BUT WHAT'S YOUR RANGE

But what's your range. You're never bluffing this size so you can't value bet it.

Forenote to rant: This rant is not directed at any one FTR member. I've just spoken with too many guys who are stuck at 5NL or whatever and trying to play their range all GTO style. This is almost certainly why they're stuck at 5NL.

This is a rant about how sick I am of people over applying and misapplying GTO "play your range" approaches to poker situations. This is not meant to be something you should do every hand at the micros or even in many hands because often it's far far better to just look at your hand vs your opponent's range and your reads about his range and how he plays it and make the most +EV play. Here's why.

The comment at the start of this post is the kind of comment that is often just totally wrong especially at the micros. For instance if villain's range in some spot is just really strong and rarely folding when he bets X size on the turn then it would be really stupid to raise his turn bet with anything other than just value hands. it would be really stupid to want to have an unexploitable balanced range.

To look at it from another perspective, let's say we have a profitable overbet bluff on the river with our hand in some spot, yet overbetting the river with a range of bluffs and value would cause those value hands to earn less in this spot than if they were to bet 2/3 pot.

Typical discussion about this spot with someone who overapplies and doesn't understand the GTO approach and when to actually implement it.

"Yes but I am really clever so you need to care about your range and play that not just your hand, what is your RANGE?"

Villain has no idea what our range is, in this case our range is just all bluffs when we overbet. This is exploitable. Yeah, but I really don't care, because our very reason for making this play: villain will fold a lot: implies the negation to your worry about our range. Villain clearly has no idea what our range is or he isn't going to be calling a lot. Hey we have a read that makes our hand really +EV and we're going to make our range ALL AIR for this size and then value bet smaller. This is really really +EV in this one spot.

"No but poker isn't played in just one spot, it's played over infinity or some shit like that"

Yeah it is so why is this bad for what we've just done?

"Because we're so exploitable and our range suffers for it cos now we can't bluff a normal size and over a long haul of lots of times of this spot occurring we'll get exploited badly cos he'll figure out what we're doing."

Shit, sucks that we cannot change what our range is at different moments in time...oh wait of course we can! We actually can value bet smaller in this exact same spot if we happen to have a value hand because we think that's going to be the best way to get value, why would we do anything else? If we're at a future point and villain hasn't seen our hand when we overbet that last river due to him folding then we are in a new situation at a new time point and can this pick the best strategy for this new moment in time. Villain might now be a little more sceptical having folded to one overbet so now maybe we just add in some value hands to make sure he's not going to exploit us (the difference this time is that we don't know if he's now going to be able to exploit a really unbalanced range or not, but that's fine we just changed our range now that we don't have a reason to be sick unbalanced anymore.) When we used the strategy of overbetting all air and 2/3 potting all value it wasn't going to be exploited, now it might be due to his scepticism, but fuck it's a new moment in time and we can act between moments in time and therefore we can just change stuff around again. Awesome, we now have a meta strategy through time where our strategy is a changing dynamic thing as it should be. Hurray for not being stuck with one fucking range forever in each type of situation.

Similarly, if villain saw us overbet bluff that river because he had the very top part of his range and called or whatever, then we just stop having a bluffs only overbet range, maybe we have a value only range now if we think he's a level 1 adjuster, maybe we stop overbetting at all. The point is we are not trapped in that moment where our range was all bluffs, our range has just changed to make even more +EV spots in the future. Our meta strategy of lots of different ranges/strategies is really +EV.

PLAY YOUR RANGE At The Micros

People love to have a GTO approach these days, that's fine in the right situations. It's totally fine to play your range vs population reads if you're readless, or up against someone you suspect is playing very balanced or you have no reason to think otherwise. However, the minute you start misapplying this stuff and ignoring crucial bits of information that allow you to be so incredibly exploitable and so incredibly +EV in spots, you're going to be costing yourself a shitload of EV over the long run.

Guess what, we make the most money in poker in the short term when we are able to make a play that is really really exploitable that is not going to be exploited. At the micros, we make the most money in the long term by being able to do this consistently over a large sample. This is how all of the successful players of today soared through microstakes before anyone gave a fuck about GTO. Trying to play your range in every spot is absolutely horrible for most of you guys in the games most of you reading this play. Trying to play your range as a whole vs a guy who has little hand reading ability and no idea what your range is is like taking a different route to work every day incase the old lady at the bus stop tracks you down and mugs you.

Of course you can still think of what the best thing to do with your range is in these spots. EG. I should value bet all my TT and better, I should not bluff any hands, I should fold TT-KK and call my two pairs and sets if raised etc etc. All we're really doing here though is putting together what we think the best exploitable play is with every hand separately maybe grouping hands that are of similar function in this spot.

Conclusion

There are times where this kind of approach is applicable. I'm just sick of hearing people in forums throwing it all over the place and justifying stupid shit with it. Here's one final example to illustrate what I'm saying.

Spot 1:Preflop we're in the SB and we 3-bet 84o vs a BU opener who's folding 85% to 3-bets. Our 3-bet is +EV but that doesn't means it's the best action. In the long run if our 3-bet range contains hands as weak as 84o then it either contains the wrong hands or it contains far too many hands. We want to therefore fold 84o and 3-bet 87s instead. Ok good. What our range is matters in this spot as this spot happens all the time, it comes up like once every two orbits or something at this one table alone. We need to have what we think is the optimal range to 3-bet with etc etc although of course this can change. Our strategy is to 3-bet a certain % of hands. We are going to be polarised between strong value hands and playable bluffs. Our hand selection reflects this. We will get exploited if we 3-bet 50% here and include 84o because this spot is going to happen loads and villain can easily adjust and easily figure out that our range is super ridic wide.

Spot 2: We're on the river with the nuts and villain is a massive station. The board is some unique set of cards that doesn't occur very often at all. (Not saying certain cards come up more than others haha) So villain is never folding this river unless he has a bricked flush draw. We're now happy to take any hand that is +EV vs his calling range and value bet the best size with it. It doesn't matter that we're just only value betting and never bluffing because this spot happens hardly ever and villain has no way to figure out our strategy and adjust to it. The fact we know he's stationing down in this spot confirms that he has no idea how to exploit us or that we're even exploitable.

