Quote:
Originally Posted by TripleBerryJam
Can't find the ref so i concede!
That said, that article by Costa seems all over the place to me. Agree with the main argument he ends up with (exploits all the way baby), but what exactly is he on about here?
Quote:
*The argument up to this point is that based on his bot v bot data even high stakes regs are misplaying/exploitable all the time
Costa:
When I post these numbers, someone always comes and say: “well yeah they are not playing GTO but that could just be them adjusting to the player pool”.
I can tell you whether those deviations that the best players in the world are making relative to solver are actually good adjustments vs their opponents or not. In fact, that’s quite easy to determine: all you gotta do is run the numbers for the player pool and see if they are playing in a way that gets exploited by how the high stakes regs are playing. For example, overfolding vs turn and river probes is a good adjustment against a player pool that probes too strong relative to solver. If the pool is in fact probing too strong, then the high stakes regs are exploiting them and therefore the deviation is good.
huh??? how does what he’s saying in that paragraph rebuke the 'deviation is optimal' critique? Which he then goes on himself to recommend anyway? I'm legit confusedo
I think that criticism still stands. If you run private bot v bot data and compare it to regs to explain your reasoning the argument is inherently flawed. Two main reasons:
1) It entirely discounts the fact high stakes crushers might be luring opponents into more profitable nodes by taking suboptimal lines on previous streets [I know this is true because Alvin teaches it in his exploit course - calls it leading your opponent into the forest]
2) This cropped up recently in a half joking bot thread. Apparently new GTOw AI is comparatively decimating its peers using a) greater accuracy (bandwidth/tree size/Nash distance etc) AND b) some kind of as yet undisclosed AI/neural net magic that is able to calculate and factor in future EV that isn't realised in the traditional solve.
[My wild sepculation is that it's mimicing what high stakes players might call 'intuitive' factors (i.e. a sense for what mistakes their opponent might be making elsewhere that yields greater EV) - but given i am essentially a theory dunce this is mostly devil's advocate speculation in the hope of correction]
But I think the main point stands. Private bot v bot data
doesn't confirm high stakes players are playing suboptimal. You can't just look at MDA ubiquitously for one street/decision and conclude it's the incorrect/suboptimal line. Not least if you're using suboptimal and outdated bots as your baseline. And the only way you could make this claim is on a hand by hand basis using strenuous reasoning based on the holistic strategy (that yes, may or may not
include MDA on any/all streets). Make sense?
Last edited by Ceres; 05-07-2024 at 07:33 AM.