Sometimes it’s helpful to read beyond the thread title, though admittedly that takes longer than three seconds.

I like when somebody watches players winning millions of dollars with a style in some hands different from their home game, and they wonder why the high-rollers are playing wrong.

No, GTO is not an inherently defensive (or offensive) strategy. GTO is a strategy against which your opponent can do no better by changing strategies, ergo, your opponent is indifferent to whichever action he could take. This is what we call a nash equilibrium.

If that requires one to be defensive, then sure. If it requires one to be offensive, then sure.

Why don’t you play those events if the players are ‘mediocre’ regs at best?

If they get staked for $1mil events, a good reg should even be able to charge a huge mark-up!

Can you give an example of an opponent being indifferent to our action? He has to respond to our action, so how is he indifferent? Also, any links to articles that could help me learn more is also appreciated!

Apologies my man!

Not to be results oriented, but Einhorn's fund is negative or maybe even for the past 4 years(looking at chart below)...not exactly a bear market either!

And has managed to underperform the S&P 500 by a mere 5000 basis points or so since 2012.

Dreadful...no. But certainly no better than virtually anyone investing in the US Stock Market. Linky: https://www.tipranks.com/hedge-funds/david-einhorn

As for Dan Smith, the limp shove idea is fine, though with AJ you're only going to be a 65/35 favorite against two random cards. The problem I have is giving up half his stack after his strategy backfires, is up against a really tough player and is short stacked. It's the kind of play I see the worst home players make time and time again. How on earth is it good just because a world class player does it? They can't make mistakes and play poorly?

AQ is a push plain and simple. Same part of his brain that bet against Amazon min raised. He’s a genius and an awesome guy though

Villain is indifferent to the action he could take in response to ours. A simple, non-poker example is tic tac toe which involves a pure rather than mixed strategy.

If you play a proper nash equilibrium in tic tac toe, the best your opponent can ever do is draw, he cannot win. In that sense, villain is completely indifferent to the square he puts his X (or O) in, it makes no difference. He cannot exploit you be deviating strategies.

As far as poker goes, Bill Chen's Mathematics of Poker has specific examples for poker mini-games.

A common example is when Player A bets pot on river. For player B to break even on a call he has to call and win a third of the time.
For simplicity of this example let's say player A only has the nuts or a bluff.

For player A to have a strategy that makes player B indifferent, Player A should bet two thirds of the time with the nuts and one third of the time with a bluff.

This is the basic idea in building strategies where you can't be exploited by the other player.

Was kinda hoping op was going to talk about the consistent limping and open limping in Low limits 1-2 and 2-5

Or

The donk leads at 1-2

Or

The general observation that 95% of low limit players will never play back at you w/o the nuts and generally why exploitive folding works at these stakes

Live NL ez-game yuge-sized wide-range iso-raises IP pre and high frequency bet-FOLD post ftw?

Poker by default is an incredibly dynamic game in the sense to maximize EV it depends heavily on your opponent's strategy and how you react to it. At equilibrium, however, there is often a lot of checking involved, though, depending on the situation I doubt it's any less than people would expect. So, without a specific example and dissection aside from a few hands and no context, there can't be much of a discussion.

Jungleman kinda talks about this at 2:12

your homegame opponents probably wont start to overbet the turn on a flush card after seeing you x/r too many flushdraws on flops and they wont shove any two over your SB limp when you only limp AA/KK and thrash

It might be a bad idea to semibluff with a hand like 7-high because you might get called by 7-high.

How much money have you won playing poker?

Watch DNegs' recent vlog where he talks about people criticizing the top pros who play in high rollers.

So, in other words, player A is betting the nuts vs bluffs at precisely the right ratio? Is player B indifferent when he holds the nuts and knows at this particular time player A is definitely bluffing, or is player B's hand not relevant to the general concept, just his overall range?

Is he autistic? I'm being serious. His mannerisms are always so weird every time I see him on tv.
He's better than Dwan though, isn't he? Has either Jungle or Dwan ever kissed a girl?

Yes. It makes it so player B cannot exploit player A regardless of how often he chooses to call or fold.

Most probably more than you.

He’s probably on the spectrum, yes. So what?

And you’re making a fool of yourself, Scooter. Anyone who knows Tom knows he’s done quite well with the opposite sex.

But it’s easy to bash very successful people you don’t know from the anonymous safety of your Mom’s basement, isn’t it?

This is just not true unless every mtt they have ever played is at $10,000 level or $1000 level online. Anyone who can play theoretically sound poker can crush the lower levels