Case 1 is a good time to care about "BUT WHAT'S YOUR RANGE" Case 2 is not.

I dunno how my post implies anything about trying to play GTO it just says we are missing out on profitable bluffing spots if we are never bluffing.

You don't even say anything that disagrees with what my post actually says in this thread so it's certainly a weird starting point for it...

Your post is basically "exploit your opponents, don't try and play GTO", no shit. Let's give some examples of times when we would make massive adjustments to our range based on our reads and then assume that this is right in all situations. It's if anything a more stupid approach.

We should be aware of our range in spots and be making exlpoitative adjustments do it based on our reads. Your post tries to imply that knowing what your range is isn't important, when it basically always is. When we are against a massive station and we get to the river and are only ever value betting we should still be aware of our range and we should be trying to make it as wide as possible. If we aren't aware of our range we can't be trying to gear it towards getting as many value combinations as possible into our range by the river.

None of these things are GTO and they aren't misapplied at any point in my post, so in future if you'd use a better starting point for a poor rant, that'd be good thanks.

I explained at the start it is not directed at you. You just happened to say something that I thought perfectly illustrated this. Sounds like I interpreted it wrongly though as I thought you were referring to an exact spot not making a general point. I'll change the quote to something more clear.

If you want to discuss whether or not I was right in the other thread I'm more than happy to receive any criticism on my comment if it comes with good reason, but based on what was posted to say that villain should have no bluffing range whatsoever is a pretty huge mistake imo and a massive over adjustment based on the reads given. Something that clearly happens a lot when we have no idea what our range is.

Refer to other thread. I should have just kept the two separate instead of mistakenly your quote out of context, it just sounded fitting

Yeah. Savy has a way of doing the same thing to me.
I think he said one thing, 'cause, you know, that's what he wrote.
I respond.
Then, he gets upset that I misinterpreted him, as though he was being dumb.
He explains himself.
I re-read his original post.
I GUESS he could have meant that...? maybe... I mean, why would he lie?
I feel like I'm being trolled.
I let it go.

@ Savy: WHYYYYYYYY?!?!
(does this keep happening)

@ Carroters: Great post. I do think people are overly concerned with how a specific hand plays into their actual range and perceived range. I think plenty of BC'ers would be well served by ignoring the actual ranges and thinking stuff like:
"I doubt he bets like this with mid-pair or lower as a value bet."
"His line seems really strong, but then why did he limp in PRE?"
"I think Villain will call TPTK+ here every time"
"I haven't seen this guy call a 3-bet yet, so I'm going to flat his open w/ my AA, then stick it to him post-flop"
"This Villain has no notion of my range, so I just relentlessly b/f into him with ATC OTF, then play cautiously OTT and OTR, since he's got a strong, defined range."

Once they can think those broad thoughts without really trying, then it's time to really tie those thoughts to actual ranges. I think you should always be thinking about ranges during study, but if it's overwhelming at the tables, then simplify it.

I think the deeper message, though, is that if Villain isn't thinking about your range, then you can easily level yourself by trying to apply "balance" to your range.

As an afterthought: There is really never a time you want to be playing optimal balanced ranges at the micros. The only reason to play like that is when you're up against someone who's playing like that. In the micros, there are so few of those, that you should just switch tables, and find weaker players. Even at FR, there are entire tables of people who don't understand the alpha value and how it connects to their ranges, or if they do, they're too emotional to follow it. So my ranges are exploiting their deviations... and my range is now deviated... from optimal balanced play.

Sure, you will always win (or not lose) in the long term with optimal balanced play (except for the rake), but you will not win as much as if you were constantly leaning away from balance toward exploitation.

Originally Posted by ImSavy

I dunno how my post implies anything about trying to play GTO it just says we are missing out on profitable bluffing spots if we are never bluffing.

You don't even say anything that disagrees with what my post actually says in this thread so it's certainly a weird starting point for it...

Your post is basically "exploit your opponents, don't try and play GTO", no shit. Let's give some examples of times when we would make massive adjustments to our range based on our reads and then assume that this is right in all situations. It's if anything a more stupid approach.

We should be aware of our range in spots and be making exlpoitative adjustments do it based on our reads. Your post tries to imply that knowing what your range is isn't important, when it basically always is. When we are against a massive station and we get to the river and are only ever value betting we should still be aware of our range and we should be trying to make it as wide as possible. If we aren't aware of our range we can't be trying to gear it towards getting as many value combinations as possible into our range by the river.

None of these things are GTO and they aren't misapplied at any point in my post, so in future if you'd use a better starting point for a poor rant, that'd be good thanks.

I didn't see all this before as you've edited it.

There's being aware of your range and then there is making decisions based more on your range than factors more relevant to your EV. This is what I'm saying gets neglected these days when everyone is so overly concerned with what their range is in so many situations. What hands are in your range in the spot you describe above vs the station are actually totally irrelevant to whether or not you should value bet a certain hand, unless you want to have a backwards impractical in game thought process that works out every hand you should value bet first and then glances to see if your hand is one of them :-s. You can for sure break down your entire range and see how much of it you should value bet but that only depends on which hands are +EV to value bet in this spot so why'd you'd need to do that in game or use it to help your decision in this spot I'm not sure.

What I'm trying to get people to avoid is overcomplicating there thought process with less important factors when there are already so many important ones to find and consider.

Nice rant carrot man and I think the general sentiment certainly often rings true with my game.

I've found that after some time away in particular, I return to the tables and crush the living shit out the the games for 8k-15k hands (partly boom switch I'm sure) before slipping into some shit play versus regs where I'm obsessed with not being exploitable (barrel too much, call too many re-steals, etc) and end up playing far from profitably. I'm far from a dick-waver, butI do get involved in a lot of spots that I don't need to.

