This literally made me lol. Reminds me of religionists saying the bible is true and god exists because it says so in the bible lol.

Can't you use a solver for fishier games by adjusting the range inputs for our opponents and nodelocking them to be more passive?

Yes.

A solver takes the inputs and creates a nash equilibrium for both players. Changing (nodelocking) one ore more settings still does this, it's just that whatever node(s) you've changed are now locked and the equilibrium is reached without allowing changes over whatever nodes you've locked. The definition of a nash equilibrium is that both players attempt to maximize EV until it reaches a point where there is an equilibrium and neither player is incentivized to deviate. This assumes both players have omnipotence and perfect vision over both strategies.

Perfect GTO beats everyone and produces profits against anyone playing non-perfect GTO (every human that will ever exist). However, selective exploits against these player non-GTO leaks will, in general, be even more profitable. Breakeven would only happen in a perfect GTO vs perfect GTO environment which is impossible without a perfect bot or some sort of RTA.

No, it's not.

oh wow. you know not to call with bluffcatchers on the river vs an underbluffing opponent. jesus no one is using a solver to figure out a bluff catcher is no good call vs opponent who does not bluff. just because you figure our the easiest most obvious exploit possible without a solver, does not mean you know all the exploits or can spot the less obvious ones. but how to you determain underbluffing? at what point is your opponent actually bluffing enough? how wide does your opponent has to 2nd barrel turn with draws, random barrels ?

@off topic

why am i in a f***** sovler vs non solver debate again?

Because the "non-solver" people never realize they are constantly arguing against a straw man of their own creation.

....Or because they haven't played against world class players before.

Both things can be true though. Solver work can be important and vital to expanding your knowledge of poker, and understanding how to adjust from solver play to exploit your opponents correctly is also a skill. I've seen, and coached players who mainly only focus on solver work only, and they miss tons of easy exploits, even though in theory they'd be correct with their play against more knowledgeable opponents.

I'll give you a real world current example. I bet if we ask DDP how his adjustment to live play is coming along, he'll have a long list of adjustments he's had to make because playing GTO poker at those tables wouldn't allow him to exploit all the mistakes his opponents are making quite as well. And they aren't adjusting enough to him, so there's no need to balance his ranges quite as much, except maybe against a few of the regs.

But his knowledge of GTO provided him an important skill set and understanding he can apply as needed.

It is interesting how people build their skill sets in poker.

I think a lot of good live pros have strong exploitative skills because that skill set was more incentivized to be stronger than an optimal one.

And then players with more of an online background - first build their GTO skill set with strong preflop/flop play. Because that is the fastest way to not lose all your money, especially in fast fold games.

I am now just learning how to find exploits that I can add to my baseline game. Because of how much population does something or doesn't do something.

It does feel like learning poker all over again in some sense - since I am thinking about it in a new way. Before I would just look at the solver solution and then be happy with my play if I duplicated the output. And in some cases that is completely fine.

But there are also situations where we should be making mass deviations as a default - because of population analysis or HUD stats of a certain player.

Always something to learn with this game.

Hence, the study of gto. You exploit the opponents mistakes. If both or 3 players are not playing equilibrium, then we get the goods(as in my last several sessions). Not everyone is playing optimum, use that, and any coaching you have received, profit.

The existence of a solver doesn't mean people use RTA. The solver is there for studying, and studying theory in any field is difficult and requires a lot of work to really understand it.

Only hard work and dedication makes you better than others. The existence of advanced tools is irrelevant, unless it's RTA. There is excellent free content for every field on the internet, but that doesn't mean everyone automatically vacuums that knowledge.

I think this gives a good description of the reality of GTO play, both its advantages and where not to follow it religiously.

give a solver to every micros player and i guarantee 90% will still play like absolute ass

Is it because the solver assumes your opponent is also adept and capable of making big plays/folding big hands, which isn't true at the micros?

Solvers don't "assume" anything about anybody. They just use an iterative algorithm to find the highest EV line that is also unexploitable based on the ranges, stack, and bet/raise sizings that you input.

no it's because you can't just read a solver and play well, most people who think their strategy is solver based are just deluded

because people

ya, poker is quite complex game and ppl at micros have low IQ or just don't care.

Or both.

Or they play as a fun hobby. 'low iq' is a ridiculous things to say.

I think micro stakes are far more destroyed now than people are giving credit to.

Solvers are used by a good swath of players at fast fold 50 nl and winrates there have been massively hit over the last 5 years. - Mind that the big blind is still just 50 ****ing cents for that game. Nobody is going to make any worthwhile money at 50nl or below that's worth more than the lessons learned. Mass tabling 50nl circa 2011 could have been worth it but solvers did play a part in ruining that. Playing any game with a 2-3bb/100 winrate just isn't worth the underestimated variance especially at microstakes.

Also, just because those using solvers may not know what the **** they are doing doesn't mean certain things doesn't change as a result. All players pick up on for example, the 1/3 bet sizing which wasn't used as much in the past. Folks may not particularly understand much about the 1/3 but it doesn't help that they change their default bet sizing to that simply because the see others doing it.

3bb/100 at 50nl zoom is around $15/hr pre rakeback. That's for sure worthwile to some people.

For what it's worth, I don't think that it's any more difficult for beginners to beat the games today compared to 5-10 years ago.
Poker isn't dying. The players that aren't keeping up with the times are.

when i say ppl at micros just don't care i mean this.

why?

Is there anyone in the world beating ACR 50nl Blitz for 3bb's over a large sample? I'd imagine more players are using solvers/rta there than anywhere else. How many where beating it for 3bb's 5-10 years ago?

Nobody will be crushing solvers in the future and the best "perfect player's" winrate will only continue to shrink as more time goes by. So yes poker absolutely dying. The question is how long will it take.

I know many people beating 50 blitz for 4bb+ over massive samples. People are winning 5bb at 200 blitz even. In my database there is an average of 1.2 fish per table at 50z. Stop crying. Poker is alive