No it's a mixed strategy in a solver so it's the same EV. This is what I'm talking about. At equilibrium it's the same but no one plays like this so we raise instead to gain more EV from fish.

So you’re saying the authors used the solver to determine the 2x increase in EV?

No because you can't use solvers for multiway pots (maybe simple 3 way but 4 way+ solvers aren't around to my knowledge).

They are guesstimating based on what they know about fish.

It should be pointed out that playing GTO poker does NOT guarantee you will break even if the game is unfair, asymmetrical, OR THE POT IS RAKED. If there is a rake, GTO can only guarantee that your loss will not be bigger than what is taken out of your pots. In 100 hands of 1-3 poker that figures to be 10-15 big blind1. Even more in 1-2. This is probably why that Bart fellow said that the rake made those games worthless. If you are partially relying on GTO to make you money, your opponents have to be quite bad.

But here is the thing. While both exploitive and GTO play do better and better as opponents play worse and worse, the growth of your results is higher if the play is exploitive. In other words, if perfect opponents result in GTO losing 12 bb/100 while your loss rate is 18/ bb if you try to play exploitively, very good games might only add 20 bbs to the GTO player while adding 30bb to the smart exploiter. GTO would net 5bb, while exploiter nets 12.

The bottom line is that in order to make any money at these small games, you have to be finding really good ones and then play in a style that is often quite different than GTO and is in fact a style that would get you beaten rather badly if you tried it in merely mediocre games.

I understand that’s the premise of your book and that you guesstimated / made up a lot of these theories. My question is, what if you’re wrong? What if GTO makes more than exploitative ?

The GTO Framework doesn't even exist in low stakes live games because of preflop. If you look at a 9 handed solver on GTO Wizard there is 0% limping so once someone limps the framework falls apart.



GTO is just an idea, it's something to be measured against so you have a benchmark. It's not to be taken literally almost ever (only against world class opponents).

If by "exploitive" you mean "properly exploitive" then it is logically impossible that GTO would make more. The world's biggest fans of GTO know this. There is a leak in your understanding.

I def didn’t mean properly or I would’ve written that. I am aware that not everyone can properly max exploit


Now ask yourself what’s easier to execute, GTO based strategy or exploitative strategy , which is why I asked


What if GTO style makes the player more than exploitative style?

No. Game theory is designed to maximize your minimum expectation or minimize your opponent's maximum expectation. While I tire of reading your posts, it's clear to me that there's much about poker / game theory that you're quite confused about. On the Internet you should look up and read about the minimax theorem / maximin principle and what a saddle point is.

Among our stuff, you should read the chapter "Betting and Game Theory" in my book Gambling Theory and Other Topics - Expanded Edition, much of the book The Intelligent Poker Player by Philip Newall, and the game theory discussions in David's book The Theory of Poker Applied to No-Limit.

I assume you've at least looked at Matt Janda's books. If you haven't spend some time with them as well.

Mason

Your question is similar to the question "what if the basic strategy in blackjack does better than someone who bases his strategy on card counting but doesn't do it expertly".

My answer to both is "if the player often strays too far from basic strategy when he shouldn't, he will do worse. But only if his straying is sometimes quite bad. If his straying is done only when it is obvious that he should, and he otherwise plays close to GTO or basic strategy, he will of course do better. And if the opponents are really bad that will be most hands. Just like it would be if the dealer hit up to 18.

Card counting one way versus card counting another is not a good analogy for playing exploitative or GTO

It’s basically Bart Hanson style versus winning 500z style.


Minimize your opponents max expectation sounds like “lose the least” to me.

Your opponents expectation is how much you lose

Minimizing how much you lose=trying to lose the least imo

Like I say, you have very little understanding of how GTO poker actually works. Also, you left out the other side of the maximin principle which is to maximize your minimum expectation.

This stuff is all on the Internet, you should spend some time reading it as well as the other references I suggested.

Could be!

hey man thank you for your writeup I appreciate it!

thank you, ive been hammering the preflop sections and reading it so I will continue to re read before moving forward imsre i havent gotten to the 3 bet or raising sections and to be honest, I prolly am a poor reader and haven't read as much as I am still in the first 50-60 pages

I appreciate your thoughts on the matter and so far think it is a really eye opening book and one that made me think very differently to expand my knowledge

IMO, the ideas in the book are really good. Some of the specifics are weird, and sort of limit player style. For example, raising to 6 in 1/2 is sort of ridiculous, when people will treat a raise to 10 about the same as a raise to 6. If you raise to 6, you will probably get a significant percentage of 3!s, which are rare against a normal raise size.

Similarly, talk of mid-betting and doubling the limped bet to build the pot are limit poker style. You can bet small or raise small at limps, bit mid bets look just ridiculous in NL.

People tend to bet about pot in 1/2 and 1/3 in limped pot. I couldn't limp behind on the button with 87o or Q6s or whatever and find enough situations I could continue on postflop.

Making buying in for the minimum, making raise sizes that most limper will call and sometimes playing for a limp/3! seem really sound at low stakes, although not what is usually advised.

i think from what i gathered from them is that we are going to maker FAR FAR less mistakes than opponents post flop so building pots small and surely so when big hands develop we maxmize

Yeah, the ideas are good and sometimes original. However, I wouldn't take it as a manual and literally play the sizings, hand ranges, etc. they suggest.

Nope