As someone who loves card and board games through his entire life, and as someone who happened to have all his degree thesis(BSEE,MSEE and PhD in EE) involved heavily in computer simulation and data analysis, I have paid a lot of attention on game theory and the software, all the way back to the late 80’s. I am open to all the models and theories. To be fair, GTO is a good model. However, I am also fully aware that any model has its limitations. The worst thing can happen in the modeling world is that you have a good model everyone agrees on, and you don’t pay attention on its limitation, considering whatever comes out of your model to be the ultimate truth. Unfortunately, that is what happened to GTO theory and its application on poker.

This article is not about the GTO theory. Rather, it is about how the poker world has been misled on GTO and how it has hurt the growth of poker unjustifiably. As such, I will construct this article in a way to get as many average players as possible to read it as long as possible.


1) Let’s start with two biggest myths which are behind the crazy expansion of GTO

A) “You can not lose in the long run if you play GTO”

The truth is, you can. The Nash equilibrium is about a non-cooperative game. That is the condition of this model. Obviously, poker doesn’t have to be a non-cooperative game for everyone at the table. Sometimes, you run into colluders. Sometimes, a guy just decides not liking you, goes on an suicid mission to punish you with the third player in the pot benefiting from it.

What is worse, players do not have to intentionally break your “can not lose” dream, like the above examples. Players may not be aware that they are not playing optimal yet they can make your GTO a losing strategy. The game theory/algorithm does not distinguish colluders from suckers. You play the same, you are the same.

So theoretically, any poker game with more than two players can not guarantee the GTO strategy not a losing strategy.

Even for heads-up, its has to be a rake free game. Imagine both players play perfect GTO, neither can beat the other. Where does the house rake come from? Of course from both losers.

So, let me modify this can’t lose GTO statement: you can not lose in the long run if you play GTO heads up with no rake. (strictly speaking, you can still lose. But it is another topic. We are good here)

When did that happen to most of you? Probably back to childhood when you played your little brother in the basement. And you know GTO was not the best strategy in that game.

B) “I know GTO may not be the best strategy for my game. But I can use it to judge how good my opponent is so I can best exploit his weakness”.

The truth is: we only know GTO exist, we do not know what it is, bare a handful over simplified game conditions.

Now you tell me: if you do not know what GTO play is, how can you use that as a standard to judge your opponent?


2) What the heck is this mysterious GTO anyway?

I can not answer this seemingly very simple question.

I have been trying to figure this out for over a decade and I have not seen a solid definition yet. If you do a google search, you will see various explanations about GTO, but no formal definition or mathematical expression. Some say, it is just another term for Nash Equilibrium, some say it is NE for zero sum game, some say it is NE for poker, some say it is for NL holdem, in addition to a lot of more vague definitions. Or better yet, some just completely avoid the definition while spending a lot of space explaining how mighty this GTO is.

No matter what the definition is for a specific site/coach, its core content is really some form of Nash Equilibrium. That is the reason I started this post with discussing NE not GTO.

Isn’t it strange that a hot theory that prevailed the whole industry for over a decade does not have a formal definition?

Any GTO guy would tell you it is a mixed strategy. They certainly have done a good job in mixing its definition, which should be as clear as day and night.

Actually, I don’t know if we could call GTO a “theory”. If you look at dictionary.com for “scientific-theory”, you get “a coherent group of propositions formulated to..”.If you look at dictionary.cambridge.org for “theory”, you get “a formal statement of the rules on which..”. I do not think GTO past the test of “scientific-theory”, not even the broader one “theory”.

OK, we call it GTO theory for now. I am more interested why GTO is so popular in the poker world, while Nash Equilibrium, from which GTO borrows its content, to which the name of one of the most brilliant minds and contributors in the game theory field is attached, pales in comparison.

The answer is super clear: the magic word “optimal”. When most people interpret “Optimal” as “best or most favorable” per google search, who wouldn’t want to play “Game Theory Optimal” strategy. Unfortunately, The O word in GTO does not mean that.

