Two Plus Two Publishing LLC
Two Plus Two Publishing LLC
 

Go Back   Two Plus Two Poker Forums > >

Notices

Two Plus Two Magazine Forum Articles and features about poker and gambling in general.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 10-29-2015, 08:36 AM   #51
Samaran11
stranger
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 2
Re: Andrew Brokos on GTO

This was my point exactly. Proving that an action is a "mistake" means showing that it is not the optimal play according to the GTO strategy and that it is not exploiting your opponent enough to risk being exploited back. In other words, unless we know the GTO strategy, it's hard to say for sure what is a mistake and what isn't.
Samaran11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-2015, 12:38 AM   #52
David Sklansky
Administrator
 
David Sklansky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 15,538
Re: Andrew Brokos on GTO

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shandrax View Post
For the record: When I made the statement above, I forgot about the books on NL push/fold-systems. That's also a GTO-based strategy of course.
You also forgot Zadeh.
David Sklansky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-2015, 04:28 PM   #53
LektorAJ
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
LektorAJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: none
Posts: 7,406
Re: Andrew Brokos on GTO

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Sklansky View Post
You also forgot Zadeh.
Thank you, I hadn't heard of him before. I found that you (David) wrote some articles about his work for the twoplustwo strategy magazine last year are they still available online anywhere?

Some of Zadeh's more recent publications also look interesting, but in a different way

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dynasty View Post
As editor of the Magazine, I can say that's not relevant.

As long as you're writing about a topic you know and write the article well, any submission by you would be seriously considered.

I've never had an author focus of very small stakes games like NL10. So, that would be something new.
I'll see what I can come up with then

I'm not a full-time player so I can't really even give a guide on beating NL10. Most of my best received posts so far (e.g. my 1000th on Average Bubble factors and 2000th on Kelly Criterion in MTTSNGs) have been maths ones where the numbers stand objectively on their own merits, rather than ones where I have to say "In my limited experience ..." so I might try something along those lines. A lot of microstakes tournament players have trouble with dividing their bets over the remaining streets (e.g. they bet half pot on the turn then find themselves with 1.4x pot on the river and not sure what to do) so that's something I might look at.

Last edited by LektorAJ; 11-02-2015 at 04:33 PM.
LektorAJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-20-2018, 04:41 AM   #54
Dr_Doctr
old hand
 
Dr_Doctr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,482
Re: Andrew Brokos on GTO

Thread resurrection.

GTO is useful as a baseline for play against unknown opponents you assume to be good. Couple of fatal problems with focusing on GTO as far as I can see -

- if you enter a game against opponents you don't know but assume to be good, you're a lousy game selector.

- if you stay in a game where you can't find an exploitative strategy that works better than GTO because everyone's so good, you're a lousy game selector and some kind of masochist.

- if you're in a game with a bunch of weak players then you of course exploit all their mistakes, not protect against being exploitable.

- if you play low stakes and try to approximate GTO instead of exploitative plays the rake will eat you alive.
Dr_Doctr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-21-2018, 01:20 PM   #55
I_lose
journeyman
 
I_lose's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Black Hills of South Dakota
Posts: 278
Re: Andrew Brokos on GTO

What are their mistakes if not regular deviations from optimal play? So, an understanding of what theoretically correct play is is necessary to exploit mistakes. Or am I missing something?
I_lose is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-23-2018, 01:15 AM   #56
Dr_Doctr
old hand
 
Dr_Doctr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,482
Re: Andrew Brokos on GTO

People knew what mistakes were and how to exploit them long before theory heavy GTO discussions came into vogue.

Studying GTO and playing around with solvers is definitely not useless, but seems to me its utility is rather marginal relative to the hype.
Dr_Doctr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-07-2018, 12:22 PM   #57
ChipsNcrisps
Pooh-Bah
 
ChipsNcrisps's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 4,812
Re: Andrew Brokos on GTO

Quote:
People knew what mistakes were and how to exploit them long before theory heavy GTO discussions came into vogue.
Yes but those 'mistakes' were much bigger back then. Poker is tougher and mistakes are much more difficult to spot and thus exploit well, unless you have a decent idea of what is theoretically sound...

