Probably they just aren't as quick as you are.

This clearly favors he who has assistance.

Is there were no HUDs or access to online hand histories would RTA be so useful? Without that sort of deep datamining the RTA would be more like a calculator, useful, but not really game changing.

The really problematic RTA doesn't care about HH's or HUD stats. RTA discussions like this doesn't really refer to HUD/HH trackers, but to solver-related softwares. And they'll ****ing screen-scrape the hole cards and board and actions and auto-load in a solution to the spot. It's not just game changing but absolutely game breaking in every way. HHs and HUDs are irrelevant in the face of it.

You can't stop the use of RTA by policing users (eg. cameras), online is stressful enough for the casual players.

The best way forward is to improve detection similar to chess. The problem is that there is no incentive for sites to implement it because you cannot disclose the way your detection works, so the bans and seizing of funds is bad PR. See GG poker as an example.

Also, the GTO strategy is aimed at breaking even not maximizing profit, so if regs using RTA are battling each other site doesn't care since it's raking the most it can.

Chess is not as ****ed as poker only because there's less money in it.

GTO is not 'designed' to break-even - it will only do so against itself. Equilibrium strategy is un-exploitable (has no weaknesses or area's where the opponent can exploit it) and is thus indifferent to it's opponents' strategy. The best the opponent can do is match said strategy and then break-even.

Exatly the result of using RTA vs RTA.

Still your statement that GTO is "aimed at breaking even" makes no sense. It's aimed at maximizing EV, that's what a solver does. It uses an algorithm that maximizes EV. But yes we know that in general across all actions in the full game we would expect two bots implementing the same GTO strategy to break even against each other.

However, if your opponent deviates from your approximated GTO strategy, then they are very likely to lose money to you unless they have a more advanced GTO approximation that is slightly less exploitable.

Idk why this idea comes up so often in these discussions.

GTO doesn't guarantee a profit by in of itself, let's take RPS as an example of a simpler game. The Nash equilibrium for that game is 1/3 R, 1/3 P, 1/3 S. Even if the opposing player is only throwing rock EV is still 0, the best strategy is throwing only paper which yields an EV of 1.

The same thing applies in poker whereas in an extreme example let's take that opponent overfolds to overbet on the turn, you need to deviate from your GTO strategy and up your probability of overbets. The new exploitative strategy gives more EV than GTO.

The basic feature of a solver is to iteratively adjust strategies and simulate millions of hands with these strategies, look at the end result adjust and recalculate. When no change is possible we found equilibrium (current understanding of GTO).

A more advanced feature is called node locking. This feature assumes the strategy of your opponent (by getting a large enough sample of hands of your opponents) and calculates the solution against it. This is the solver equivalent of exploitative play.

Detecting RTA should be pretty simple if the incentive is there. Just using something like GTO wizard would show some pretty obvious differences if you compared honest players profiles to the profiles of RTA users.

Anyone whose hands are analysed and found to be playing statistically out of bounds of a human player could then be required to play a number of hand on webcam. If their accuracy drops significantly they are probably a cheater.

This and a hundred times this. It is so easy to prove you are legit. And this won't discourage rec players from playing.

^I don't think it's simple at all to detect RTA use in that way, like they do in chess.

A solver doesn't have one or two best moves like a chess engine does - it creates a balanced strategy for the spot which is unexploitable. And that strategy will first of all contain a mix of frequencies unlike in chess. In chess the engine doesn't sometimes move b2 but sometimes c5. A solver will sometimes bet x, sometimes bet y, and sometimes check in an identical spot.

And what x and y size is, isn't even fixed! It depends on the input you put into the spot when you solve it. A 3 sizing solve will be other frequencies and sizes compared to a 2 sizing solve, in identical spots.

Would be bizzarrely complicated to detect automatically. Maybe completely impossible.

I don't think it would be hard with smart data guys. You don't need to detect frequencies you need to detect the frequency of deviation from GTO lines, within a margin of error that accounts for sim variation. Even accounting for using slightly different sims the difference between RTA profile and honest players profile should still be very noticeable. A human is going to take a much higher percentage of lines that are non-GTO and are outwith the margin of error that could be possibly caused by using different sims. The only people you need to check anyway are high-volume players and MS/HS players who make up a very small proportion of the player pool .

I agree “GTO is aimed at breaking even” is poorly worded. However in practice a pure GTO strategy which does not exploit opponents is going to have a lower win rate closer to break even than someone successfully exploiting an opponent.

In Rock Paper Scissors , throwing uniform random is GTO but suboptimal against someone always throwing paper. It’s true that a GTO strategy in poker is a little different because it will beat a non GTO opponent rather than break even but it would still have a small win rate because it burns money doing a lot of mixed strategies where it’s bad to , like having tons of bluffs against opponent who rarely folds.

GTO doesn't automatically beat non-GTO, that is a misconception. VS a GTO opponent you could simplify every GTO mixed strategy into pure and break-even vs GTO. You could design some pretty ******edly unbalanced strategies this way, like pure check-raise every small frequency check-raise, pure check back flop in a lot of spots, pure use enormous bet sizes that solver uses at small frequency, etc.

GTO does not do a good job at exploiting leaks. That would be maximizing EV. GTO does not maximize EV but instead simply prevents getting exploited. Big difference.

RTA is nothing more than an excuse these sites use to cover up their cheating and super using people. Do you really think that you can use a solver output and not be exploited when these people can see your cards and set up the hands ahead of time?

This could be true… but be careful you will get thrown in rigtardia for saying this without proof.

There could be cheating within or from the outside. RTA can be a cover. Anything is possible.

I’m sure more superusing scandals will happen or are happening.

We need those whistle blowers. Where my whistle blowers at?

GTO maximizes EV against a maximally exploitative opponent.

I hate the RPS analogy because in RPS GTO breaks even against any other strategy. In poker GTO can make money when opponents take actions that are 0% frequency at equilibrium.

Yea but the sample is much smaller in chess, you get 40 moves per game so you need to be more accurate with detection. You can probably get an equal sample of decision points and more in poker.

The simplest idea I came up with is to measure the complexity of the decision tree of a winning player. This stems from the idea that the RTA strategy is more complex and impossible to implement by non-RTA users.

RPS is an extreme example, but it demonstrates a point that GTO doesn't always mean that you end up profitable against players that make mistakes. The same idea applies to poker, there might be a subset of strategies that are not GTO and are break even when played against GTO.

There is no incentive for sites to do this. They make money off of rake without any liability. Also, super using is easy to detect, every single hand played against the superuser is an outlier (equal to high roll on RNG for every suspicious hand).

I agree and this is usually the only accusation people can make.

Humans can use arbitrary bet sizings, so their (non)strategy is actually way more complex than the constrained solver one.

The RTA user could probably mask the complexity of their strategy anyways, by creating multiple alternative solves that are all within 99% EV of the complex solve. And by fudging their sizings while playing and accepting that the resulting strategy probably is good enough anyway.