It may not be a bad idea if the new term GTO was used just to attract more players into studying game theory, and then at some point player’s misinterpretation is thoughtfully corrected. Unfortunately, this was never the case. What is even was, GTO was further deified as the ultimate way to play poker.

It is all good until it gets too heavy for the industry to carry on.


3) The harm this GTO has done to the growth of poker

I would not have written this post for just pure discussion of a game model. What has bothered me is its damaging to the growth of poker.

A) The power of the GTO theory/tools are extremely exaggerated

“GTO solver”,”GTO trainer” are really hot these days. If you don’t use one of these tools in your gameplay discussion, you are automatically classified as an old school guy. And nobody bothers to listen to what you have to say.

The poker population has been brainwashed to such an extent that no many seems to care that none of these solver/trainer is a true GTO solver/trainer.

Quite often you see someone claim his software is the closest one to GTO. That may be true, just like someone says Mercury is the closest planet to the Sun. And we all know, Mercury is not Sun. There are some simplified situations these solvers can be used. Beyond that, which are the vast majority of cases/situations, it quickly becomes useless.

Don’t blame the engineers for these tools. A GTO solver demands so much resources, the algorithm used in these software have to have a lot of shortcuts to make the tools “working” possible.

B) Mislead players to believe GTO is the way the game to be played in the future, if not already.

There is no doubt that AI will beat human players very soon. But that does not mean the game will be played the way AI does.

Deep Blue beat the best human chess player in 1997, twenty three years later, human beings still play the game the human way.

In 2016, Google’s Alphago shocked both the AI world and the Go world by defeating top human Go player 4:1, and followed up with a 60:0 sweep against top pro Go players. Just a year ago, it was common belief that it would need at least another decade for AI to beat human pro player due to the game’s complexity.

Yet, human Go players still play the game the human way. In fact, the team AlphaGo acknowledged that AlphaGo is like a blackbox to them.

If human Chess/Go players can not be trained to play like AI, what makes anyone believe poker can be played like AI by human player? Unlike chess and Go, where the goal is simple (to win), and path is relatively clear (tree search) with perfect information, Poker is much harder for humans to learn to play like AI. There is really no such thing as human GTO players, not until human beings can implant powerful computer chips in their brain. Human brains are just not fit to that kind of storing and processing information.

It is kind of like, although we know cars run faster and more efficiently than humans, marathon players just can not try to move faster by rolling on the ground. Humans are not built that way.

Or, we can think the easier way: poker as we know it will die long before human beings can play like AI should that eventually happen.

Button line is, GTO was not, is not, and will never be the “right way” poker is played.

C) Its learning curve is bad for the players, producing mediocre players in volume

Beside model limitation and algorithm “shortcuts”, there is another issue for the players to use any modeling tools: they have to understand the model/algorithm/parameters they use. Due to lack of GTO understanding, starting from its definition, it is not surprising that not many players know what they are doing with these tools.

When players get a traditional coach and not happy about their progress, they blame the coaches for not being good enough. When players try the GTO way and feel stuck in the learning curve, they blame themselves for not trying harder.

The reality is, they quickly reach the bottleneck with little hope to get through. Combined with the reluctance to try an alternative way, they are bound to become mediocre players, except for a few really talented players.

D) The GTO superiority makes games unenjoyable

This mentality produces a volume of arrogant GTO players.The arrogance of some GTO players can really make a game unenjoyable.

Many players follow the GTO/software religiously. I have seen many times some 5/10rmb(less than $½) commentators criticize those high roller players with confidence. Where does this confidence come from? The “GTO solver”. It is ironic when some of the high rollers keep talking about how those solvers help to improve their game, only to see some lowest level players use the same software and criticize them like “it is well known that live high roller’s playing strategy deviates significantly from GTO strategy”.

You can not blame them. They believe what you want them to believe. They do what you want them to do. It is just natural when your followers find out you are not playing the ultimate strategy, they get worried. They consider their critique is from the truth generating machine, not from them playing at the lowest level.

And when this kind of players talk at a cash table with no big name players presented, it can be super annoying.

