Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register

01-27-2024 , 03:19 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dude45
Well first Berkey hates GTO and admits to being a feel player. It would be impossible test as nobody is gonna let anyone saddle up to the table and run GTO wizard. I do think a str8 GTO strat would destroy a live low stakes game. It would make a money every time the other players made mistakes and low stakes live players are horrible and make lots of mistakes
How do you know what GTO is for 5-way pots? You won't get that from a solver. Then can you beat them at a decent hourly rate after rake and tips?
Quote
01-27-2024 , 08:52 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by deuceblocker
How do you know what GTO is for 5-way pots? You won't get that from a solver. Then can you beat them at a decent hourly rate after rake and tips?
Do 5 way solvers not exist? I know about simple 3way but i assumed someone would have invented a 4+ way solver by now. If not then yea that's a bit of an issue
Quote
01-27-2024 , 11:09 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Sklansky
Actually, I would think it's still (trying to) play GTO after it node locks. If you have your opponent always folding aces, the computer will play the best GTO strategy against that proclivity by itself, which means that the computer will assume that the other guy is asking his own solver to come up with the best GTO strategy when it can't play aces (perhaps due to a proposition bet). What your solver WON'T do is assume that if this guy is stupid enough to fold aces there are probably a lot of other things he is doing wrong.

Quote:
Originally Posted by George Rice
The solver is looking for the Nash Equilibrium based on the inputs. That's different than the GTO solve for the game as a whole, which is based on the rules of the game and known facts (stack sizes, which player is in position, etc.). It's sort of like GTO, in that it's optimal for the assumptions, but it's based on assumptions which could be, and almost certainly are to some point, wrong. Thus, that solution can be exploited. The GTO solution can never be exploited. In practice, you never know what you're opponent will do, and even if you guess right, he might change the way he plays in the future, foiling your solver solution. In the example you cite, if it was a rule that aces always must fold, then the solver solution would approach a GTO solution for the aces-must-fold game, based on the limitations of the solver. But in the aces-must-fold game, folding aces isn't an assumption, it's a rule.

I just read the introduction to the book where Sklansky states in part, "However some computers are programed to alter their usual tactics if you input specific tendencies of the opponents. And they'll do better than GTO tactics if the inputs are accurate. . ." That is pretty much demonstrates he already knew the point I way trying to make. Perhaps he thought I didn't know what the solver was trying to do. We're (all poker players) getting into discussions on what we mean because we're using the term GTO differently. It would be great if everyone in the poker community used the term in the same way. Are we talking some kind of static thing independent of player tendencies (like I think), or a way of thinking, or simply balancing based on known or assumed tendencies, or solver outputs?
Quote
01-27-2024 , 11:29 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dude45
Do 5 way solvers not exist? I know about simple 3way but i assumed someone would have invented a 4+ way solver by now. If not then yea that's a bit of an issue
Pluribus is a bot that played 6-way against live professional players, and supposedly beat them over 10,000 hands. An analysis by another party suggests it lost. There were two types of matches, Pluribus vs 5 live players (10,000 hands), and one live player vs 5 times Pluribus (against two different pro opponents, 5000 hands each).


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pluribus_(poker_bot)

http://kevinwang.us/lets-analyze-pluribuss-hands/

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aay2400


Pluribus isn't a solver in a sense that you can input ranges into it and it isn't available to the public. But obviously the game was "solved" to some degree in order for it to play the game and beat the professional players. It didn't adjust for player tendencies. There are YouTube videos showing the specific hands.
Quote
01-28-2024 , 06:00 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by George Rice
I just read the introduction to the book where Sklansky states in part, "However some computers are programed to alter their usual tactics if you input specific tendencies of the opponents. And they'll do better than GTO tactics if the inputs are accurate. . ." That is pretty much demonstrates he already knew the point I way trying to make. Perhaps he thought I didn't know what the solver was trying to do. We're (all poker players) getting into discussions on what we mean because we're using the term GTO differently. It would be great if everyone in the poker community used the term in the same way. Are we talking some kind of static thing independent of player tendencies (like I think), or a way of thinking, or simply balancing based on known or assumed tendencies, or solver outputs?
My statement in the book is sort of technically wrong as well. What I am trying to say is that if you tell the perfect GTO computer that it should assume that an opponent plays a certain hand in a non GTO way, it will exploit his play via the GTO strategy that would now apply if the locked tactic of the opponent was part of the rules of the game.
Quote
01-30-2024 , 12:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mason Malmuth

