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?