E) GTO scares off players

I have heard numerous times players, including some established players, saying: I am just not a math guy. What they mean is, they kind of give up on improving their games. I always answer with something like: poker does not need a lot of math. Observation, reasoning, execution are all ahead of math.

Still, they feel they are at an inherent disadvantage to their opponent, although it is almost never a key factor for most players in most situations.

So, what we really have about this GTO thing for so many years is the brainwashing the whole poker world with a deified learning system, which was based on a pseudo algorithm of a model with serious limitations for the real world games, and the theory was never fully presented to the mass, not even the definition of the theory.

As a result, it is not surprising that this systems produce a large number of arrogant mediocre players which make the game worse on all aspects. And it also turns away potential players with the fake powers that is believed the non believers can not possess, which put them into inferior group with no way out.


4) The good things to say about GTO

It would not be fair if I do not say something nice about GTO

A) GTO helps to promote the concept of balance

Any GTO lover will tell you how important the concept of balance is in poker. This is a good thing, as the concept of balance is indeed the single most important concept in poker.

But, let’s not carry away in thinking the true understanding of balancing in poker starts with GTO. It is not. If you read the first edition of the Super System, or those early articles by great poker minds like David Sklansky or Mike Caro, it is already there. Heck, the concept of balancing was already elaborated all the way back to Plato 2400 years ago.

B) GTO helps to get players attention to use computer tools

In this modern era, a lot of tools are out there to help players improve their games. GTO certainly help to gain the attention from players to try these tools as a by product, although many of them can not even tell if a software should be classified as a GTO software.

C) There are some game situations GTO can be useful

Super high roller tournaments are one of the few game conditions that these quasi-GTO software can actually help. If you look at these players, they are in general very sharp, spot opponent weakness quick. They are very close in skill level. The game mostly played at short stack and heads up. All these combined, plus the stake they play, make it worth trying to play the software by trial and error, or just trying to get some suggestions they normally would pass.

But even for SHR, the usefulness of GTO solver are exaggerated in some articles. These players get there because of their talent and effort. A brutal truth is that poker is a game heavily relies on player’s raw talent. Even for some GTO promoters, they benefited from their ability to extract useful information from a rough tools. This does not apply to the mass they promote the software to. The value part of GTO training is almost always from self-taught, not from the trainer/instructors.


5) What does this article try to achieve

I hope the industry will take a closer look into this GTO thing. For over a decade, it has been used more for the marketing reasons than anything else, with a net negative effect on the growth of poker.

I think it is overdue for the industry to call GTO and its tool what they really are: a good model with some limited usefulness tools. That is all.

Or, if you still believe in GTO and the tools religiously, at least give it some thought before recommending it to unsuspecting new players.

I am not against modernized training. I do not even wish to see the term GTO disappear. But in a nutshell, poker game is about using your brain, not about using your tools. You can train with these tools, but you can not replace your brain with them.

Let’s keep poker as a human game. And let’s make poker fun to play again.


6) how do I finally decide to write a GTO post in English

Although I have written many posts/replies in Chinese to warn players about this GTO craziness for many years, I have refrained myself from posting my opinion about GTO in English platforms, bare occasionally twitter rants. The main reason is that I do not want to start this kind of argument, which is bound to get furious counter arguments, on an English platform. It is a serious disadvantage and extremely time consuming trying to convince people on the internet with a nonnative language.

I also did not want to upset people unnecessarily. With so many players on the GTO board, some of them I know personally, It feels awkward for me to come out saying: hey buddy, what you have been promoting is not what you said. I therefore have been waiting for someone else to do this dirty job. I guess there are some others also think this way. This is the only explanation I can think of this GTO mania went for so long without being challenged.

Sometimes, it is quite amazing to see this GTO thing being thrown around. For example, I saw one player proudly claimed she had a GTO husband on twitter. I was like: is that really what you want? Just imagine when you get bullied in the workplace and cry your way home, you husband routinely turn on tv to watch spongebob because, by definition, your GTO husband is indifferent to your action. Or when you left home in the morning, you remind your husband it is your ten year anniversary and you want to have a special dinner together to celebrate it. When you go home, you find your husband already have the KFC 20 dollar fill up delivered because, when deciding what to eat, your husband looked at his watch. The combination of the hour/minute/second reading indicated a low frequency, AKA unusual, play. I guess a GTO husband is probably not an optimal husband for many women. That is usually what happened: you learn it wrong, you use it wrong. I believe 90% of the GTO lovers do not know what the word Optimal in GTO means. And I feel I am being generous when I say 90%.