That said, I still keep my style simple against the tards, who essentially cover my spew to the regs during these stages. What amazes me is when I see other shitty regs betting third pot on the river with the nuts against fish when an overbet jam would get called with the same frequency. I guess playing as exploitative a style as possible is always going to be the way to crush the micros and we should never forget that, however much work we do away from the tables.

Originally Posted by ImSavy

I dunno how my post implies anything about trying to play GTO it just says we are missing out on profitable bluffing spots if we are never bluffing.

You don't even say anything that disagrees with what my post actually says in this thread so it's certainly a weird starting point for it...

Your post is basically "exploit your opponents, don't try and play GTO", no shit. Let's give some examples of times when we would make massive adjustments to our range based on our reads and then assume that this is right in all situations. It's if anything a more stupid approach.

We should be aware of our range in spots and be making exlpoitative adjustments do it based on our reads. Your post tries to imply that knowing what your range is isn't important, when it basically always is. When we are against a massive station and we get to the river and are only ever value betting we should still be aware of our range and we should be trying to make it as wide as possible. If we aren't aware of our range we can't be trying to gear it towards getting as many value combinations as possible into our range by the river.

None of these things are GTO and they aren't misapplied at any point in my post, so in future if you'd use a better starting point for a poor rant, that'd be good thanks.

Isn't this a classic case of what Carroters is talking about. At 5nl a default leak of most of your opponents is that they call too much. So why would you want to be bluffing them. You'll make far more money value betting your made hands , than trying to bluff people .Also how do you get extra combinations into your range on the river if they aren't there on the flop.

No, it's not. Even when people are calling too much we should still be bluffing, just less. I'm sure there do exist points when you shouldn't be bluffing at all because our opponent does call so much, but you have no idea how much villain should be calling in a certain spot so gl with that because ranges aren't important.

What you're all probably doing is over adjusting based on reads that probably aren't as strong as you think they are which is why it's always nice to have a rough idea what your range should look like in certain spots. Apparently over adjusting isn't a problem though because we can just ignore obvious holes in our logic.

I think my least favourite part about OP is that it kind of implies that you should go about learning poker in a way that just tries to exploit population reads when in reality this just leaves you not really knowing what you're doing and your only real way of gauging the situation is through experience. When trying to approach the game from a more mathematical perspective gives us a much better idea not only how we should be playing in a certain spot, but how our opponent should which means we can see his leaks better and exploit him better.

Originally Posted by ImSavy

I think my least favourite part about OP is that it kind of implies that you should go about learning poker in a way that just tries to exploit population reads when in reality this just leaves you not really knowing what you're doing and your only real way of gauging the situation is through experience.

Is it better to base our default strategy (meaning our strategy before implementing any reads of villain) on the expected tendencies of villains as they are in the actual games they're playing or on a model of how they should be playing if they're playing perfect theoretical poker in every spot.

Eg. If we open the BU really wide then our unknown villains in the blinds should be 3 betting some really high amount therefore we should be 4-bet bluffing some pretty high amount. Only this is horrible because it's 5NL and they're just not 3-betting some high amount for the most part. I'm not by any means saying we should try to guess at exactly what a villains range is and how to exploit him based on population reads, but ignoring them when it comes to our default strategy in the games we play leads us to do the nonsensical stupid stuff I'm referring to that's so out of touch with reality.

If you guys actually just learned how to hand read, put your opponent on a range and then play well vs that range and what you expect him to do then you'd get through the microstakes a hell of a lot faster.

Quick example, when I was playing 25NL a few years ago I'd basically be folding a huge amount of my range by the river vs aggression so much that if someone was playing optimally he'd have exploited the hell out of me and my play would have been horrible. As it was in the games at the time, hardly anyone was tripling as a bluff or 4 betting light so for me to start with the assumption they were playing optimally would have been a disaster. I'd have been calling the GTO advised amount and getting raped by a betting range that was grossly less bluff heavy than a range of someone playing "as he should" How did I know folding loads to aggression was just a solid base strategy? Population reads.

If you want to ignore the fact that probably 90% of your opponents don't have a call flop - min raise turn line in their arsenal as a bluff then go ahead and play sound mathematical poker by calling down X% vs optimal play - you'll just be at 5NL a lot longer.

+1

Game theory is a great basis for knowing where to start adjusting from.

We should rarely try to be playing GTO if our opponents are not playing GTO (read if our opponents have huge gaping flaws in their game e.g. nits / stations)

I think too many players use GTO as an excuse to lazily avoid making reads on opponents/populations and start adjusting to them (and play more tables?) e.g. bluffing stations/ calling down vs nits to be unexploitable.

Having said that, I will go back to my first point. It is very useful to know GTO as a starting point before we start adjusting, although we will want to be adjusting in one form or another to the vast majority of micro/low stakes opponents.

Originally Posted by ImSavy

No, it's not. Even when people are calling too much we should still be bluffing, just less. I'm sure there do exist points when you shouldn't be bluffing at all because our opponent does call so much, but you have no idea how much villain should be calling in a certain spot so gl with that because ranges aren't important.

This entire paragraph is misguided... OR (since it's Savy) at least mis-worded.

1) It is a fallacy to say that we should always have some bluffs in our range at any time.
There are absolutely cases when we should not be bluffing at all, esp. vs. stations. A polarized range is only of use in certain circumstances, and a merged range is only of use in certain circumstances. I can think of many examples where a polarized range may be +EV, but not as +EV as a merged range. It all depends on Villain's ranges as to what is the best line.

Seriously. You do not beat the micros with your bluffs.

2) How can you say, "you have no idea how much villain should be calling in a certain spot" when you are fully capable of doing the algebra to solve for how Villain's calling %-age interacts with your bet sizing and frequency?
I have so many issues with this "Your ignorance is insurmountable" attitude.

Originally Posted by Carroters

Is it better to base our default strategy (meaning our strategy before implementing any reads of villain) on the expected tendencies of villains as they are in the actual games they're playing or on a model of how they should be playing if they're playing perfect theoretical poker in every spot.