Example No. 1: Here’s a hand that David played in a Las Vegas $1-$3 game. It’s an extreme example, but we want to start with it to show how different many of the strategies in this book are and to give you an idea of how different, in some situations, our approach to maximizing your expectation is from the typical player, and this includes most of those who are currently having some success in live $1-$2, $1-$3, $2-$5, and similar no-limit hold ’em games.

In a $1-$3 no-limit game, David was dealt the

K K

two positions to the right of the button. The first four players limped in and David only called. The next two players folded, the small blind called, and the big blind checked.

The flop came the

J 9 7

The under-the-gun player bet, two players called, and then David threw his pair of kings in the muck.

Virtually no one else, at the time of this writing, would play a pair of kings in late position in a multiway pot this way. They would have made a substantial raise before the flop, and on the flop they would have certainly played their hand.

But let’s notice something obvious. If one of the last two positions or one of the blinds would have raised, when the action got back to David, he would have the option to make a big reraise, and if there were also a couple of callers, he would almost always be a large favorite to win a big pot assuming he got at least one caller.

As for his fold on the flop, given the way the hand was played, the reason for David’s fold is a little more complex, and that will be explained in detail later in this book. He would not have folded if the flop would have come something like the

J 7 2:
Can you remind me which chapter the reasoning of this is explained regarding the J97 flop?
Quote
01-30-2024 , 05:29 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cats!
Can you remind me which chapter the reasoning of this is explained regarding the J97 flop?
The general reasons are covered in several places. Namely beware of having few outs, beware of opponents whose bets are usually, but not always, with hands that beat you or are favored over you, and beware of situations where there are more rounds of betting to come, and you can't get all in early. In this particular case it would have been right to call or possibly make a small raise on the flop if the opponents are timid and straightforward. If they are the opposite, I am almost positive it is a fold. But not to the point that I would enshrine this particular recommendation or the precise reasoning in the book. The hand was mentioned mainly to illustrate how unusually some hands should sometimes be played. Sorry that the introduction (which was written before most of the main text) might have given a different impression.
Quote
01-31-2024 , 05:20 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cats!
Can you remind me which chapter the reasoning of this is explained regarding the J97 flop?
I don't hate the flop fold. Low stakes players are generally passive so when one bets with multiple players left the act they likely have a jack at worst. Kings are in good shape against a jack but that's the bottom of their value range. It's the flat pre that I hate. I assume David was going for a Craise but you can't count on these players to raise at least not in general. Now if he was wanting to play a multiway pot then i have no idea what he was thinking. Also I would call flop unless it's raised before it gets to me.
Quote
02-01-2024 , 08:57 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Sklansky
The general reasons are covered in several places. Namely beware of having few outs, beware of opponents whose bets are usually, but not always, with hands that beat you or are favored over you, and beware of situations where there are more rounds of betting to come, and you can't get all in early. In this particular case it would have been right to call or possibly make a small raise on the flop if the opponents are timid and straightforward. If they are the opposite, I am almost positive it is a fold. But not to the point that I would enshrine this particular recommendation or the precise reasoning in the book. The hand was mentioned mainly to illustrate how unusually some hands should sometimes be played. Sorry that the introduction (which was written before most of the main text) might have given a different impression.
Thanks, this elaboration makes sense.
Quote
02-25-2024 , 06:29 PM
While it's taken a couple of months to do so, this book is now #1 on the Amazon Best Sellers in Poker list:

https://www.amazon.com/gp/bestseller..._zg_hrsr_books

Thanks to everyone who bought a copy.

Mason
Quote
02-25-2024 , 06:41 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mason Malmuth
While it's taken a couple of months to do so, this book is now #1 on the Amazon Best Sellers in Poker list:

https://www.amazon.com/gp/bestseller..._zg_hrsr_books

Thanks to everyone who bought a copy.