Not all the time I feel at ease when I see the word GTO pop up. Last month, I saw an article from a big name player talking about his decision process. It was acclaimed by the whole poker world and was retweeted numerous times. While I have no doubt the author put a lot of effort in the writing and genuinely tried to help, My only reaction was: oh, no. This is one of those things the poker world do not need at this time.

Next day, I had a dinner with a friend and a few of his friends. Two of them are poker lovers. They have been playing poker in private games for years for some serious money but they have never studied the game seriously. One guy asked for my opinion on how to improve his game. He said his friend had given him a suggestion about the newest theory but he forgot what the theory was called. While he looked at his phone trying to dig out the message. I jokingly said: hope it is not GTO, and he answered right back: yeah, it is GTO!

I kind of did not know what to say. It is inappropriate in this situation to say you can spend your time more effectively the traditional way of learning instead of falling in the trap of GTO software which will get you nowhere, and then went on in length to explain why I am such a nuts to talk against something everyone easily agreed on. I definitely do not want to ruin a delicious dinner. But I would also feel guilty if I encourage him move on to that GTO path.

The last straw to break the camel's back is a furious fight burst out early this month on Weibo (Chinese twitter) about GTO. Both sides accused the other side does not know a **** about GTO and mislead new players for their own interest. One side is a well known player in the Chinese poker world and he had the upper hand with more support. The other side, a new training site, then pulled out a joker: saying they are not the authors. It is a translation of an article from a well known GTO coach at a well known English training site. And that was indeed the game changer!

The Chinese poker world in general look up at the American poker world. It is understandable because the games originated in America, and the US has produced by far the most great players and great books. You can not blame them as this is usually a reasonable approach.

I kept getting players asking about my position in this quarrel. I really didn’t want to say neither side is right. I have made too many people unhappy by answering simple questions honestly. I really do not want to make any more enemies. But it is against my conscience to give the players who trust me some vogue advice which may misled them.

Then I have to go through that all too familiar scenario again and again. Players won’t say it, but they question my answer inside: shall I trust your opinion or shall I trust the mainstream of English training world. For most of them, it is a no brainer. It is the reality.

I spend so much time here just trying to say: I did not want to pick up a fight but I can not hold myself any longer. Some may think I am a modern Don Quixote fighting an imaginary enemy. Others may consider me as a really old child crying out: But he isn’t wearing GTO, I mean anything, at all. I don’t care. Actually, I do care. But there is one thing more important to me at this point:

I have once and for all made my position on this GTO thing clear in English. When next time a Chinese player asks me about this GTO thing, my answer will be a lot simpler and easier: you can read my Chinese posts from past years, or you can read my English post about it and the replies on it to make your own judgement.

Life is good!

Thank you for reading this far. Good luck at the table!

no idea what the point of this post is

do you mean to say that trying to make sense of "GTO" solver outputs is worse than just using your brain and doing the good ol' trial and error approach?

or do you just wish solvers were never made so we could play the same good old poker? we all wish we could just sit and click without any sort of study like back in the day man

I am saying both the GTO theory and its tools are not what they have been claimed as the "right way", the "ultimate way" to play poker.

And human brain are capable of reasoning, not just trial and error.

the "solvers" you mentioned are not real solvers. And even one day the true solver arrives, it won't help a player as much as almost all of you made to believe. I really don't care these solvers were made. I just do not think it is right the players are lead to a fantasyland which will never get what they are promised.

Big lol

I did expect a lot more "lol" in this thread. If you can read my original thread, you will know why.

I think you make some interesting points and anyone who can't be bothered to string together an actual thought does not warrant your response.

I think it's a well-written and interesting post. I would never have guessed English isn't your native language.

Thank you so much for your comment. I really appreciate it!

