Yeah but look - how many hands can he honestly have played?
Sure. I genuinely think the biggest problem was game selection. It gives me anxiety in any series myself. You’re at a major tournament and see a great NL table, a great PLO table then an ok table but it’s fun players and everyone is 8 shots deep. Then you sit at the PLO game and lose a buyin in an 85/15. I get it.
Sure but to be precise that’s only true because people can’t play true gto. If they could it is irrelevant how your opponent plays.
All of this fuss over GTO is missing the point. Bruce seemed to largely be playing fixed limit games. In these games, the correct play is largely obvious. A bad play will cost you one bet.
Then in the non fixed limit games, when I say stuff is “solved” it’s stuff like him over limping KKJ10ss in position vs fish. It’s a clear mistake! We don’t have to run Sims or put a lot of thought into any of this.
2 Likes
There is no need to play GTO against bads. Trying to balance your bluffs,raises, etc vs droolers who don’t even notice seems like a fools errand and just playing and exploiting their mistakes seems better.
5 Likes
And they’re also playing in places where wait lists are often hours long. Fish aren’t waiting hours to fold.
1 Like
I think this is the point of contention. You might be arguing cross purposes but imagine an edge case with a player who folds everything but aces which they always minraise pre and stack off on every flop. VS this person you must call with any 2 cards whenever they raise, never fold and never raise. The most profitable way to play is completely unbalanced.
Agreed. The gto discussion is confusing the debate here. Nobody thinks Bruce should try to play gto in 1/2. Just that he is neither playing gto nor optimal for the game. He is playing incorrectly.
1 Like
You have this all backwards.
In a game of rock, paper, scissors GTO play is to randomise your choice because it makes you unexploitable, but if your opponent always chooses rock you’d be a fool to play GTO.
2 Likes
If your opponent always plays rock the gto play is always paper. Gto means more than randomizing.
Really?
Because my brief googling and learning about GTO this am seems to say otherwise.
You’ll be following the same strategy against all opponents no matter what they do. So, while you can’t be exploited, you won’t be exploiting others, either.
The best way to explain this is through a simple example. If the GTO model dictates that perfect 3-bet size in a certain scenario is 13 big blinds, you’ll be 3-betting to that size regardless of who your opponent is.
Even if you’re up against a loose maniac who’ll gladly call a 30 big blind 3-bet when you have pocket Aces, you’ll not deviate from your standard strategy, and leave money at the table against that particular player.So, clearly, there are some upsides and downsides to this approach, but before jumping into the details, I want to address another topic.
1 Like
Most of my losses came in tournaments. A good player might cash in only 15% of tournaments. If I play a small sample size where I might normally be expect to cash in 2 tournaments on average and run bad, it’s not difficult to lose as much as I did.
Playing a nut peddling, fit or fold strategy is probably close to maximally exploitative strategy in a very loose PLO game. It might not be fun and it might not make the other players welcome you at the table, but it will print money even though it feels like you’re playing weak tight.
The easily available solvers are limited in their ability to tell us how to play multiway pots. I think the solvers sometimes advocate play that seems weak-tight in multiway pots. I’m not convinced that isoing and trying to get it heads up is always the most EV strategy. I think some of the preference for that is because HU is easier to solve for. The math says there might not even be GTO solutions for multiway.
My theory is that to win the most in loose low stakes games, the focus should be on winning big multiway pots instead of trying to stack a donk unless you have an egregiously bad whale, for at least some table conditions. I could be wrong, but I don’t know if it’s easy to prove mathematically.
Ah I think the issue is between optimal play and GTO play. I don’t consider them to be the same thing at all. I think this is a definitional disagreement rather than a fundamental one.
My attitude at low limit NL is if I have to think for a second about balancing my play then I’m in the wrong game. Like if I ever think “There’s a lot of 3 betting going on, I’ll need to mix in some 4 bet bluffs at some point” then it’s time to yell for a table change straight away.
3 Likes
Did you have a schedule in mind going into your trip or just play it by feel?
You still don’t understand what GTO means.
It’s a purely defensive strategy to ensure you lose the least against whatever mix of opponents you might face.
Am I wrong in understanding if you could play a true gto game it is irrelevant what your opponent does. You can’t lose? They could play rock every time or any other strategy and you can’t lose.
You can’t be exploited.
Isn’t that saying the same thing?
Yeah, Imagine a RPS game with a 5% rake GTO play would still lose but it would only lose 5%.
Ok maybe I am misunderstanding. You won’t win?