'Im going to 4bet wider v this guy cuz he seems to 3bet a lot' does not cut it anymore
ChipsNcrisps is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-15-2018, 12:56 PM   #58
turtletom
old hand
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 1,677
Re: Andrew Brokos on GTO

How would one go about playing this GTR strategy and does it apply to BJ?
turtletom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-28-2019, 09:23 AM   #59
Shandrax
Pooh-Bah
 
Shandrax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Valuetown
Posts: 4,790
Re: Andrew Brokos on GTO

Since this thread got resurrected...

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Sklansky View Post
You also forgot Zadeh.
True, I also forgot Norman Zadeh, even though I have his book in my library. I also forgot to mention Nesmith Ankeny, who described a GTO-strategy for 5 Card Draw. Unfortunately I couldn't find any reports about practical tests.
Shandrax is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2019, 08:27 AM   #60
3for3poker
adept
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 724
Re: Andrew Brokos on GTO

If anyone is out there, Andrew has published a book on GTO, called Play Optimal Poker.
3for3poker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-02-2019, 06:33 PM   #61
3for3poker
adept
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 724
Re: Andrew Brokos on GTO

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr_Doctr View Post
Thread resurrection.

GTO is useful as a baseline for play against unknown opponents you assume to be good. Couple of fatal problems with focusing on GTO as far as I can see -

- if you enter a game against opponents you don't know but assume to be good, you're a lousy game selector.

- if you stay in a game where you can't find an exploitative strategy that works better than GTO because everyone's so good, you're a lousy game selector and some kind of masochist.

- if you're in a game with a bunch of weak players then you of course exploit all their mistakes, not protect against being exploitable.

- if you play low stakes and try to approximate GTO instead of exploitative plays the rake will eat you alive.
1. Not true. You may know they aren't good, but don't know what mistakes they will make. Imagine playing someone who has literally never played a hand of poker before.

2. You may be in a game like this because you have run deep in a tournament. Staying in the game is probably optimal.

3. See one.
4. It depends on how bad the players are. Also, had bad the rake is. But, once again, if you know your opponents are bad, it is better to start off GTO, then exploit once you see the errors.
3for3poker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-03-2019, 09:58 AM   #62
LektorAJ
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
LektorAJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: none
Posts: 7,406
Re: Andrew Brokos on GTO

1 You don't have to "know". There's a probability space based on human nature - e.g. that people who call on the flop are likely to also call the turn.

2 is a fair point.
LektorAJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-03-2019, 11:53 AM   #63
3for3poker
adept
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 724
Re: Andrew Brokos on GTO

Quote:
Originally Posted by LektorAJ View Post
1 You don't have to "know". There's a probability space based on human nature - e.g. that people who call on the flop are likely to also call the turn.

2 is a fair point.
I agree on 1, we can definitely guess at the kinds of mistakes an unknown, and clearly inexperienced player will make. My example was probably too extreme.

Imagine, however, that some day an ET comes to play poker with us, and has never played poker before. It understands the rules perfectly. We wouldn't have any idea of the kinds of mistakes it makes to start out, therefore, playing GTO would be correct, at least until we figure out its weaknesses.

