No. a river gto-strat would be unexploitable. or not a gto-strat. you can't have it both ways.

i understand what you are saying, it's just wrong.

The GTO strat is for all streets not just the river. I promise you have no clue what I am saying.

prolly true if you talk about exploitable gto-strategies. hope someone else can dumb it down for you, i surrender.

I understand everything you are saying and do not need anything dumbed down for me. I hope someone can teach you to be less of a jerk.

I am pretty sure that almost everyone would agree that if we were to check-call all 3 streets with the flop top set and only top set, the GTO strat would value own itself hard on the river in many spots. Thus, we have exploited it on the river, but it is still the GTO strat. We had to play explotably earlier to get to exploit on the river.

Zobags is right, you can't have a "river GTO" strategy that is independent of the rest of the strategy and unexploitable. As a contrived example, let us assume for arguments sake that GTO strategy would have both the BTN and BB reach the river in a modified game where only one bet is allowed per street with equal numbers of nut hands, bluff catchers and bluffs. If BB checks then the BTN will bet all nut hands, check back all bluff catchers and bluff a non-0 percent of the time. A BB GTO strategy will call all nut hands, fold all bluffs and call bluff catchers with a non-0 percentage. However in this case when playing the BTN we play in a sub-optimal way and never bluff so reach the river with only nut hands and bluff catchers. We now bet all nut hands and check back all bluff catchers however the GTO BB is still calling its bluff catchers a non-0 percentage even though it will lose every single time it does so - it is -EV for it to do this if we totally isolate the river from the rest of the hand! The reason this is the case is by never bluffing we have given up at least the same if not more EV earlier in the hand. The GTO BB is actually -EV against us purely on river play but its |EV(rest of hand)| >= |EV(river play)| which means it is still playing optimally.

^^tl;dr


sorry if i was a jerk, but if you understood what i was saying why would you keep stating the opposite?

a gto-strategy exists and it is unexploitable whatever the **** you do!

if it was exploitable, how could it be gto?

whatever weird examples anyone is going to construct, if someone finds the gto-solution for NLHoldem it will be unexploitable at any point. that is how a gto-solution is ****ing defined.

/rant, will go to sleep, have fun debating

Because the GTO strat considers all streets.

since i made the mistake to look back at the thread before shutting my comp down, i might as well give a last answer:

a gto-solution considers all streets and all possible strategies on every street for any possible stacksize. and it would be unexploitable towards any sequence of actions and betsizes.

not sure why you think slowplay would not be covered, and it would certainly not exploit a gto-strategy.

if you exploit an opponent by slowplaying, you exploit his tendencies. a gto-solution has no exploitable tendencies.

could you explain why please? on the basis of minimax?

You are not special.

Saying you "exploited it on the river," doesn't really mean anything. There's no exploiting going on. It's like talking about a spot where you never bluff but GTO strategy still calls sometimes and saying you "exploited it with your valuebets." As you keep emphasizing, you have to look at the strategy as a whole. I think you understand all of this, you're just misusing the word "exploit."

Forgot to add tha one other obvious exception. Where the big blind is essentially the button, Since he goes last on the round where the money is bet.

I think I misinterpreted something the same way as I'm assuming Zobags did - no idea why but I read something as meaning that the river play of an optimal strategy was unexploitable independent of the rest of the strategy i.e. you could take only the river part of a GTO strategy and plug it into any strategy and the river play would be unexploitable.

I agree with this and apologize for misusing the term and creating confusion. Thanks for the reply. Do you agree that, on the river in hold 'em, the GTO strat must make an assessment as to what villain's range should be?

The GTO strat is the best response to the opponent playing optimally, so it is the best line against the range the other guy is "supposed to" get to the river with.

Talking about it in terms of making assessments or what the GTO strat is "thinking about," is more confusing than useful, IMO. Making assessments is something people do. The GTO strat is just a list of situations and the correct actions to take in them.

Hi David,
What do you mean by break even and are you implying that GTO would be 100% button pfr?
If it turns out to be less, would it still need to break even against 100% pfr, which would be a non GTO strategy?

One clarification: the GTO strategy doesn't just optimize against a villain's range on the river. It considers all streets. For example, it might fold more often on the river if it is costly for the villain to show up with a bluff in that spot.

Your statement is still correct, and I'm sure you're aware of all this, but it's best not to think of each street in isolation.

I agree. I thought I was making that point myself in my post but apparently it wasn't very clear.

Oh, when I said the answer was 1), that was because I only read the first two words of that option, concluded it was right, and posted. My bad. All that explanatory stuff after that is wrong, sorry.

GTO doesn't know from bluffs or value bets or semibluffs or blocking bets or anything. It just maximizes against its nemesis. All those other things are just names we put on things so that we can wrap our heads around how to play in all these different situations and draw conclusions about one situation from things we know about another and stuff.

So, am I understanding this correctly?

I believe that Jerrod just announced that he doesn't have a human brain.

So, the obvious question, what kind of brain does he have? He's really a cyborg in a very realistic (this guy is hairy!!) simulation of a human body? He's an alien inhabiting a real human body? Enquiring minds want to know!

Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)

Haha this paragraph is so good.

Fossilman and Ankenman in the same thread

swoon.

Since I was misusing terms, I will atempt to state more formally what I was thinking when I said,

"I would think a GTO strat would have to assume villain is playing GTO as well."

For HU Hold 'Em, the nemesis of a GTO strategy is itself a GTO strategy.

Is this correct?

Yeah, that's basically correct. To be more precise, the GTO BB strategy is a nemesis of the GTO button strategy and vice versa. There exist suboptimal strategies that are also nemeses of the GTO strategy.

o.0 how could any deviation from GTO play vs a GTO opponent have a neutral or positive effect on your winrate? please elaborate. i've never heard of this. also thanks for all your great posts ^_^