GTO not even close to optimal

Rockyfour

Rockyfour

Visionary
Silver Level
Joined
Apr 3, 2021
Total posts
547
Chips
15
It can't be optimal because the inputs the solver is receiving aren't correct. In fact it's impossible for it to have the correct inputs unless if its playing another bot. So basically it's always going to be solving a problem with inaccurate information.

The more I research ab out this topic, the more I realize how non-optimal GTO is. Like it's not even close against a lot of players. Your own intution is capable of giving you infinitely more EV than the computer could ever dream to achieve. Only people it's gonna give you an edge against are people you probably don't want to play anyways. So imo, it almost becomes irrelevant.

Thoughts?
 
Last edited:
hobojim1247

hobojim1247

Legend
Platinum Level
Joined
Mar 29, 2022
Total posts
1,142
Awards
2
US
Chips
103
GTO is NOT an instructional program telling you what to play. It is an informational program giving you the mathematical odds based on the input YOU enter. I detect your disappointment is that you were expecting something it was not designed to do. One other point to remember is that even though it gives the OPTIMAL mathematical solution, even it's decisions are subject to the luck of the suckouts.
 
Rockyfour

Rockyfour

Visionary
Silver Level
Joined
Apr 3, 2021
Total posts
547
Chips
15
GTO is NOT an instructional program telling you what to play. It is an informational program giving you the mathematical odds based on the input YOU enter. I detect your disappointment is that you were expecting something it was not designed to do. One other point to remember is that even though it gives the OPTIMAL mathematical solution, even it's decisions are subject to the luck of the suckouts.
Except it doesn't have the correct inputs and therefore can't be optimal.
 
max82nik

max82nik

Enthusiast
Silver Level
Joined
Nov 18, 2022
Total posts
56
UA
Chips
7
My opinion. The data is correct for a large sample. Don't judge by one hand.
 
O

oroochimaru

Rock Star
Platinum Level
Joined
Mar 24, 2019
Total posts
385
Awards
2
Chips
119
The best poker strategy for maximizing earnings is not always GTP play. Long term gains can be higher when taking advantage of player errors and patterns. Especially when playing against a player pool of weaker players when tendencies are more obvious. The GTO strategy is the term used by poker professionals to describe the ideal move when facing an unknown opponent. GTO is the result of computer solvers determining the most mathematically sound and mathematically balanced poker play. When you play in the GTO style, you aim to play flawlessly while letting other players make mistakes against you.
 
Gallarado777

Gallarado777

Legend
Loyaler
Joined
Jun 19, 2022
Total posts
5,148
Awards
3
KZ
Chips
94
this is more suitable for novice players to know what happens in poker when you have learned this, you are already moving to other levels and playing not with this program but with your game
 
A

Axmanace

Rock Star
Silver Level
Joined
Jan 11, 2015
Total posts
176
Awards
1
Chips
31
Honestly GTO is extremely useful for determining what ranges you should play given an unknown opponent.
(and what you should be willing to do).

That's why each GTO theory has a +EV calculation - it's a guide - not a bible.

If you are using it for something else - that's on you.
 
A

Axmanace

Rock Star
Silver Level
Joined
Jan 11, 2015
Total posts
176
Awards
1
Chips
31
Except it doesn't have the correct inputs and therefore can't be optimal.
How does it not have the correct inputs?

It deals with ranges - so I'm not sure how anyone could consider it having incorrect inputs.
 
John A

John A

Poker Zion Coach
Silver Level
Joined
Apr 12, 2012
Total posts
6,489
Awards
3
Chips
31
How does it not have the correct inputs?

It deals with ranges - so I'm not sure how anyone could consider it having incorrect inputs.
He's correct, and this has been what I've tried to point out to the micro and small stakes communities for years.

It's inputting ideal ranges, and frequencies for your opponents. How many opponents are you playing against that are playing the perfect range and frequencies in each poker scenario you come across?

The answer back to you from your solver is your ideal balancing range in response to your opponent's perfect ideal range, with the goal of you being unexploitable. But if your opponent doesn't know how to exploit you properly, you are giving up EV in return for balance and unexploitable ranges.

I'm not sure why players don't get this. But yes, GTO is great for playing unknown world-class players. Beyond that, it is in no way ideal. It's just been an idea that the poker community grabbed on to because many top level pros started studying it and talking about it, and people building solvers wanted to sell products.
 
runson

runson

Enthusiast
Silver Level
Joined
Jan 1, 2022
Total posts
28
Chips
8
Common leaks and outplayed hands should balance GTO theory wise non bluffing stragedy. More practicing and more brain games.
 
rastapapolos

rastapapolos

Rock Star
Bronze Level
Joined
Sep 21, 2013
Total posts
441
Awards
2
DZ
Chips
62
The game of poker is about incomplete information, so imo the input must not be correct for a small batch of epochs but for a big dataset there are some correlation between the opening range of villain and the solver. Afterall the profile of players at the table are generally the same : the tight, loose, sucker ... and their opening range are generally the same. So mathematically the solver can give you information about the adaptation that you have to make to maximize your ev against them.
 
