GTO not even close to optimal

[mktpppr]

lmao noobs mad cause bad

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hanlon's razor is an adage or rule of thumb that states "never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."[1] Known in several other forms, it is a philosophical razor that suggests a way of eliminating unlikely explanations for human behavior. It is probably named after Robert J. Hanlon, who submitted the statement to Murphy's Law Book Two (1980).[1]

 

[Rockyfour]

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]​

• Hanlon's razor

Thank you for the insight into your persona. It is very helpful and I'm sure with some work you will be able to apply these philosophies to your own life and grow as a person. I will be rooting for you.

 

[Rockyfour]

I thought about it though while walking my dog, maybe GTO is beneficial for certain people who are having a hard time adapting an exploitative strat. When I had my 90% accuracy on party poker in regards to GTO, I was leaving a lot of money on the table, but I was still winning. Probably winning at 1/2 the rate if I had to guesstimate, but I guess GTO could be a good strategy for different minds. In fact I know it's a good strategy, it's just not as good of a strategy as playing exploitively against 99+% of players.

 

[ASMautoneJr]

this is complex information to process, so it's best to study yourself, and seek your own style, obeying basic poker criteria.

 

[Axmanace]

lmao, you understand that solvers are presolved situations too right? Your just saying random words that sound good together more or less.

You’ve never used an actual solver before, have you?

They use tree nodes.

It’s most certainly not presolved.

 

[Axmanace]

You just keep saying random words. Like why did you even bring up previously about things being presolved or not lol? It's not even relevant to anything. Like who ****ing cares lol.

This is just you, a random salty, saying random salty kid things.

I don't know if you missed it, but I posted my badge on Party Poker which says I obviously do know what I'm talking about in regards to GTO, because I got over a 90% accuracy rating when they compared my stats to the solvers lol.

If you have to site a random internet badge as evidence you know what you are talking about…

Chances are you don’t know what you are talking about.

Also - advance solvers provide a lot more than pre-solved answers.

If they did - there would be no heavy cpu requirement.

Most actual solvers take a lot of power to run.

 

[veltins]

GTO works on large base of hands , but many newbies or donks dont follow it . thats why many time it doesnt work . but it def works on large hands

 

[Rockyfour]

If you have to site a random internet badge as evidence you know what you are talking about…

Chances are you don’t know what you are talking about.

Also - advance solvers provide a lot more than pre-solved answers.

If they did - there would be no heavy cpu requirement.

Most actual solvers take a lot of power to run.

What does all that have to do with anything lol? Your just saying random irrelevant nonsense that you think sounds smart but in reality is irrelevant to literally anything lol.

 

[Rockyfour]

GTO works on large base of hands , but many newbies or donks dont follow it . thats why many time it doesnt work . but it def works on large hands

It obviously works, just not as well if you just played the game intuitively is my perspective.

 

[Axmanace]

It obviously works, just not as well if you just played the game intuitively is my perspective.

Except you are citing programs that help with “playing intuitively” that are 100% GTO based… while complaining about GTO.

It makes no sense.

 

[Rockyfour]

Except you are citing programs to help with that they are 100% GTO based… while complaining about GTO.

It makes no sense.

This sentence doesn't make sense lol. I don't even understand what you are trying to say anymore.

 

[jordanbillie]

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

^This is the answer right here!

If you rely on anything like a bible (including the bible!) you're going to have a rough time.

Once an idea or concept is written down in words, it is no longer original and is outdated.

This is why in spiritual practices they advise against mistaking the pointing finger for the way.

GTO can lead you on a path to poker greatness, but it is not the path itself.

Beware of following a dogma, or any set of rules that claims to be superior.

This is very true for poker, and the greats will see past GTO or whatever the next theory will be named.

 

[Axmanace]

This sentence doesn't make sense lol. I don't even understand what you are trying to say anymore.

You’re the one that keeps insisting GTO is suboptimal while using GTO theory….

 

[Rockyfour]

Yes.

You can follow something and be completely ignorant to that fact.

Which is you in a nut shell apparently.

Either that or you are purposefully trolling everyone.

Take your pick.

I honestly have no clue what you are saying, it's to abstract. I don't even think you know what your saying anymore.

 

[Axmanace]

I honestly have no clue what you are saying, it's to abstract. I don't even think you know what your saying anymore.

Your entire claim is following GTO is suboptimal … but then you cite GTO tools as better resosurces… than GTO.

You’re right. It doesn’t make sense.

 

[jordanbillie]

This thread is a really good example of why poker is profitable.

Player X (who knows 0.5% of GTO) is arguing with Player Y (who knows 0.6% of GTO) about who knows more, completely wasting time/energy.

Neither player is able to see how infinitely small their knowledge is compared to what they don't know and also what they don't even know that they don't know.

Stubbornness (especially in regards to "knowing") is a major hinderance to results.

The ideal opponent is one whom thinks they know what they are doing, and has many blind spots.

The only thing I know about GTO is that I do not understand it, and that's OK. I also understand that the typical MTT player is going to make such horrible mistakes over and over again, that GTO/any advanced theory won't be applicable.

Seriously, it seems much more advisable to simplify your game and make sure you are picking "good spots." One big insight I quickly had was how many 50/50 or "close calls" you can simply avoid, and still be OK to make a deep run. As a beginner, you can simply take all the easy spots that are no brainers and work in spots from there. You will likely go too far and have to dial it back a bit, but this is how one gains perspective and intuition as to the proper push/fold spots while shortstacked.

