@DonJuan why are you talking about the specifics of a program but not mentioning what program that is?

I can believe that flatting QQ is correct but for the program you described it sounds super dependent on your inputs.

Why didn’t we 3-bet pre? Big mistake.

Notice that if we 3-bet pre, a donk turn bet repping the A increases fold equity from villains a great deal.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

How in the world does this matter when we have QQ? Are we trying to get villain to fold KK?

I like when donJuan is cute in threads.

agreed, I don't care that others are fixated on it though

What % of your actions do you think are exploitive or gto, respectively?

I would think that most decent players will have very lopsided frequencies here heavily weighted towards gto.

I also think the best players are those that know almost exactly where the margin is, which in turn makes them better at exploiting.

I possibly should not have commented because admittedly I play very little limit hold'em. And some of that is actually because the tone of these threads makes it seem like the state of the games is such that even in a limit as low as $20/$40 that we must play like a computer or we get creamed. Given that assumption basically anything else running in the room would be more worth my time.

But it just so happens I've played a decent amount the past few weekends waiting for other games and decided to stay because it was a nice change of pace and the play was truly horrific. But monidig's comment made it seem it he had same views and my impression was not an anomaly.

So most of it I was just trying to play soundly fundamental wise, exploit where I could, and then if there happened to be a player that might be decent, change my strategy against them. But their view of me is probably skewed as they are observing how I'm playing against everyone else.

And if we are in a thread talking about a live $20/$40 it is probably not helpful to discuss considerations mostly relevant if it was $200/$400 live or $30/$60 online without first given a disclaimer of sorts.

Regarding preflop I 3bet QQ because we have a great hand and I get value from two players. And in 3 way pots cbet % goes way down.

When heads-up I just call because the cbet % from one guy is very high and it protects my entire range.

Whichever strategy you changed to, seems to me this should be your default strategy, then you will be at liberty to exploit on the margins.

If instead you use an exploitive strategy from the start, then it sets the leveling war in motion as soon as they see your cards. Not that it's a bad thing, but it's definitely a gambit of sorts with an unclear payoff.

I think people fundamentally misunderstand what it means when you study equilibrium solutions to poker. Just because you have an understanding of game theory does not mean that you have to play as though every opponent is the nemesis. Studying optimal solutions, however, and the strategic response to them, allows you to diagnose and respond more effectively to opponents who veer from optimal, whether that divergence is minor or drastic.

This is true, but I don't think preflop is a good spot to exploit unknowns.

Nothing here I disagree with, however working within the limitations of a 24 hour/ 7 day week I just don't have the time to study lhe optimal strategies. Summer is coming up in 4 months and have to work on drinking tolerance and the abs and all of that good stuff.

But from what I observed in the 20/40 the mistakes are so drastic and maybe 80% of the pots were four or more players can't imagine too much is being left on the table.

Nothing here I disagree with.

But I adjust mainly by not playing as many pots with the players that know what they are doing. Tighten up all of my standards whether it is raising, re-rasing, or defending the blinds. They will then probably have a skewed representation of my range (it will be stronger) and operating from more strength my decisions will be more easier.

Playing GTO is not feasible for me and my hats off to the players that attempt to do so. I would be chopped liver in higher stakes versus good players. I'm currently studying it for limit 2-7 TD in various situations. Much easier in that game though as you don't have to deal with the variability of different boards.

https://imgur.com/a/mQjHC

The last sentence is key to play most +ev as possible imo and should prob be common sense. I think because so many people misuse/overuse/misunderstand, "GTO", it has oddly gained negative connotation as a poker term.

Well it can have negative consequences because for example I believe many players make bad calls when a certain player is never bluffing just so they are not exploited in their minds. That and other bad plays is what I consider to be misuse of the concept which loses money.

That fact along with the fact that this discussion is residing in a 20/40 thread where the play is usually horrific. Yeah sure knowledge of gto might help you better identify and find opportunities to exploit but it can’t be much (right plays are painfully obvious in most spots) and if misused like in example above you will overall lose money.

So back to the hand, we aren’t 3 betting this pre for some GTO reason?

Think we have around 50% equity three ways

Thanks for this. Saved to keep as record should I be interested in buying in future.

If a play is part of the gto solution, then it will never show a loss of value. For example vs a player that never bluffs like you said, you may think those calls are -ev, but that's not considering all the free showdowns we win nor the loss of bluffing value that more than compensates for the seemingly -ev calls.

Not trying to be sarcastic but our goal is to become a pay station so guys stop trying to bluff us?

No. I mean that your post implied that you thought certain calls that are a part of the gto solution, are unprofitable vs players that don't bluff enough to make calling profitable. I was just pointing out that the ev is overcompensated for by the free showdowns.

I call this effect the law of conservation of ev.

But we earned these showdowns by being a paystation right?

And I’m talking about games with bad unaware players. So by definition most of the time they are playing their hands the same way in the same manner regardless of whether you donated before so I surmise for the most part you will see the same amount of showdowns you would have seen otherwise.

Vs these players you mentioned:

Something doesn't add up. You're going to get tons of extra free showdowns vs players that never bluff.

Never bluffing in a certain spot is the context

Which increases checking frequency.