i actually think maybe gto can be > than gto+mes in some cases. say it's someone that you play with a lot and that isn't completely stuck in his ways. shouldn't ANY amount of exploitation always nudge someone closer to correct frequencies at a faster rate?
like gto just keeps them there longer and you don't have to do a **** ton more work to do it correctly. also, you can screw it up and half of the time, your over-adjusting to some degree, moving them closer to correct while costing yourself money in short term and long term.
i've noticed on many occasions playing hu with a complete fish, and over the course of the night see their play drastically improve.

Sry to break it to you but that stand for Max exploitative strategy by the creator of pio solver. But I understand your ideas however my thinking is since flop and game tree are already massive it not as helpful to do node setting. River is where I would recommend doing some lock setting

I feel kind of bad now that I broken your dream https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/s...postcount=3776 . I think your idea of min. exploitative comes from one of the gto creator for simpepostflop where he talk about making slight adjustment. I taught it was very good at the time and so when pio solver first came out I did a bunch of lock setting to 90% cbet and get the reajustment. However I now came to an conclusion that I was missing two key ingredient that make my adjustment sub optimal

Not sure why I thought node lock only worked in nl hands but glad I learned something new.

He bets some more high hands on the turn he would be calling on the river with if he had checked the turn (IP)? Roping some Qx starts to look less good.

sorry, that's correct! in the pio accuracy it references max, not min. however, this doesn't change anything

+1 to nodelocking mostly being useful on turn/river. I generally stick to fundamentals pre + flop in LHE as well. NLHE all spots are more MES driven

There's an extremely wide array of variables that drive the adjustment, not just solver data.

In my opinion, anyone dedicating the time to this type of development and knowledge is punting a huge opportunity cost of application to games where it's 3-10x more profitable. The ability to get into adjustments and all this knowledge is vastly more useful in big bet games. Honestly, to all the LHE solver guys --- you should be playing NL/PLO if you're trying to maximize your ROI on study.

thanks for the discussion guys. i learned quite some stuff today. just gotta put in the work to solidify my understanding a tad more.

i have a question with what min and max exploit strat exactly means... i'm not familiar with game theory and never really looked into this stuff so i wanna make sure i get it...

let's assume an extreme hypothetical situation where
- there's 4 BB on the river between IP and OOP,
- IP is polarized between bluffs and values,
- OOP has only bluffcatchers and therefore checked, and
- both OOP and IP are aware of each other's ranges

IP bets offering 5:1 to OOP.

NE dictates
- IP should have 1 bluff for every 5 value to make OOP indifferent with his bluffcatchers, and
- OOP should call 80% of his bluffcatchers to make IP indifferent with his bluffs.

Now let's assume OOP is kinda certain IP only has 1 bluff for every 8 values at this exact point in time. Because of this I'm assuming

- max exploit strat is to fold ALL bluffcatchers. this is only good if IP's strategy is static. however that is never the case since most villains are dynamic in their strategy and will counter-adjust.
- min exploit strat is somewhere in between NE and max exploit strat? that term kinda does and doesn't make sense... can someone clarify? at game speed i would take an in between route and just fold more bluffcatchers, but not ALL bluffcatchers even tho folding all bluffcatchers is the most profitable line at that point in time (this is because i'm not always certain in my assessment of villain's bluff to value ratio and i'm unsure whether or not villain is going to counter-adjust over time, aka meta)

i'm assuming MES in pio is max exploit strat, which i think means NE after certain non-GTO play. i haven't ran this yet but i'd assume after nodelocking the river for IP, pio would tell OOP to fold all bluffcatchers given IP has 1 bluff for every 8 value in this hypothetical.

Just stick with grabbing solvers and look at graphs/EV solutions. I never really understand all this toy game or hypothetical situations. Also you are dealing with human which aren't static. Kind of like how Warren Buffett destroy the Efficient Market Hypothesis (EMH) in stock market. It been more than a year since I actually try to count the pot size while playing. How many of the world class player do you know that are actually Stats. guys. Also I was awful poker player when I actually believe that alpha 1 defense crap. Make you play super robotic in a static way call or fold depending on pot odds

Surely not as important as understanding the general concepts, but think the math is off a bit -- OOP is supposed to call with 5/6 of range here, not 4/5. (I think.)

4 BB pot,

IP is risking 1 BB to win 4 BB. It only has to work 20% of the time.

from IP's POV:
(20% x 4) - (80% x 1) = 0

Thus OOP needs to defend 80% to prevent IP from auto profiting from betting all his bluffs

i agree these toy problems are impractical and unpossible. they are far from acutal poker which is a billion times more complex with a ton more varaibles and considerations. a completely different approach to learning is necessary to improve (grinding pio as u suggested is way superior to studying toy problems). maybe learning these toy problems will even hinder one's own judgement on river decisions.

but im just trying to understand these human made strategic terms given to some concepts that i kinda understand. i can analyze and learn about these concepts in a vacuum without the influence of the other complex varaibles through simple toy problems.

i'm not as advanced in my understanding as many. even if u think ur not either, u probably intuitively understand better than all but the 3 or so names u named u wouldn't play huhu. it sucks (as a mortal, not as a LHE God) to dive right into complex stuff and not understand the simple building blocks. But maybe ur right... an agile approach is better and fix as you go.

I believe your hypothetical situation are using 1-Alpha which is what i meant when I said toy game example are bad for games like poker.
https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/s...postcount=3954

requote from owner of pio solver. "This is incorrect. I've ranted about 1-alpha nonsense many times so let me summarize the argument:

1)Exploiting is winning more EV than one can get assuming both players play optimally
2)In some spots you get less EV than half the pot, for example if you are OOP, have weaker range or in a line where flop/turn/river cards are not favorable (for example a high card on the turn is in general favorable for the c-bettor).

From 1) and 2) follows that sometimes folding a lot is a good strategy, it's better to get 0 than negative EV.

We don't. There is no reason why defending less shouldn't be optimal. 1-alpha rule doesn't apply to Holdem. There is no theoretical argument for it to exist. I don't know why a lot of teaching material uses it. It stems from misunderstanding of poker math. 1-a rule works in some very simplified toy games where the following conditions hold true:

1)equal ranges from 0...1
2)only one round of betting
3)no draws, community cards etc.

This has nothing to do with real poker.
"

For example general relativity is consider one of einstein greatest theory then comes a long quantum gravity that makes that theory imperfect and then now people are saying there no time-space only wave function when describing reality. We can describe why all this happen due to entropy billion and billion of years ago during the big bang https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x26a-ztpQs8&t=1304s

Stop worrying about bad theory so you have more time like me to wonder about life

Actually thinking about the 1-Alpha make me pissed I lost so much money trying to be a "GTO" player back in the day and would get destroy by "exploitative" player now it proven that I was just bad at understanding poker math. Moral of the story don't listen to the guys that tell you they are GTO player

I agree.

But why not do both: study Llimit and big bet. Exploiting dbarrellers applies to big bet and limit games. FLO8 in particular is vastly underexplored.