Poker Orifice

Poker Orifice

#2 in y'er pantz?
Platinum Level
Joined
Jan 19, 2008
Total posts
25,364
Awards
6
CA
Chips
251
this is more suitable for novice players to know what happens in poker when you have learned this, you are already moving to other levels and playing not with this program but with your game
I'd suggest it is the exact opposite of what you're suggesting here ^
GTO actually isn't very suitable for novice players (assuming they're playing amongst other novice players).
And in today's game, I would think that all of the HighStakes MTT players are playing a GTO style.
 
D

DS3

Legend
Loyaler
Joined
Sep 9, 2019
Total posts
7,319
Awards
1
GB
Chips
152
I think I'll defer to Phil Galfond on the matter...

"You don't make money based on how close you get to executing a GTO strategy.

You make it by fully leveraging your opponents' weaknesses. Study solvers, by all means, but don’t lose sight of where you get your edge".
 
M

mktpppr

Rock Star
Bronze Level
Joined
Sep 24, 2020
Total posts
163
Chips
0
It can't be optimal because the inputs the solver is receiving aren't correct. In fact it's impossible for it to have the correct inputs unless if its playing another bot. So basically it's always going to be solving a problem with inaccurate information.

The more I research ab out this topic, the more I realize how non-optimal GTO is. Like it's not even close against a lot of players. Your own intution is capable of giving you infinitely more EV than the computer could ever dream to achieve. Only people it's gonna give you an edge against are people you probably don't want to play anyways. So imo, it almost becomes irrelevant.

Thoughts?
Quoted from Expert Heads Up No Limit Holdem Vol 1 by Will Tipton (I take no credit):

"Two players playing a zero-sum game will adjust and re-adjust until both reach a point where neither can exploit the other to profit.

Both players are aware of what is happening when they reach this point in their strategies.

Both players are experts at the game they are playing.

Neither player can do better by deviating from their respective strategies.

Both players can only do worse by deviating from their respective strategies.

Therefore, both players are incentivized to remain at this "equilibrium" point.

This concept of "equilibrium" is called the Nash Equilibrium.

The Nash Equilibrium is known as the solution concept for the game.

Equilibrium strategies are called "unexploitable" strategies.

Non-equilibrium strategies are called "exploitable" strategies.

The words "equilibrium", "game theoretically optimal (GTO)" and "unexploitable" have all been used interchangeably to describe the strategies to reach the Nash Equilibrium.

Of course, for a human to play a perfectly GTO strategy is currently impossible.

Therefore, we must seek to identify exploitable tendencies in our opponents in order to profit.

GTO is a conceptual approach to the game.

Therefore, GTO is a viable initial strategy vs an unknown opponent.

However, once we deviate from the GTO conceptual approach to the game, meaning we exploit our opponent, we ourselves become exploitable.

Also, in reality, no opponent is truly unknown."

--------------

A solver is just a fancy calculator.

A human inputs open-jamming range "x" at 10bb effective in a HU match, and solver calculates output calling range "y".

A human inputs open-jamming range "z" at 10bb effective in a HU match, and solver calculates output calling range "a".

Whatever the human input is will dictate the solver's output.

But a solver can also calculate the following:

Equilibrium open-jamming range "q" at 10bb effective in a HU match, and equilibrium calling range "r".

Values of "x", "z" and "q" will not necessarily be equal to each other.

Values of "y", "a" and "r" will not necessarily be equal to each other.
 
044hero

044hero

Rock Star
Bronze Level
Joined
Apr 29, 2022
Total posts
262
Awards
1
Chips
14
Poker is about the balance, GTO isn't one way to go)
 
Rockyfour

Rockyfour

Visionary
Silver Level
Joined
Apr 3, 2021
Total posts
547
Chips
15
I used to try and play GTO against unknown players, but over time I have shifted to thinking that an unknown player, still is a player within a broad range of players. If you can apply what you know about that range of players and apply them to unknowns, you are already deviating immediately from GTO in a profitable way.
 
A

Axmanace

Rock Star
Silver Level
Joined
Jan 11, 2015
Total posts
176
Awards
1
Chips
31
He's correct, and this has been what I've tried to point out to the micro and small stakes communities for years.

It's inputting ideal ranges, and frequencies for your opponents. How many opponents are you playing against that are playing the perfect range and frequencies in each poker scenario you come across?

The answer back to you from your solver is your ideal balancing range in response to your opponent's perfect ideal range, with the goal of you being unexploitable. But if your opponent doesn't know how to exploit you properly, you are giving up EV in return for balance and unexploitable ranges.

I'm not sure why players don't get this. But yes, GTO is great for playing unknown world-class players. Beyond that, it is in no way ideal. It's just been an idea that the poker community grabbed on to because many top level pros started studying it and talking about it, and people building solvers wanted to sell products.
that doesn’t mean it doesn’t have incorrect inputs simply because GTO is not a theory to be used against non-optimal opponents.

If you rely on GTO like a bible - you’re going to have a rough time.

That doesn’t mean it’s inaccurate and/or less useful.

It means you are misusing the tool.
 