You made my day Sir! I tried...

Very very interesting post and touches on many different things I've been thinking about when it comes to the GTO craze right now as well. Kind of makes me want to use this post for a video to see what others think and give my feedback on the thoughts.

Yes please! I would love to see the feedback as well.

Thank you Joey!

Rich Zhu

I agree with Joey. Rich writes about things I've thought about for some time. I think he makes a lot of valid points.

There is a lot of nonsense in the OP, let me just correct the most glaring one:

No one claims you are guaranteed to not lose if you play equilibrium strategy in a multiway or non-zero game. I've made this point like a hundred times at least on this forum already as have others. That's the reason main focus of solver authors is on HU games: you can actually solve those!

Here it is:

Equilibrium is a set of strategies (pair in a HU game, more in multiway game) such that no player can improve their EV by altering their strategy alone.

That's it. Your decade long search for truth finally came to end.


Actually every solver author out there defines quite well what kind of "shortcuts" are taken. In HU solvers it's usually just betting abstraction (not every bet size is included in the model). For multiway ones you still need to take heavier shortcuts.
The thing is we can often prove that solutions available today are quite close to the ultimate solution. For some more complicated cases we have tools to give us a lot of confidence those are very close to solutions without abstractions even if we don't have a formal proof yet. It was never the case with Deep Blue, Stockfish or Alpha Zero in chess and no one claims those play to ultimately correct chess. That's the big difference which you again didn't grasp.

The term came about because it was used by back then very popular limit player. I've tried avoiding it and using technical terms instead as have others but sadly the term is so entrenched by now that it's difficult to avoid. You are putting too much weight to it. The story is really simple:

1)Someone smart but not very math aware introduced it
2)He was a successful player and the term caught up
3)By the time people who tried to use technical jargon showed up it was too late and everybody accepted the unfortunate "GTO" term or at least they stopped fighting it.

There really is no malice there. It's just unwillingness to fight meaningless battles over naming.

I appreciate that you feel strongly about the topic but you seem completely clueless about some aspects of it.
I think your main problem is that you mix ranting against claims you don't understand well (what GTO is, what solvers do, how we know equilibrium is a good strategy in many games) with social commentary (many people including coaches are clueless about it, the culture around it etc.). I suggest focusing on things you actually know something about. It's interesting to read stories about "GTO husband" or what not but really off-putting when you claim you spent a decade trying to find a simple definition that can be given in one sentence which was quoted by many on this forum and other places.

All these ppl saying he is making valid points, can you please highlight what parts you are agreeing with/find interesting and or valid?

I wish solvers were never made public or private (although they were inevitable). Yes I think the path poker has taken is very bad for the game overall (once again it was inevitable, could have easily been slowed though with different approaches from players in the beginning with huds/trackers etc)

The parts of his thread that are nonsense are:

Assuming what people assume about what a gto strategy is trying to accomplish, yeah I get it a bunch of people are dumb so they can't tell you anything about something they don't really know anything about, you can say this about anything. That last sentence was just as coherent as your ramblings on what you think the general public thinkk about something.

I see a bunch of false equivocations and assumptions about something you clearly don't know much about. The best players use solvers religiously, the very top of the field (some exceptions). You think all these top pros are just wasting their time instead of printing their winrate? ITT you downplay gto, then say how bad it is for the game then say how it is bad for the game that people are getting into it... uh.. ok.

"Let’s keep poker as a human game. And let’s make poker fun to play again."

Good luck with that.

oh my god! I expected some members misread some part of my post. I did not it was misread to such an extent.



You must have been living in a different world. I now can tell you, a lot of players out there believe they can not lose if they play GTO.

BTW, even for heads up, you can not solve it without some serious shortcuts.


This is YOUR definition, not the formal definition I was talking about. Tell the whole poker world about it. don't tell me.

Is my English really that bad or you are also a nonnative English speaker?



Again, it is not about you. it is about players who use the tools. I am willing to bet 99% the players are not aware of these shortcuts, not to mention the effects on it.

no formal proof yet? you will never have it. you can have all the confidence you like, but I am sorry to tell you, you are deadly wrong here. You really do not know what you are talking about.