Poker is funny, we can really overanalyze it at times and get "caught in the weeds." It's not that hard, don't make it more complicated than it needs to be.

Also, trying to be correct and prove other people wrong is just silly. Almost as silly as an online badge to "prove" competency. If you truly believed in your abilities you wouldn't have to prove anything to anyone.

I'm not claiming to know anything, and that's the point.

 

[Rockyfour]

Also, trying to be correct and prove other people wrong is just silly. Almost as silly as an online badge to "prove" competency. If you truly believed in your abilities you wouldn't have to prove anything to anyone.

idk posting the highest rank you can get on PartyPokers my game GTO trainer thing seems like a pretty good rebuttle to someone saying you don't know what your talking about and claiming you are a novice lol.

 

[Tammy]

Ok. I am opening this thread again because I feel like it can be a valuable and meaningful conversation to have.

However, if I see the s**tstorm I had to clean up in here happen again, I will be handing out more warnings, and heaven forbid a ban if it escalates to what I had to delete from one person commenting in here.

Remember to keep it civil. You can argue a person's point, and even point out the flaws in their logic, without personally insulting them, calling them names, etc.

Pro tip: Saying things like, "You mad bro?", or calling or implying someone is a "noob" or "idiot" probably isn't going to go over very well or lend to a mature, productive discussion.

 

[Axmanace]

idk posting the highest rank you can get on PartyPokers my game GTO trainer thing seems like a pretty good rebuttle to someone saying you don't know what your talking about and claiming you are a novice lol.

Are you saying that if you faced the same situation in real life as the trainer - you would make a different decision?

If the answer to that question isn’t a resounding yes - you’re using GTO theory when you play poker.

Hence why I’m confused.

 

[Rockyfour]

Are you saying that if you faced the same situation in real life as the trainer - you would make a different decision?

If the answer to that question isn’t a resounding yes - you’re using GTO theory when you play poker.

Hence why I’m confused.

Yes I would, for example call downs on low boards is something that GTO dictates you should do quite frequently from my last study, because it makes assumptions about your opponents range. In reality though, humans tend to play hands like 3-4-5-6 (ss) and bluff less than they should (in my meta), so these call downs are going to end up just bleeding you EV the majority of the time.

Another example would be to 5bet jam AKKx, it's solver approved, but in reality the vast majority of people are only 4-betting AAxx, so it becomes an easy fold against most players not spewing off their chips like crazy.

Another example could be, why are you betting thinly for value against a guy who's only going to check raise the nuts or call with a better hand?

So many examples of GTO under performing significantly to what I would call human intuition.

 

[Axmanace]

Yes I would, for example call downs on low boards is something that GTO dictates you should do quite frequently from my last study, because it makes assumptions about your opponents range. In reality though, humans tend to play hands like 3-4-5-6 (ss) and bluff less than they should (in my meta), so these call downs are going to end up just bleeding you EV the majority of the time.

Another example would be to 5bet jam AKKx, it's solver approved, but in reality the vast majority of people are only 4-betting AAxx, so it becomes an easy fold against most players not spewing off their chips like crazy.

Another example could be, why are you betting thinly for value against a guy who's only going to check raise the nuts or call with a better hand?

So many examples of GTO under performing significantly to what I would call human intuition.

Those are very specific situations.

Note how I said majority of the time.

If you’re following GTO theory 51% - you are still adherent to GTO theory even if you deviate from it at times (where it makes sense)

Moreover - If you actually put in the work and modified the GTO solver to include the correct ranges (as you should) you’d get a similar deviation shift in theory.

That’s why I’m confused

 

[Rockyfour]

Those are very specific situations.

Note how I said majority of the time.

If you’re following GTO theory 51% - you are still adherent to GTO theory even if you deviate from it at times (where it makes sense)

If you modified the GTO to include the correct ranges (as you should) you’d get a similar deviation shift in theory.

That’s why I’m confused

Those are just three situations that popped into my head, obviously there are many many examples that could be given of human intuition out performing what the solver recommends.

Obviously you could put in everyone's exact ranges and have GTO spit out a calculation that is more accurate to the player, but players are also dynamic, so you would have to keep inputting new ranges on the fly.

Basically it's just not possible.

 

[Axmanace]

Those are just three situations that popped into my head, obviously there are many many examples that could be given of human intuition out performing what the solver recommends.

Obviously you could put in everyone's exact ranges and have GTO spit out a calculation that is more accurate to the player, but players are also dynamic, so you would have to keep inputting new ranges on the fly.

Basically it's just not possible.

technically it is possible - it just violates every major poker room’s rules.

That doesn’t mean the theory is invalid or suboptimal.

Just that humans can’t fully capitalize on it.

 

[Axmanace]

I was thinking more about it - changing your game play based on your opponents ranges IS GTO theory 101.

Hence still confused.

 

[BelFish]

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?

Generally speaking, right, GTO is best used against good players...

And if you play against fish or weak regulars, then it will be more profitable to use the so-called "exploitative" approach. You determine their main leaks in the game - and exploit them to the maximum, choosing non-GTO lines of play that give maximum profit against such leaks.