Quote:
Originally Posted by alkaatch
Thanks, I would like to know this: if we assume that our opponent shouldnt be able to profitably bet his whole range, we can estimate our minimal defending range. What about spots, where we think he actually might be able to bet his whole range - how do we guess on the size of our defending/continuing range (what theorems from game theory are we using might be the real question)?
A spot where someone can probably profitably bet any two cards is BTN vs BB on the flop where button has position and the much stronger range (especially if button min-raised) or post-flop spots where someone gives up initiative (so a player bets flop then checks turn OOP). There's some work you can do to see if you're defending too much or too little, but honestly it's probably worse than just guessing and learning through trial and error. Kind of like how pre-flop opening ranges are more or less learned through mostly trial and error and a little bit of theory.
Quote:
Originally Posted by alkaatch
Regarding the off-equilibrium path question: I am not worried about calling 100bb shoves with aces or playing nuts on the river, these were just extreme examples. What I am trying to understand is this: if we are trying to apply GTO concepts on the flop lets say, are we assuming that we got to that flop through a GTO path? Becasuse if the concrete spot isnt really on the GTO path, we might be trapped in trying to guess a GTO response while the GTO response is really any play we make. Or do we treat the flop as a seperate game, where players are seeing flop with some fixed ranges and starting pot? Maybe with the idea of comparing value of such game to the price it costs each player to get to such spot?
I'm having trouble understanding what you're getting at here so this might not answer your question.
If you try to play GTO at micro or small stakes where people take many bad lines (and realistically you won't play close to GTO, just play solid and closer to GTO than your opponents) you'll still win money even if you end up making mistakes against their bad ranges sometimes.
I play on anonymous 6-max tables or HU tables when I do play. I pretty much play against most players like how I'd play against me until they give me a reason not to. I have no doubt I am constantly 3-betting too aggressively vs some players or calling 3-bets too wide since I don't know their ranges, but if I just play as solid as I can I'll still beat them (hopefully by a lot) as they will end up making mistakes against my ranges which are designed to beat good opponents.
So I guess what I'm saying is if I open button and some anonymous SB 3-bets me, I don't think "Hmmmmm, is my opponent 3-betting a linear range here, a polarized range, or perhaps is he a fish who only 3-bets for value?" I just know what my default 3-bet calling ranges are and more or less use them and then on the flop I'll try to play on the flop how I would against a good player, which more or less results in me assuming my opponent is using a linear SB 3-betting range and often being pleasantly surprised when he is not.