Our default strategy should be to exploit population reads. We can't really do this unless we know what we should be doing in spots though. Value bet your big hands will only get you so far.

It's boring hearing you constantly repeat the same point that we shouldn't be trying to play GTO because it isn't what's best for our winrate when I've not once said that we should be trying to play GTO. I've said there are lots of spots where it's very helpful to know what is very close to GTO.

And I do pretty well at 5NL thanks.

Our default strategy should be to exploit population reads.

Then devoting your learning time at the micros to understanding GTO seems like a tremendous waste of time. If people don't know how to put their opponents on a range, don't understand how different actions affect those ranges, can't size their bets well, can't see good spots to bluff, to double barrel, check raise flops etc etc. then I don't see how understanding GTO can possibly be the best use of their time. IMO there is no way that a new micro player trying to develop these essential practical skills should be placing GTO anywhere near the top of his/her study list.

I'm not saying it's the first thing that you should learn when you start playing poker because it's not, but if you look at someone like Pelion and his approach to the game currently (and obviously I don't know the ins and outs) it seems like he's going about improving in the right sort of way.

It doesn't even come close to being a waste of time going through all the stuff either. All the thought and effort that goes into constructing these ranges is just so positive for us as a player. The amount of leaks that we find not only in our own game by going through this type of process but the leaks we find in other peoples games is just massively valuable.

edit - I actually think if you look back at the thread that boris made recently about starting ranges and flops etc. You'll see that the point that I was trying to make was that his default range was quite good for what it was there to do, but from a balance point of view it was crap. What he'd done is come up with an exploitative range, but he didn't seem to realise this. So as soon as you start playing that range as default against someone good they'll tear you apart and it leaves us not understanding why.

So not being aware of what an actually well balanced range should look like and how we should play it can have a serious detriment to our game when we are playing against good players. So at no point was I attempting to say you should be using a balanced range, but it's really fucking helpful to know what one looks like for lots of reasons.

if you play GTO against players who have massive leaks (which most at 5nl will) you are playing so you are exploiting yourself (by minimising your winnings and increasing your losses) rather than exploiting their leaks.
By playing GTO you make it so that good players can't exploit you. those players are a very small % of the 5nl population because they move up before you get a decent sample size against them and those "good" players aren't playing GTO at 5nl anyway because they are exploiting the poorer players leaks.

Do you realize the mistake you made Carroters?

Originally Posted by Keith

if you play GTO against players who have massive leaks (which most at 5nl will) you are playing so you are exploiting yourself (by minimising your winnings and increasing your losses) rather than exploiting their leaks.
By playing GTO you make it so that good players can't exploit you. those players are a very small % of the 5nl population because they move up before you get a decent sample size against them and those "good" players aren't playing GTO at 5nl anyway because they are exploiting the poorer players leaks.

Read my post above, I think the edit explains my logic in this situation.

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

Yeah. Savy has a way of doing the same thing to me.
I think he said one thing, 'cause, you know, that's what he wrote.
I respond.
Then, he gets upset that I misinterpreted him, as though he was being dumb.
He explains himself.
I re-read his original post.
I GUESS he could have meant that...? maybe... I mean, why would he lie?
I feel like I'm being trolled.
I let it go.

Just to clear this up, first of all I didn't say anything wrong and it was a bad quote for Carroters to use, he even went into the thread and said basically that we should have a bluffing range in the spot which is pretty much what I said. I just said it more generally, although I'm pretty sure I also said it specifically in the thread.

On top of this I don't think you don't get what I mean all the time because I think I'm being dumb, I think it's because I don't always explain myself particularly well or thoroughly enough. In fact I think if you were all as smart as I was you'd be able to fill in the gaps much better yourself

edit - I also edit my posts too much after I've posted them which can lead to bits of them making very little sense.

There have always been two types of players, exploitation/reads based ones and more math based ones. I think each student of the game should find where he fits in and go down that route to an extent as long as they don't neglect developing core reasoning skills and logical thought process that poker absolutely requires. These things are for the most part totally non-mathematical.

My belief is that those who devote themselves to being analytical beasts gathering and using every bit of information as well as possible and developing a good solid thought process are the most successful players in reality.

Originally Posted by ImSavy

edit - I actually think if you look back at the thread that boris made recently about starting ranges and flops etc. You'll see that the point that I was trying to make was that his default range was quite good for what it was there to do, but from a balance point of view it was crap. What he'd done is come up with an exploitative range, but he didn't seem to realise this. So as soon as you start playing that range as default against someone good they'll tear you apart and it leaves us not understanding why.

So not being aware of what an actually well balanced range should look like and how we should play it can have a serious detriment to our game when we are playing against good players. So at no point was I attempting to say you should be using a balanced range, but it's really fucking helpful to know what one looks like for lots of reasons.

thats not the point that carroters is making though. At 5nl you shouldn't be looking to play optimally against the good players. If your table(s) are full of good players your table selection is shit . Get the hell off those tables and find the fish. Thats where your easy profits will come from and get you out of 5nl quicker.

Originally Posted by Keith

thats not the point that carroters is making though. At 5nl you shouldn't be looking to play optimally against the good players. If your table(s) are full of good players your table selection is shit . Get the hell off those tables and find the fish. Thats where your easy profits will come from and get you out of 5nl quicker.

There are no good players at 5NL. (except me)

And that's really not what my post was about, but ye I agree with your post 100%.

Firstly, great post Carroters. I think this is totally relevant to the BC and increasing your EV at microstakes. I will be revisiting this thread before I start playing again. Juts to clarify I understand what you're tying to say though I'll use an example.

E.g. In a heads-up pot on the river you're going to have a range. For the sake of simplicity let's assume we're IP and it's checked to us. Naturally, we are going to want to make all our profitable value bets in this scenario. We can also increase, decrease, or remove our bluffing range entirely in this spot based on our reads on villain.

So we have a read villain is going to be calling a tonne. So we want to be value betting more and bluffing less, obviously. We can work out using the alpha value what a perfectly balanced betting/bluffing range looks like in this spot. (Unsure if it's exactly perfect, but it's pretty damn close.)