Mason
Quote
02-25-2024 , 08:19 PM
The third best selling 'poker' book is a 60 year old book about blackjack. Sad!
Quote
02-26-2024 , 09:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mason Malmuth
I guess that didn't last long. I took this screenshot just now.

Quote
02-26-2024 , 11:05 PM
And Beat The Dealer is already down to 11. Very odd system they have there - would be more useful if they used some kind of rolling average instead what sells best in a particular day or whatever they use now.
Quote
03-02-2024 , 01:06 AM
saw the preflop chapter which is only 1-1.5 pages, was a unique take compares to other books take!
Quote
03-02-2024 , 11:50 PM
Any plans to have the book available on Audible?
Quote
03-03-2024 , 01:31 AM
I am playing 1/3 as we speak. I told myself I am going to do nothing but check or call tonight. I started with $250 and have about $600 now. I will update later, 1/2 live cash players really are largely that bad. To top things off I announced my strategy to everyone haha.
Quote
03-03-2024 , 01:46 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Icall77
I am playing 1/3 as we speak. I told myself I am going to do nothing but check or call tonight. I started with $250 and have about $600 now. I will update later, 1/2 live cash players really are largely that bad. To top things off I announced my strategy to everyone haha.
Lol, I would love some sample hand histories.
Quote
03-03-2024 , 02:24 AM
I did make use disclaimer that “Poker players lie, Phil.i am experimenting with telling them the game is over and that Inintebd to raise. That seems to be slowing them down for now, I am not planning to raise but I am tightening up a bit. Up 450 now.
Quote
03-03-2024 , 03:26 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bozo7
Any plans to have the book available on Audible?
Not at this time.

Mason
Quote
03-03-2024 , 07:13 AM
The table ended up busting around midnight. I cashed out $800 for a $600 profit. Anyone could easily do this and win, just play EP ranges less the bottom 15% of hands, only check or call, keeps pots cheaper on two eariest streets. Never chase a 4 flush or open ender. People really are so bad at this place that following those rules will pay, The $100 an hour win rate is very repeatable. Poker is the best lol.
Quote
03-04-2024 , 08:56 AM
Ordered this book the other day, should be arriving tomorrow at 10:AM and I simply cannot wait.

Racing through trying to finish "No Limit Hold'em Theory and Practice".

I am a beginner in hold em and have been playing for around a year, progressed to NL 5.

I have read quite a few book on GTO, such as "Modern Poker Theory: Building an Unbeatable Strategy Based on GTO Principles" and "Optimal Poker" by Andrew Brooks.

I find solver outputs and the information featured in these book as extremely helpful especially for a guidance on how to play common spots I find myself in. Even from a defence posture and mixing strategies and constructing ranges (All be it at a very amature level).

I find books by Sklansky still very beneficial as, although I have certain betting frequencies and sizing in my head from GTO principles and in certain spots know what the optimal play is. Understanding poker in a logical fashion is hugely beneficial.

Can I give an example if I may, I have a few tables, notes and statistics how to play certain spots IP vs OP etc. This all helps with barrelling the turn, bet sizing and watching for any deviations from this by my opponent. However also reading the Bet sizing chapter in "No Limit Holdem Theory and practice" discusses the same topic using logic in a qualitative sense also. For example Sklansky states in this chapter "Bet more than your opponents can call profitably, but don't bet so much that you blow your opponents off their hand. Bet an amount that entices them to make a bad call.".

I find that having A GTO frame work is a great starting point and that any poker logic and insights that I can gather from other sources can only be beneficial.

I am looking forward to adding such knowledge with this book.



Regards

Ric
Quote
03-05-2024 , 12:07 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by the pleasure
saw the preflop chapter which is only 1-1.5 pages, was a unique take compares to other books take!
any thouhts on their preflop hand section?
like I said it was a unique take never thought about it in that way
Quote
03-05-2024 , 06:00 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by the pleasure
any thouhts on their preflop hand section?
like I said it was a unique take never thought about it in that way

When it comes today I will look at it


Ric
Quote
04-10-2024 , 07:27 AM
did Bart ever do a full review?
Quote

      
m