I forgot to count dead cards in my post above. I'm too lazy to do it again counting dead cards (I would also have to decrease stack sizes to give 98 the odds to shove) but the example is still good for showing the concept as is. I guess we can just add the rule that all folded hands are shuffled back into the deck before dealing the turn and river and then it's fine.

Yes in some ways, no in others. For example, both practical experience and mathematical theory will lead you to certain conclusions, such as that it's better to play looser in later position, it's important to have both value and bluffing ranges in certain spots, etc. That being said, a player who plays purely based on experience will also deviate from GTO play in many spots. For example, he will fold a very large portion of his range when check-raised on the turn vs. most players, because even though this is theoretically quite exploitable, in reality, most people at most limits do not check-raise the turn without monster hands. As you climb to higher and higher stakes I do believe you see top level players moving closer to optimal poker, since you can't have too many exploitable tendencies in your game without the other regs picking up on it and slaughtering you. On the other hand, it's possible that true GTO play would look absolutely crazy to us, with bet sizes and lines nobody would ever consider, simply because figuring out the value of such lines is beyond the mental capacity of anyone playing today.

+1 I didn't understand one sentence. Sounded cool though.

I'm so confused right now; and I have a few questions.

Who is the bot playing GTO againt (NLHU)? Is bot only playing GTO versus another bot playing GTO, like they're in Nash equilibrium?

If I (or some genius) played infinite hands against a GTO bot, I would know all of its vpip,pfr,3bet,tripplebarrel, blahblah frequencies. Then I should be able to play the same as it, if not exploit it?

How can a bot play GTO when neither player is in Nash equilibrium? In a standard game of NLHU, information is always incomplete.. So it's impossible for the 2 players to ever be in Nash equilibrium?

Why can't I make GTO bot V2 (lol) that knows all of GTO bot V1's strategies? I'm saying this because a GTO bot can NEVER ADJUST? Then how can the GTO bot V1 ever, even remotely, play optimally against anything, or anyone that knows every single possible move it can make?

I suggest you investigate just what it is that GTO actually means. That should answer most of your questions.

This thread is like a perpetual loop of people asking the same questions the exact same way and people responding with hugely varied and mostly flawed answers.

I did, I don't see how it's possible to make a bot make nothing but -ev decisions if we know its "strategies", and it can't/never adjust.

Or did I miss the post that said it's possible to beat this bot if we both/all knew each others "strategies"?

ryen, knowledge of an opponent's strategy does not guarantee you a win.

playing a gto-strategy is what happens after all players have adjusted their strategies to a point at which every additional adjustment has a non-posititve ev (nash-equilibrum). they may know each other's strategies exactly, but cannot profit from devaiting from the equilibrum in any way.

Interresting stuff.

The one thing I don't understand is that some of the top NLHE HU players like Ike etc claim they try to play GTO.

I don't believe them, in that that would mean they do not try to adjust their play AT ALL to the way their opponents are playing. What they are most likely doing is incorporating some GTO concepts into their otherwise exploitative strategy.

Person A: I'm trying to find a particular kind of tree?
Person B: Okay I'll help - what does it look like?
Person A: I have no idea.

I don't think I ever said this. If I did I was being sloppy with my word choices.

Yeah, this is about right.

In after Ike.

Ike:- do you think durrr is a fish? Seriously though, were you paraphrased in that interview?

!!!
GIVE THIS MAN A COOKIE

In after Jungle!

In before durrr outlash.

No one can ever play true GTO because of the subconscious. No matter if we think we are making a decision based solely on analysis, and our chosen strategy, all decisions that a person makes will contain a trace of emotion.

What if someone with a super brain who knew nothing about poker read and memorized the GTO strat book.

He would simply play according to what the book said and his decisions would have no emotional attachment.


I don't think it's that hard to act without emotion if you know the correct strategy. If I knew how to play GTO I would implement it without emotion and feel like an idiot if I did anything else, unless I was obviously exploiting someone.

Super brain or not ,emotion occurs naturally in all human beings from birth...what is a newborn babies cry?

Also as he plays if he ever paused and questioned just one decision......

There are rock-paper-scissors competitions. The best players have consistent success, so apparently there's some skill in it, despite the fact that the GTO strategy is very simple and everyone knows it.

Playing randomly like GTO play requires just isn't something the human brain is good at, and so there's always a chance for players who are good at picking up patterns in their opponent's play to come in and play exploitatively.

Of course he has emotions but they won't effect his decisions.

He's not going to start doing random **** in a game he doesn't understand just because he is upset when he has an unbeatable strategy memorised.... At least not with his super brain

www.random.org

Yes, in contrast, randomness is obviously something that computers are pretty good at.

so i came to this thread and first few words i see are time-space, laboratory, quantum and stephan hawking...bye guys, ill keep on spewing

Hope he's got a lot of free time, that's gonna be a long read.