So imagine we are on the river with the stone-cold nuts vs a villain who is calling a high percentage of his range. (More than the bet/(bet+pot) from his perspective.) Whilst there may be a small amount of EV to be gained by bluffing a very small percentage of the time in this spot, the situation is going to come up so rarely that it's kind of insignificant. I.e We are going to arrive at the river with the rock-bottom hand(s) in our range so infrequently that it's far more important to just make all are profitable value bets and not bluff. This will be exploiting the hell out of his calling tendency. If we start thinking, "shit I should be bluffing some of the time here, I could be exploited by just value betting." This type of thinking could lead to us bluffing too often and reducing our overall profitability vs such a station.

So it is actually more practical and profitable to value bet only and never bluff.

Am I understanding the gist of what you're trying to say Carroters?

There's of course nothing wrong with knowing what a balanced range looks like. If people can't form good exploitative ranges and know how to exploit the mistakes their microstakes opponents (regs included) are making then working on their thought process and determining what factors are important to the situation is going to be more important.

FWIW micro regs etc who have giant holes in their game don't have these solely or even mainly due to being unbalanced. Rather they just make lots and lots of mistakes in their reasoning/thinking. If we don't make these mistakes we just beat them easily with no need for understanding balance to any high level.

Originally Posted by seven-deuce

Firstly, great post Carroters. I think this is totally relevant to the BC and increasing your EV at microstakes. I will be revisiting this thread before I start playing again. Juts to clarify I understand what you're tying to say though I'll use an example.

E.g. In a heads-up pot on the river you're going to have a range. For the sake of simplicity let's assume we're IP and it's checked to us. Naturally, we are going to want to make all our profitable value bets in this scenario. We can also increase, decrease, or remove our bluffing range entirely in this spot based on our reads on villain.

So we have a read villain is going to be calling a tonne. So we want to be value betting more and bluffing less, obviously. We can work out using the alpha value what a perfectly balanced betting/bluffing range looks like in this spot. (Unsure if it's exactly perfect, but it's pretty damn close.)

So imagine we are on the river with the stone-cold nuts vs a villain who is calling a high percentage of his range. (More than the bet/(bet+pot) from his perspective.) Whilst there may be a small amount of EV to be gained by bluffing a very small percentage of the time in this spot, the situation is going to come up so rarely that it's kind of insignificant. I.e We are going to arrive at the river with the rock-bottom hand(s) in our range so infrequently that it's far more important to just make all are profitable value bets and not bluff. This will be exploiting the hell out of his calling tendency. If we start thinking, "shit I should be bluffing some of the time here, I could be exploited by just value betting." This type of thinking could lead to us bluffing too often and reducing our overall profitability vs such a station.

So it is actually more practical and profitable to value bet only and never bluff.

Am I understanding the gist of what you're trying to say Carroters?

Yeah exactly. The longball vs shortball thing is very closely linked; I think I just ran out of ranting steam too much earlier to explain my thoughts on it. I think you're 100% right though. There are a lot of spots where we might want to err on the side of just making a +EV play because we know the situation vs that opponent just ins't presenting itself often enough for us to factor in a longball game plan and expect better longterm EV from doing so.

EG. I decide a river bluff is shortball +EV because villain should be folding enough combos to make the amount we risk work often enough in this one spot. We then decide that if we bluff with a hand this far up in our range then we are bluffing too much longball and are going to be exploited for doing so if this spot keeps occurring. However, this spot we're in is fairly unique and we don't expect to ever really play it again vs villain let alone play it so much that he figures out that our range has this technical weakness and can be exploited by him calling much more. Therefore we go ahead and bluff this hand even though it doesn't fit as a candidate hand into the range we'd like to be bluffing longball. However, we've actually made the correct longball decision because in reality where we get nowhere near to playing this spot very much vs this guy, we just make more money overall by grabbing a rare chance to at least make a +EV bluff in this spot.

A hand from today.

Poker Stars, $0.10/$0.25 No Limit Hold'em Cash, 6 Players
Poker Tools Powered By Holdem Manager - The Ultimate Poker Software Suite.

BTN: $26.26 (105 bb)
SB: $12.10 (48.4 bb)
Hero (BB): $58.18 (232.7 bb)
UTG: $19.06 (76.2 bb)
MP: $40.35 (161.4 bb)
CO: $71.04 (284.2 bb)

Preflop: Hero is BB with 5 K
UTG calls $0.25, 4 folds, Hero checks

Flop: ($0.60) 2 A 6 (2 players)
Hero bets $0.50, UTG calls $0.50

Turn: ($1.60) 7 (2 players)
Hero checks, UTG bets $0.75, Hero calls $0.75

River: ($3.10) 8 (2 players)
Hero bets $17.50, UTG calls $17.50

Results: $38.10 pot ($1.71 rake)
Final Board: 2 A 6 7 8
Hero showed 5 K and won $36.39 ($17.39 net)
UTG mucked 2 A and lost (-$19 net)

I don't have a bluffing range here either.

Looks like you lost $0.06 in your EV with that pussy bet OTR. Why are you playing scared?

Originally Posted by Carroters

Guess what, we make the most money in poker in the short term when we are able to make a play that is really really exploitable that is not going to be exploited.

^ nh

Originally Posted by ImSavy

No, it's not. Even when people are calling too much we should still be bluffing, just less. and in different spots

^ also nh. italicised bit added by me

whether you're playing somewhat balanced, or far from it, it helps to know your own range.

if you don't then how do you know you are maximally exploiting someone?

Originally Posted by Carroters

Yeah exactly. The longball vs shortball thing is very closely linked; I think I just ran out of ranting steam too much earlier to explain my thoughts on it. I think you're 100% right though. There are a lot of spots where we might want to err on the side of just making a +EV play because we know the situation vs that opponent just ins't presenting itself often enough for us to factor in a longball game plan and expect better longterm EV from doing so.