Again, you are just talking out of your imagination. The term GTO was out there long before it is known to the poker world. you know, there is a thing called "google"

I do not appreciate your comment as I have to reply your nonsense while I know I am wasting time.

please do not post anything in my thread from now on. Thank you.

aren’t you the guy ‚they‘ call papi gto and the one who is wearing ‚gto is a way of life’ muscle shirts on stream?

you are clearly one of those I was talking about. #brainwashed#

please, just name one, just one, top player use solvers religiously. We can start from there...

This is not "your" thread. That is not the way it works on 2+2. This is, after all, a discussion forum open to all members.

There are a great many people who know a great deal about GTO in poker and they, just like everyone else, are encouraged to join in on the discussion.

Critiques are part and parcel of all discussion forums and your OP will certainly be no exception.

Thank you for the encouragement! I was expecting a lot more rough comments

I come here to discuss poker issue. that guy was obviously trying to use my thread promoting his lousy software by insulting me with absolutely no intention for any discussion.

did you see that before you give me a speech about your forum rule?

Yeah, betting abstractions. You can't include every possible bet size. That's the only shortcut you need to take.
Your English is not bad and I am not a native speaker. This doesn't matter though as you are just dumb on purpose here. Just open Wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nash_equilibrium

and scroll to "definitions" section. It's the very first sentence there.
It really is like debating 2 + 2 = 4. Anyone who isn't dumb on purpose that is someone who does research limited to opening Wikipedia article about the topic before making wild claims about it knows what equilibrium is.
Btw, the reason it says "informally" is that informal language is used. It doesn't mean the definition is not correct or technical or anything like that. It just means it's given in widely understandable language and not in math jargon.

I don't know man. I programmed the most popular public solver out there and you are a guy who spent a decade looking for a one sentence definition given by every textbook and Wikipedia as well. Take a step back and think about it. I know you won't but I am leaving it here so others realize how credible your claims are.

Unlike you I actually feel the consequences of misunderstandings and false information about poker math concepts. I answer tens of emails a day, many including questions/accusations/doubts which result from how "GTO" was described and misunderstood by authors in the past. It's something that directly influences me on day to day basis. One thing I can do to mitigate the situation is to set the record straight when someone makes a thread on the most popular 2p2 subforum claiming nonsense like "we don't really know what GTO is" or "everybody has their own definition" or what not.

Who is dumb on purpose here? I was talking about formal GTO definition, and you give me a NE definition?

Can you read my post again before reply?

RichZ, just to let you know that are arguing with a creator of PioSolver, so he knows what he is saying and you should just study more what GTO or Nash equilibrium is and how you can use solvers to your advantage against any player out there.

This guy is aggressively willfully ignorant. He thinks the misapplication of nomenclature by mass public means what it represents is fake news, because "duh ppl dont even know the exact definition of what they mean!"

Sure maybe most ppl don't know what GTO means, that has nothing to do with the validity of solvers though. HU limit holdem is basically a solved game, the solvers solutions come very close, what is there to deny here?

We get it richz, you don't know what it means and the people you commonly associate with don't either, that is not surprising to me after reading what you've wrote regarding things you have no f idea about.

Here is a good way to understand what you are saying is bollocks.


Top level elite play looked eerily similar to what solvers suggested in many many many spots in some obscure non intuitive ways. This is strikingly clear with 3 bet/4 bet ranges and turn/river leading ranges etc. The solvers confirmed what it took heads up nosebleed players 10+ years to figure out through play etc, kind of like how the chess solvers vindicated certain openings/moves.

I'm not going to name off good players that use solvers for you, it's very clear you would just argue they are not the best and the FeEl PlaYeRs that you know that are CruShInG chinese private games outclass them, because they are not BliNdEd By FanTaSty GtO SoLvEr TheOrY Kabob.

Is a complete amateur brand new poker player or a long time losing player with no real will to actually get better/possibly not smart enough to get better poorly served by suggesting that they use solvers? Yeah probably. Are solvers fake news? Lol no.