BUT WHAT'S YOUR RANGE

Originally Posted by griffey24

I think he's just saying:

If you learn GTO then you know what optimal is.
If you know what optimal is you can recognize other players playing optimally and other players playing sub-optimally.
If you know how a player is playing sub-optimally (how they are deviating from optimal) then you know how you can exploit this players tendencies by also deviating your play from optimal.

Yeah, I think a lot of people said that on the first page, myself included. But lets not paralyse ourselves into not adjusting until we have 10k hands and a rock solid read. Maybe I misunderstood, but it seemed like Savy was saying we should be wary of adjusting early as we can lose a lot if we adjust wrong. There are plenty of spots you can make a +EV adjustment based on a small number of hands or even a population read. As an example, I will tag a player as loose passive if I see them open limp a single hand pre. I will then treat them as a loose passive until given reason to think otherwise. I don't see any reason why adjusting early and being wrong some % of the time should be a terrible thing (unless you are making hugely over the top adjustments).

I think most of us are saying largely the same thing, but my take on it would be

1) Adjust early and adjust often
2) Don't use GTO as an excuse to stop paying attention to villains tendencies.

Originally Posted by Pelion

Yeah, I think a lot of people said that on the first page, myself included. But lets not paralyse ourselves into not adjusting until we have 10k hands and a rock solid read. Maybe I misunderstood, but it seemed like Savy was saying we should be wary of adjusting early as we can lose a lot if we adjust wrong. There are plenty of spots you can make a +EV adjustment based on a small number of hands or even a population read. As an example, I will tag a player as loose passive if I see them open limp a single hand pre. I will then treat them as a loose passive until given reason to think otherwise. I don't see any reason why adjusting early and being wrong some % of the time should be a terrible thing (unless you are making hugely over the top adjustments).

The example you give is actually a really obvious case of over adjusting based on really weak reads, I suppose this depends on what you are doing to adjust to this but it's more than likely too much. And when we are wrong we are -EV this should also be quite clear.

Originally Posted by ImSavy

The example you give is actually a really obvious case of over adjusting based on really weak reads, I suppose this depends on what you are doing to adjust to this but it's more than likely too much. And when we are wrong we are -EV this should also be quite clear.

I think this point is our main disagreement - and I think if you actually tried to make these kinds of adjustments for a week and kept a record of the times you were right/wrong and the value you won/lost because of it, you would see that it is absolutely the right thing to do pretty quickly. This isn't close.


I think you have the perception that when you are usually right and sometimes wrong, that is suddenly a ---EV adjustment when actually it is probably more like a ranking of:

Always adjust correctly = +++EV
Usually adjust correctly, and sometimes incorrectly = ++EV
Don't adjust = +EV


Edited to labour the point:

when we are wrong we are -EV this should also be quite clear.

Poker is all about playing the percentages. Why should adjusting be any different? If being right is +10EVees, and being wrong is -10EVees, and we will be right 80% of the time and wrong 20% of the time by adjusting, then refusing to adjust is a clear mistake.

Your next argument will either be that we are wrong more than 50% of the time, or that we lose far more when we are wrong than we win when we are right. I disagree with both.