EG. I decide a river bluff is shortball +EV because villain should be folding enough combos to make the amount we risk work often enough in this one spot. We then decide that if we bluff with a hand this far up in our range then we are bluffing too much longball and are going to be exploited for doing so if this spot keeps occurring. However, this spot we're in is fairly unique and we don't expect to ever really play it again vs villain let alone play it so much that he figures out that our range has this technical weakness and can be exploited by him calling much more. Therefore we go ahead and bluff this hand even though it doesn't fit as a candidate hand into the range we'd like to be bluffing longball. However, we've actually made the correct longball decision because in reality where we get nowhere near to playing this spot very much vs this guy, we just make more money overall by grabbing a rare chance to at least make a +EV bluff in this spot.

I get it. This makes perfect sense.

Originally Posted by Micro2Macro

whether you're playing somewhat balanced, or far from it, it helps to know your own range.

if you don't then how do you know you are maximally exploiting someone?

I don't think anyone's arguing that you shouldn't know what your range looks like in a spot. It's more that you shouldn't be passing up +EV spots because your specific hand doesn't fall into that segment in your range, which is the strategy you have devised for long-term profitability.

E.g You are in a fairly unique spot that you don't expect to be in with this particular villain again in this session, you have a read that he will be folding a high percentage of his range to a bet, and you can make a +EV bluff in a vacuum. The only problem is you're sitting with a hand that doesn't fall into your bluffing range in this spot. So what do you do? It makes more sense to take this profitable bluff opportunity with a hand you normally wouldn't if the situation was occurring far more frequently, if you don't you're leaving money on the table.

So as Carroters said earlier, in reality you're making the better long term decision and maximising your EV by making the bluff. Because you're not going to be in this spot again with this villain.

I think the whole point of the thread was to make people think about other important factors, not just the "what's your range," "play you're range as a whole." So people will consider what villain's range is and how he is likely to play it in this spot and make decisions based off that with regards to your specific hand. Not solely thinking "ah this hand isn't in my bluffing range." and missing a profitable play.

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

Looks like you lost $0.06 in your EV with that pussy bet OTR. Why are you playing scared?

Well I thought if I made it big, I might scare him off....

Doing something +EV in a vacuum isn't horrible, but it's only not horrible when we assume that we know villains range. If we are getting villains range wrong (and this happens as we can't read minds) then we can be making a huge mistake.

The point Carroters makes about some spots don't come up very often so we want to try and maximise our EV in this spot is a pretty strange one. We are in a spot that doesn't happen very often at all so we can logically deduce that we don't know how villain plays in this spot, we can make lots of assumptions about how we think he is going to play but realistically we don't know how he plays exactly so can be making huge mistakes. It's not really any different to assuming that just because your bluff worked this time and villain folded it was +EV. It's essentially Martingale.

So what Carroters is doing is essentially trying to come up with a strategy that wins and saying GTO is bad because it doesn't win the most. However what he doesn't seem to realise is that a strategy like only ever value bet calling stations who are like 70/15 is going to be +EV but it isn't going to be the most +EV, but because he has absolutely no idea what an optimal strategy is in a situation he doesn't actually know what villain is doing that is exploitable and is instead assuming that he has near perfect hand reading skills (which no one does). Whereas GTO would theoretically tell us exactly what villain is doing wrong with his range, so we need general tendencies not perfect hand reading skills, and then we can see how we can maximally exploit him.

It's essentially being happy taking a +EV line rather than trying to find the most +EV line which is what poker is all about.

Imagine if you could be +EV (inc 0) against someone who knew your strategy perfectly and then when you know that strategy and you realise no one is going to be playing anywhere near as good as this perfect player they are basically beating themselves everytime they don't play perfectly and we know how to adjust to non perfect strategies, rather than having rough hand wavy ideas about how to adjust.

Also means we don't have to fuck about with stupid things like trying to Level opponents because we know how we should be playing.

I have no idea where this new "we actually know nothing about villain and are therefore making loads of mistakes" train of thought has come from. We do know loads about what peoples ranges are very very often. A spot not occurring with a high frequency by no means implies that we don't know what villains range is like in it. All I meant by a rare spot is one where there are a lot of community cards out there. The more of these come out the more rare the spot is likely to be due to the bigger amount of variables (previous actions, the actual cards, bet sizes, etc etc) I'm not talking about some spot we have never seen the likes of before, just one that won't come up enough times vs that opponent for you to want to pass up +EV plays in a vacuum.

Originally Posted by ImSavy

It's essentially being happy taking a +EV line rather than trying to find the most +EV line which is what poker is all about.

What I'm recommending is the exact opposite of this. Your approach is far more likely to have this consequence since you seem to consider yourself unable to develop reads or understand your opponents ranges. You'd rather play generically and distrust your reads rather than use this information available to make the most +EV play :-s

i think there are times to not play your range.....this i think works much better against micro "non-thinking" villians

say for example in the sb vs bb we have 3h Js and we limp, knowing that we will stab any flop(because this villian tends to defend pre and give up post flop....

then here comes a flop of Ac 5h 8d, well when we stab its probably not in our range to have an ace- but against this kind of opponent the line still seems to work

I think the "prefer +EV in a vacuum when it's an uncommon spot" argument has been distorted a little since it was first posted. I read it like this:

1) If a spot is very common and we will often get a certain +EV (in a vacuum) opportunity, and if we will reduce the EV of future opportunities each time we make the play, then we should be selective about which cards/situations we chose to take up the opportunity with.

That was a bit of a mouthful, but a simple example would be 3betting preflop. Just about every hand we play is an opportunity to make a +EV 3bet preflop, but if we 3bet every hand we got our opponents would adjust and we would quickly run out of +EV 3bet chances.
Instead, we chose to 3bet a certain range of hands/spots and to pass up on immediate +EV opportunities with 72o.

2) If a spot is less common, we don't need to worry so much about our opponents adjusting to us since they have finite memories and we only play them for 300 hands at a time anyway. An example of this would be raising a MMLKA rainbow board when our opponent bets half pot after checking the turn (or something).


