More like GT spot, amirite guys? Guys?

There is a big difference between understanding what GTO is and how to play GTO

BS! stock?

So can we agree that no one should use GTO in a post again unless they can verify that they know what they are talking about?

That would be great, then generally smart people like xerok wouldn't embarrass themselves not knowing the definition to things that have only a tiny bit to do with poker ('gto' is something an economics professor understands a lot better than a poker pro it seems). Everything gaming_mouse has said is so fact-based that to disagree with him in any way just shows a lack of understanding of the subject, he hardly gave any opinion at all aside from noting that it sure would be nice if you understood a GTO solution to 3+ handed LHE.

How so?

I think most of the voices in this conversation don't really disagree with each other. Like, the 'playing perfectly' that gaming_mouse talks about will produce the kinds of incorrect range estimates & subsequent big mistakes that Ron talks about.

playing GTO at 3/6 (no zeros) would probably lose money.

in 3-player lhe, there could be multiple equilibria right? So what does gto mean there?

yes in a game with such monstrous relative rake you are right.

and yes, 3p has multiple equilibria, some of which amount to two of the players colluding (strategically, not by sharing card info) against the third. in a practical sense, thinking about GTO is primarily relevant to heads up situations, either HUHU or ring situations that become HU like BTN vs a blind or blind vs blind, etc.

reference?

good question. sorry i can't answer for sure. i _think_ it's discussed in MoP somewhere. i've read lots of the publications from the UofA guys too -- it's probably discussed in one of those. i also know the first time i heard about it was in person when I met Marc, one of the authors of Sonia.

yeah it's in the last chapter of MOP. They barely scratch the surface of the topic though.

what i do know about gto is that if you know in a spot your opponents range is 99% going to call you will bluff anyway. most players will get be attached to the money that they are torching in these spots and deviate back to exploitative. its best for hu which is why they talk about it most there. since its very hard to play gto fr live players should just focus on getting better at what they know.

Although I agree with what gaming mouse has said, I have a lot of sympathy for this sentiment as well.

xerok and I are posting for the same area and yet are carrying 2 completely different conversations.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/u-coul...094000585.html

Anyone know someone in North Korea? Easiest way to get rich imo.

I think one of the problems when discussing a GTO strategy is that the word "optimal" has a very precise defnintion in the context of game theory but a more general meaning (basically a synonym for best) in casual discourse.

When some people discussing the topic are using one definition and others are using a different one, naturally, it leads to confusion.

I mean, I think there's a lot of talk in this forum / amongst working LHE pros trying to stay on the edge of recent theory where they overemphasize metagame considerations and 'not being exploitable' in order to give themselves an excuse to just not have to make a good, correct fold.

That hand in Newall's book where he tries to justify calling down from like a 3bet/4bet on the turn with bottom two on a bad board because it would be bad for dataminers to see him let his WTSD% get too low, or whatever, still kind of blows me away. Like that's mostly a great book that says a lot of great things but yeah, c'mon dude. I thought you didn't like making clear EV mistakes just for the sake of meta-strategy.

People should be learning new stuff though - doing original research, exposing themselves to the research of others, concocting new strategies, etc. And people need to think way less in terms of memorizing rote rules just to make the game easier to play mechanically.

For example, flatting OOP 100% is a strong strategy with a lot of things going for it, but I vary my BB defense strategies based on who the opener is and what their range is and what their strategies are and etc. and end up threebetting with >0% of my range in certain HU situations.

Sticking to good, simplified rules of thumb is a lot more useful in big-volume online play. They're good as a foundation anywhere, of course, but this is FR live LHE. You're vpiping 6-10 hands an hour. There's no excuse not to think hard and try to play your ass off every hand. Savor the hunt.

the point here would be that your opponent, if he too were GTO, would not call 99%. so if he is, now you know that he is making a mistake and can decide to exploit him by not bluffing the GTO percentage. in any case, you are not torching money even if you decide to keep bluffing the GTO percentage. you are forgoing additional profit that exploitive play could give you.

If 2 players are both playing GTO, then who has the edge?

GM

Made me think of this:

You're not so great at this, dude. 'This' may well include things like 'reading' and 'thinking before you speak.'

Like, I'm sure you're really smart and a good player and etc. but you've got a pretty massive ego problem that's both really annoying and clearly just sort of melts your mind whenever it turns into a present factor. At least you're not the only one.

this could be said about any subject ever

plus this is the internet