M

mktpppr

Rock Star
Bronze Level
Joined
Sep 24, 2020
Total posts
163
Chips
0
I used to try and play GTO against unknown players, but over time I have shifted to thinking that an unknown player, still is a player within a broad range of players. If you can apply what you know about that range of players and apply them to unknowns, you are already deviating immediately from GTO in a profitable way.
@Rockyfour,

Deviating from GTO does not make GTO useless.

Deviating from GTO profitably IS THE END GOAL.

You and John A are saying a lot of whack stuff in this thread and many people are trying to help you, including me, but I will stop now, because you come across as someone who thought "solvers" and "GTO" alone will make you money at the tables.

I couldn't understand whether your beef is with solvers or game theory or both.

At first I thought you were clueless but you seem to know enough to know better.

If your problem is "pokers is hard" then I can't help you.

------------

@John A, you're a coach, right? Your job and livelihood is NOT threatened by solvers buddy. Your comments in this thread is borderline misleading. Don't think everybody will just keep quiet because you have a few badges on your avatar accumulated since 2012.
 
Rockyfour

Rockyfour

Visionary
Silver Level
Joined
Apr 3, 2021
Total posts
547
Chips
15
@Rockyfour,

Deviating from GTO does not make GTO useless.

Deviating from GTO profitably IS THE END GOAL.

You and John A are saying a lot of whack stuff in this thread and many people are trying to help you, including me, but I will stop now, because you come across as someone who thought "solvers" and "GTO" alone will make you money at the tables.

I couldn't understand whether your beef is with solvers or game theory or both.

At first I thought you were clueless but you seem to know enough to know better.

If your problem is "pokers is hard" then I can't help you.

------------

@John A, you're a coach, right? Your job and livelihood is NOT threatened by solvers buddy. Your comments in this thread is borderline misleading. Don't think everybody will just keep quiet because you have a few badges on your avatar accumulated since 2012.
Why are you mad bro? I don't really understand why you are deviating from a non-optimal calculation either. I can figure out what my equity is with a tool like ProPoker tools and input a more likely range of hands for my opponent.
 
A

Axmanace

Rock Star
Silver Level
Joined
Jan 11, 2015
Total posts
176
Awards
1
Chips
31
Why are you mad bro? I don't really understand why you are deviating from a non-optimal calculation either. I can figure out what my equity is with a tool like ProPoker tools and input a more likely range of hands for my opponent.
You don’t get GTO.

And that’s ok. Most novice players don’t.
 
Rockyfour

Rockyfour

Visionary
Silver Level
Joined
Apr 3, 2021
Total posts
547
Chips
15
Mine and other players deviations have nothing to do with GTO or deviating from GTO and all to do with exploiting leaks in peoples game.
 
hobojim1247

hobojim1247

Legend
Platinum Level
Joined
Mar 29, 2022
Total posts
1,142
Awards
2
US
Chips
103
Except it doesn't have the correct inputs and therefore can't be optimal.
It is up to the player to put the correct inputs into the formula. GTO is NOT an instruction book of thattells you what to do in any given situation. All it does is provide mathematical solutions that the player can use with other information to make the optimal play
 
Rockyfour

Rockyfour

Visionary
Silver Level
Joined
Apr 3, 2021
Total posts
547
Chips
15
Let me explain this, I have surpassed you noobs, I have bought into GTO, I have studied GTO, and have came to the conclusion that GTO is not that useful. It's only really good to give up massive amounts of EV. You see this badge, this is partypoker saying my stats are very close to GTO. This was when I tried to emulate GTO and thought it was the bee's knees of Poker strategy.

unknown.png


At a certain point thought, I realized how much EV I was giving up, and pivoted my strategy drastically back to a exploitable strategy.

Now I don't even really try to think about GTO. It just leads you down an incorrect path or way of thinking most of the time. Sure I have learned a lot about Poker studying GTO, but as for the strategy of GTO, it doesn't seem that good, or that relevant. I feel like the concepts that you can pull out of GTO, could be taught without it.

GTO to me is almost a confirmation that certain things people have done for years, is correct. Sure if you are confused about a spot it's a reasonable reference as well, but you can plug your own inputs into ProPoker tools and get a answer to your question as well, for free I might add.
 
M

mktpppr

Rock Star
Bronze Level
Joined
Sep 24, 2020
Total posts
163
Chips
0
Mine and other players deviations have nothing to do with GTO or deviating from GTO and all to do with exploiting leaks in peoples game.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to navigationJump to search
Argument from incredulity, also known as argument from personal incredulity, appeal to common sense, or the divine fallacy,[1] is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition must be false because it contradicts one's personal expectations or beliefs, or is difficult to imagine.
Arguments from incredulity can take the form:
  1. I cannot imagine how F could be true; therefore F must be false.
  2. I cannot imagine how F could be false; therefore F must be true.
Arguments from incredulity can sometimes arise from inappropriate emotional involvement, the conflation of fantasy and reality, a lack of understanding, or an instinctive 'gut' reaction, especially where time is scarce.[2] They are also frequently used to argue that something must be supernatural in origin.[3] This form of reasoning is fallacious because one's inability to imagine how a statement can be true or false gives no information about whether the statement is true or false in reality.[4]

Examples[edit]​

 
Top