I don't really understand your last post at all Savy. Of course we should try to make reads on our opponents and continue to improve them as we play and I'm sure Carroters would try to maximise EV in all spots, as well as try to understand his own range and villains range as he plays. Your entire argument seems to hinge around us maybe getting it wrong if we try to understand and react to villains tendencies. Surely the best solution to that is practise?

No, GTO requires villain tendencies. Whereas the general "normal" consensus is that we require villains exact range and if we make any mistakes with villains exact range we make errors overall.

Playing your range is always the most +EV thing to do

Originally Posted by ImSavy

No, GTO requires villain tendencies. Whereas the general "normal" consensus is that we require villains exact range and if we make any mistakes with villains exact range we make errors overall.

This is terrible logic. Of course we make errors. We are fallible humans. To site one source of error and treat it like a proof that there is no limit to the error or its impact on our analysis is hubris.

Of course we make errors in our ranges, which is why we do multiple evaluations of each spot we scrutinize. We investigate our ignorance and measure its affect on our decisions. We add and remove card combos and re-calculate the equity to see how much variance there is in the calculation due to relatively minor adjustments to Villain's range. When there is a significant connection, we call it a "thin value" situation, since we are relying on a rather small amount of EV and a small deviation can make it -EV. When the connection is not too significant, we call it fat value, since our EV is high enough that we would need to have seriously misjudged Villain's range for the play to be -EV.

Originally Posted by ImSavy

Playing your range is always the most +EV thing to do

This is simply not true, and you have been shown this in the discussion about calling an all-in bet. This is a GTO analysis of how to play when calling all-in bets, and nowhere does Hero's range enter it.

There ARE situations where our range doesn't matter, only our exact hand matters.

Originally Posted by ImSavy

No, GTO requires villain tendencies.

You mean what villains "tend to" do? I.e. not what villains "always" do.

Originally Posted by ImSavy

No, GTO requires villain tendencies.

No it doesn't? Exploitative play requires villain's tendencies. GTO doesn't care how villain plays. That's the whole point.

Whereas the general "normal" consensus is that we require villains exact range and if we make any mistakes with villains exact range we make errors overall.

I don't know who has been a part of this normal consensus, but I don't know a single person who would claim to know a villains exact range in any spot. We make a judgement about ranges. If we make a small mistake in that judgement, then we make small errors overall. If we make a huge mistake in that judgement, then we make huge errors overall. We practise and we study to reduce our errors over time and we accept our occasional errors as part of a trade off for massive exploitative profit when we bluff unbalanced weak ranges "too much" or when we value bet unbalanced weak calldown ranges "too thin" or when we exploitably fold to unbalanced strong raising ranges "too easily".

Playing your range is always the most +EV thing to do

What does this even mean? How can we play anyone elses range? Or are we talking about in relation to spots where we can make villains fold? - in which case our perceived range is clearly much more important than our actual range. Or are we talking about GTO unexploitability? - in which case the entire point of the strategy is that it is defensive and does not win the most against any real low stakes villain. e.g. if we are playing against a player who literally never folds, then bluffing with a balanced % of our range is quite blatantly not going to be the best way to play.

Originally Posted by Pelion

No it doesn't? Exploitative play requires villain's tendencies. GTO doesn't care how villain plays. That's the whole point.

This is wrong. Look at basically every discussion of a hand and it's people going "villain has these hand, calls these hands folds these hands" we're making huge assumptions about villains range that if they are wrong we are wrong. Whereas if we know what's optimal we know how to never make a mistake and we don't need to know villains exact range, we just need to know rough %'s.

The playing our range is the most important thing is because playing a hand in the most +EV way isn't what's important. It's playing our range in the most +EV way. People thinking playing our hand in the most +EV way is important because if we are against a calling station we want to max EV with our hands, but in reality we want to tailor our range to be the most value based range possible. Which isn't always obvious.

Originally Posted by Pelion

I don't know who has been a part of this normal consensus, but I don't know a single person who would claim to know a villains exact range in any spot. We make a judgement about ranges. If we make a small mistake in that judgement, then we make small errors overall. If we make a huge mistake in that judgement, then we make huge errors overall. We practise and we study to reduce our errors over time and we accept our occasional errors as part of a trade off for massive exploitative profit when we bluff unbalanced weak ranges "too much" or when we value bet unbalanced weak calldown ranges "too thin" or when we exploitably fold to unbalanced strong raising ranges "too easily".

When we are playing GTO we make 0 mistakes, that's what matters. So making 0 mistakes about villains range is always better than the non-zero mistakes (and some are huge) we make otherwise.

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

This is terrible logic. Of course we make errors. We are fallible humans. To site one source of error and treat it like a proof that there is no limit to the error or its impact on our analysis is hubris.

Of course we make errors in our ranges, which is why we do multiple evaluations of each spot we scrutinize. We investigate our ignorance and measure its affect on our decisions. We add and remove card combos and re-calculate the equity to see how much variance there is in the calculation due to relatively minor adjustments to Villain's range. When there is a significant connection, we call it a "thin value" situation, since we are relying on a rather small amount of EV and a small deviation can make it -EV. When the connection is not too significant, we call it fat value, since our EV is high enough that we would need to have seriously misjudged Villain's range for the play to be -EV.


This is simply not true, and you have been shown this in the discussion about calling an all-in bet. This is a GTO analysis of how to play when calling all-in bets, and nowhere does Hero's range enter it.

There ARE situations where our range doesn't matter, only our exact hand matters.

First part isn't terrible logic, you basically explain why it's true later in your post. GTO doesn't require all of these assumptions on villains range. For example if villain plays a hand instead of another hand which we think he has this throws our whole system wrong. Whereas if we know if villain should call with x% of his range but instead he calls with y% of his range that makes us money and we are aware of hour to exploit it.

The second part is literally always true. Playing our range in the most +EV is what's always important as we gear the range to whatever point to make sure it is based with the most hands to exploit what villain does. So say we know villain overbet shoves on the river with a % that is far too high, we make sure that we have a really strong value based range to exploit this hugely -EV part of villains game. Obviously this is a big exageration, but GTO actually tells us what people should be doing so we are aware of when people are making huge mistakes.

