Impossible.

The word optimal suggests maxEV strategy. Maybe I am clueless as to teh definitions being used though.

I try and play GTO when masstabling rush. I play GTO when playing against donks. However against other solid players the variables change as does what is considered optimal. If I am taking a shot against more optimal players theory wise then I play less tables to increase my meta edge.

If GTO does not include meta implication in its application then the word optimal is a lie. It would be Game theory neutral. Neutral does not = optimal

lol. 'Everyone is solid' yet there are still people crushing in these heavy meta games such as nlhe and plo by not playing by the book.

OK well heads up is a much more meta influenced game than 6ring+. If you did play GTO in LHE then ompponents would only be able to pull a very small amount of blinds. Which is why you do not play GTO but play paper rock scissors rather than playing each choice equally relative to frequency.


: /

What is the problem exactly? Metaphorically speaking The problem is x+b=5 which is unsolvable and has an infinite range of solutions.

K, confirmed idiot. Added to ignore list.

Next?

Edit: Written in reply to posts 25-28.

Definitely not. There is no GTO strategy that involves playing your entire range the same way.

well that was productive.

I think a good start for the question at hand would be to classify hands in groups based on their equity.

- Monster hands that are way ahead of almost everything in the opponent's range (top full house or the nut flush for example)
- Strong made hands that range from way ahead to slightly ahead, but are never way behind (top set on drawy boards, etc.)
- Strong made hands that can range from way ahead to way behind (over pairs, middle sets, etc.)
- Hands that are rarely way ahead but also never way behind (big combo draws, etc.)
- Hands that range from slightly ahead to way behind
- Hands that have some value but are usually behind when they get action
- Airball hands

Analyzing the number of hands of each of these categories in your own range and your opponent's range, you can begin to construct a viable postflop strategy.

Something like this, yes. This is the crux of the matter. You'd need the width of most of these individual ranges to be able to come up with appropriate bluffing ranges etc. It seems just about impossible to do that (other than doing it mathematically, i.e. comming up with all permutations of hands etc.).

For LHE, there is FlopZilla (or similar programs) but for PLO, something like this doesn't seem to exist. And PPT is just a very mediocre substitute...

One other point is that you'd need to think really hard about multiple-street scenarios. In LHE, that is fairly easy. If you start bluff-catching with your K6 on A72, then turning a 6 or a K will not change the fact that you're continuing bluffcatching, just with more confidence. In PLO, that's a lot different. Bluffcatching down with A4** on T94A7r is thin but potentially fine, while it's utter suicide on T94A7 3flush. Etc.

can you please stop embarrassing yourself? how do you play in the very first hand of the match not knowing anything? it should be possible for you to answer that question even if you know nothing about game theory which is obviously the case.

This is so wrong.

In small stakes PLO, I don't think we need to be GTO and balance everything perfectly and bluff-raise, c/c, c/r, b/f, b/c x% of the time on certain board textures. I think being unpredictable enough by occasionally doing something different, and then adjusting as you see opportunities to rep certain hands/bluffs but you feel you can't based on how you play and how you are likely to be perceived will suffice. For example, on the K55r board as in OP, you are in the BB and feel like you want to bluff-raise a CO cbet, but you know that you aren't c/ring hands like 4567 on that particular board for value enough, or you almost always slowplay KK**, then you might want to adjust the way you play those hands so that you can bluff-raise more.

i d actually expect them to play relatively close to the gto solution against good opposition unless they picked up tells. i also have never stated that poker was only about game theory and optimal play, i think knowing how it looks like can be very helpful though.

Mt.FishNoob

Try to think of GTO as a bot and maybe you will understand.
The bot has no emotion, no understanding of metagame or history between players. And no knowledge of who he is playing against.

He is designed to be able to beat(not lose to) EVERY SINGLE OPPONENT.

His strategy is created in a way that, to give an easy example, a maniac would be playing too loose to beat, and a nit would be too tight to beat him.
In every single situation his strategy would be a perfect combination of bluffs and valuebets etc that makes it impossible to exploit him. If you are calling/folding/raising/checking/betting too often, you lose. The only way to beat him is to have an opposing strategy that does the same, and in that case nobody would have an edge.

Game Theory Optimal does not mean it is optimal in practice. It is, as the name suggests, optimal in theory. Because no variables can ever make what he does bad.

In practice it is well known that there are more optimal strategies than GTO, but it gets more and more optimal to play GTO, the closer a game is to being solved. With PLO, we have a long way to go before that happens.

yeah, first i d try to sort the hands in terms of quality (i m aware there will be some linearity issues, but not so much on this board). for a rough estimation we dont have to make too many hand classes here. the first thing to estimate would be the amount (in percent) of trips or better hands in either players range. second class would be hands with a king in it and AA**. in the third class we bunch in all other hands. if the classes prove to rough we can add more, like King with ace kicker or sth like that.
once we have classified the hands, we can deduce betting strategies. usually this will look like betting the top of our range, checking the middle and betting the bottom.