OK, I realized I just gave an even more extreme example...
3for3poker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-03-2019, 10:15 PM   #64
Foucault
Philosopher of Poker
 
Foucault's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Blogging strategy and book reviews
Posts: 4,678
Re: Andrew Brokos on GTO

Game theory and "playing GTO" are not the same thing. In fact I kind of hate the term "playing GTO" period but I accept that it seems stuck in the poker lexicon. Game theory is a tool for thinking about poker/analyzing situations. Sometimes even when you know what mistakes a player is making, the maximally exploitive strategy is not obvious, and understanding game theory is useful for finding less obvious exploits. It can also be useful for finding mistakes in the first place - if you don't know what equilibrium would look like, you're going to struggle to spot potentially exploitable deviations from it. It's not always as simple as "he calls river too much!".
Foucault is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2019, 10:17 PM   #65
tuccotrading
old hand
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,316
Re: Andrew Brokos on GTO

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shandrax View Post
The "thing" is the indifference criteria. When computing GTO-strategies you are trying to make you opponent indifferent, so it doesn't matter if he bets, calls or folds. In the end you will realize your EV regardless what he does.

The best example is Rock-Paper-Scissors. The GTO-strategy is simply to randomize your decision. It doesn't matter if your opponent starts with scissors or comes up with the most sophisticated move-order possible, he will always have an expectation to win exactly 50% and so do you. By making sure you won't lose more than half of the time, you also made sure that you won't be winning more than half of the tims. Notice, it is not a freeroll where you win at least 50% of the time. You win exactly 50% of the time, not more and not less.

The difference between Rock-Paper-Scissors and Poker is that in Poker players act after each other. One player has more information than the other. This positional advantage translates into positive EV. The positional disadvantage obviously translates into negative EV. So what exactly is the correct strategy for Poker? Well, the correct strategy for the player with negative EV is not to play at all.

So there you have it: Poker shouldn't be played at all! From a GTO-standpoint playing Rock-Paper-Scissors is just a complete waste of time, playing Poker is actually a stupid idea for the guy in the BB. Now I am sure that neither you nor Pokerstars love to read this, but it's true.

Now here is something about your argument that GTO wins money against a guy who folds almost everything. My feeling is that this is already accounted for because of the indifference criteria. To get the full picture we need to analyze the mirror situation. What is the opposite of folding almost everything? Betting almost everything or pushing all-in with almost everything? We know from the Sklansky-Chubukov-Rankings that depending on the stacksize, pushing all-in can actually be a winning strategy, so even defending GTO will actually lose money against it. How about that?

So we found a situation where playing GTO is guaranteed to win something and we found a situation where playing GTO is guaranteed to lose something. What does it tell us? It tells us that we can prove anything if we just construct the model in the way that it supports the argument we want to make.

Btw, my argument has a practical safety net: Even if I am wrong, it doesn't matter since the GTO-approximation for LHE is about 8 TB in size. That's basically a full public library of data and since Rainman is dead, nobody on Earth is capable of memorizing it.


Not All Games In This World To Wich GTO Can Be Applied Are Alike.


GTO breaks even (guarantees 0 EV) in some games or situations.

GTO is plus EV against non-GTO play in other games or situations.


GTO flat loses bigtime in other games or situations, like when military science fellows try to apply it to the inferior side in asymmetrical war game situations-- sometimes finding the actions that lose the least is the best we can do.

Last edited by tuccotrading; 11-20-2019 at 10:41 PM.
tuccotrading is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2019, 10:49 PM   #66
tuccotrading
old hand
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,316
Re: Andrew Brokos on GTO

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shandrax View Post
Since this thread got resurrected...



True, I also forgot Norman Zadeh, even though I have his book in my library. I also forgot to mention Nesmith Ankeny, who described a GTO-strategy for 5 Card Draw. Unfortunately I couldn't find any reports about practical tests.
Zadeh's 1974 book is of great historic interest and was way, way ahead of it's time.

A number of players successfully employeed his lowball and draw system, with a few modifications, including myself in lowball.

With draw and lowball, Zadeh provided tables with:

Uninformed Strategies
Informed strategies

The body of the book and the appendix were rich sources of poker theory that others built on but rarely credited.

Last edited by tuccotrading; 11-20-2019 at 11:00 PM.
tuccotrading is offline   Reply With Quote

Reply
      

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:02 AM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2008-2017, Two Plus Two Interactive
 
 
Poker Players - Streaming Live Online