My thinking is that microstakes players are bad. Like, really bad. Even the "good" regs are bad. Sure we can aim to play as close to GTO as we can and we'll make money, but given that there are certain exploitable tendencies that are present in the vast majority of your opponents, I can see an argument for defaulting to a slight deviation from GTO against an unknown microstakes player until you're given enough info to do otherwise.
Some ideas off the top of my head:
- Your average microstakes opponent is bad at folding. So we bet more with our value hands than solver says, and bluff less.
- Your average microstakes opponent is too passive. So we fold more bluff catchers than solver says (when when facing aggression), and try & induce less with our value hands.
- Your average microstakes opponent doesn't like folding preflop. So we adjust by playing more hands preflop, especially when in position.
- Your average microstakes opponent 3bets preflop way too little. So to adjust we call 3bets & 4bet less often than solver says
- Your average microstakes opponent calls 3bets pre too much, even out of position. So we reduce our light 3betting range and increase our value 3betting range.
Just wondering if this is a thing any players actively do? Like, sit down at a 10nl table and already have some idea of the ways in which they'll deviate from a perfect GTO strat. Obviously if an opponent gives you reason to think that they're competent and might even be capable of exploiting your deviations from GTO, you would tone it down vs them and play as close to GTO as you can.