bet, but the times it doesn't work you'll lose enough to make it not worthwhile.

Correct

In the book, The Intelligent Poker Player, the author says:

"The advantage that the GTO player has...is that he should have an excellent awareness of what is, and what is not, exploitable."

A player who didn't know know GTO wouldn't always be able to identify every non-exploitable strategy (otherwise he would know GTO, by definition). And missing an exploitable play is obviously winning less than the maximum.

200k hands and no buy out clause is probably the GTO way to decline this prop bet. WP durrrr

Kleinstein, please stop posting. You're tluttering the thread with garbage.
Ignorance isn't an opinion.

+1

even if you guys come to an agreement, theres no way durrrr will get this done.

durrr always spouts about lets put money onthis and this but never gets done or starts **** and doesnt finish it . ridiculous

Who the **** will pay money for the bot in case it loses? LOL


unless they play at playmonies tables