Quote:
Originally Posted by IIlllIlIllIIlIlllI
I really like this line of thinking. I love your analysis cause it always follows this rule. So far every comment I've seen from you is just that, simple, logical, and relatively straight forward.
I'll also add that the few times I've played against the solution in GTO+, I'll often find myself dealing with 'analysis paralysis', where I start overthinking everything and feel like every option kinda makes sense, and I have no idea what to do. 9 times out of 10, it's the simple option that I initially thought, that just makes sense logically. Particularly with folds, but bluffing too. "No way I can can just check fold this right? That's too exploitable", and then I look and its just a clear fold.
BTW, can you expand a little on "Solver based thinking has the pre-requisite of every play you make being the best in a vaccuum"? Meaning, if you take the highest EV line with any given combo, your play will naturally align itself with GTO, despite not necessarily knowing how to play every combo in your range at the time? Although, isn't knowing how to play every combo in your range sort of a prerequisite for knowing what the highest EV line is? So its kind of a catch 22
The relationship between exploitation and GTO is fairly circular yeah
But when you bring it to real life, it becomes straight forward, if you choose to approach it that way.
Every line a solver takes is the highest EV possible, it just so happens that a GTO opponent will force multiple lines to be the highest EV
possible. There are logical reasons you could find by looking at ranges, equities and lines on future streets to justify every line the solver takes very plainly, in exploitative terms.
For example:
If GTO mixes tpgk between overbet and check (both overbetting and checking are the best EV possible) on a certain 2 barrel spot on the turn.
There will be logical exploitative reasons within the sim for why betting is the best EV, say a big chunk of hands that are worse than ours calls that would fold river if we checked turn and bet river, and some hands we fold out have a fair bit of equity against us, along with some runouts allowing us to pick up two pair or trips and go for a third barrel.
There will be logical exploitative reasons within the sim for why checking is the best EV too, for example, we would make a lot of low equity hands fold by betting, that if we checked, would bluff river, and that way we would extract more value from them.
In this sense GTO has the prerequisite that all of the lines that are mixing have logical and simple reasons for why they're the best.
If you don't know the reasons and you mix blindly in real life, you are bound to take the second best line at some frequency, while if you understand the exploitative, logical reasons for both lines, you will be able to choose the best line against your particular opponent, particular pool, or particular way in which you think humans play.
EDIT: To add a conclussion to this. You should only mix when your opponent is so good that he doesn't allow one of your lines to be the clear best
EDIT2: To answer to the last part of your comment. Basic, human, exploitative logic already has your own range taken into account, in a fuzzy way (arguably you only need this fuzzy sense of your range), because exploiting your opponent is based on how he plays, and how he plays is based on what he percieves your range to be
Last edited by aner0; 04-15-2021 at 11:24 PM.