Let's say villain raises the river 5% more than he should do, tell me how you exploit that by playing a hand. You don't even know how it leads to his range being exploitable over multiple streets, but GTO does.

Quite honestly... and bash and poke fun at me all you want, but I think you guys are making this waaaaaaaaay too complicated... and obsessing over it at such low levels where 90% of the player pool are bumbling idiots is just a tad counterproductive, imo.

There is no way to perform a GTO calculation without involving equity. How can you possibly have any idea of your equity unless you have an idea of what villain's range is? This line of argument is absurd.

Originally Posted by ImSavy

This is wrong.

Thanks for the preface.

Originally Posted by ImSavy

Look at basically every discussion of a hand and it's people going "villain has these hand, calls these hands folds these hands"

You mean they are trying to learn poker? by paying attention to details? and using that information to guide their play?
Noobs, amirit?

Originally Posted by ImSavy

we're making huge assumptions about villains range that if they are wrong we are wrong. Whereas if we know what's optimal we know how to never make a mistake and we don't need to know villains exact range, we just need to know rough %'s.

The amount our guesses introduce error is NOT unknown. We can look at our equity against multiple ranges and investigate the sensitivity of our equity to the range we guess for villain.

Your argument amounts to this:
If we guess at Villain's range, we find that we can make X play for an EV of +20bb.
If we are really, really bad at assigning ranges, we may have as little EV as +10bb.
Therefore, we should avoid committing an error that could cost us 10bb and just play in a way that guarantees us an EV of 5bb.

Originally Posted by ImSavy

The playing our range is the most important thing is because playing a hand in the most +EV way isn't what's important. It's playing our range in the most +EV way. People thinking playing our hand in the most +EV way is important because if we are against a calling station we want to max EV with our hands, but in reality we want to tailor our range to be the most value based range possible. Which isn't always obvious.

If 3-betting a range so wide that it has 72o is +EV in the short term, then Hero makes profit by doing so in the short term. This profit is greater than if Hero did not do this. Villain MAY or MAY NOT notice and/or adjust to this exploitative behavior from Hero.
To assume that Hero is throwing away value by 3-betting this wide, because villain will MAYBE adjust to being exploited, is calling "playing scared".
To assume that Hero is incapable of noticing that adjustment is silly.
To assume that Hero is incapable of adjusting in response is lolwat.

If you have a read about something and you ignore it because you think your reads are bad, then why in the hell do you play NLHE, where your edge is based on making decisions based on your opponents decisions? FFS, move to limit poker where that kind of attitude is rewarded.

Originally Posted by ImSavy

When we are playing GTO we make 0 mistakes, that's what matters. So making 0 mistakes about villains range is always better than the non-zero mistakes (and some are huge) we make otherwise.

WTF does that even mean?

It's a game of incomplete information. If we could play in a way that we make "0 mistakes" we would have to be able to know Villain's cards.

When we are playing GTO we make 0 mistakes

Originally Posted by TNreg

Quite honestly... and bash and poke fun at me all you want, but I think you guys are making this waaaaaaaaay too complicated... and obsessing over it at such low levels where 90% of the player pool are bumbling idiots is just a tad counterproductive, imo.

This.

I just got the Matt Janda book. Mostly because Sauce likes it and I like what Sauce likes. But now I'm a little afraid to read it.

i'm no authority on the topic, but my understanding of this issue is: playing GTO means we can't be exploited in a given spot. it's useful when we are playing against people who we think are capable of exploiting us, or who we perceive to be better players. not playing GTO means playing any strategy that isn't mathematically-proven GTO - which means we are able to exploited. it doesn't mean we will be exploited, or that we are "making mistakes". imo we are making a huge mistake even attempting to play GTO in the vast majority of spots (even the most common ones) at stakes 50nl and lower. that doesn't mean we don't benefit from knowing our range - you can know every single combination in your range and how you plan to play it, and still be taking a "maximum exploitative" approach (which is the opposite approach to GTO in which we play every hand in our range in it's most +EV fashion, and disregard exploitability).

i kind of think of it as a spectrum, it's our job to know where on the "GTO <-----------> maximum exploitative" scale we want to set our strategy, which will normally be based on our perceptions of villains capabilities to exploit us/how common a spot is (so how much info about our play in this spot villain will have)/whether we need or want to maintain a certain image etc


grain of salt.

Clearly Savy is the only person ITT who has read any of the Mathematics of Poker.

Originally Posted by abelardx

I just got the Matt Janda book. Mostly because Sauce likes it and I like what Sauce likes. But now I'm a little afraid to read it.

Is it "Preflop 3-Betting, 4-Betting, and 5-Betting Frequencies"?

Originally Posted by abelardx

I just got the Matt Janda book. Mostly because Sauce likes it and I like what Sauce likes. But now I'm a little afraid to read it.

Don't be afraid to read it just because Carroters said GTO is pointless for new people. He's got a wrong, outdated view on poker.

Originally Posted by ImSavy

Don't be afraid to read it just because Carroters said GTO is pointless for new people. He's got a wrong, outdated view on poker.

GTO is not pointless. Once again...IMO, for the new player, GTO is secondary to learning the basics of exploitative poker like how to put your opponent on a rough range, understanding equity, EV, player types, c-betting, 3-betting. I don't think the most useful way to first understand these concepts is through anything that resembles learning what GTO is.

Please stop making shit up and claiming people have said it. I'td be at least interesting if you cared about engaging with the actual arguments people are making in this thread, rather than your strawman imitations of them.

Also, I imagine you look exactly like that guy in your avatar. In fact I'd be shocked if you didn't. Like, how can that not be you?

Originally Posted by Carroters

Also, I imagine you look exactly like that guy in your avatar. In fact I'd be shocked if you didn't. Like, how can that not be you?

LOL. Not only do I tend to agree, I also have a mental image of you as looking like _your_ avatar.

Ps. I also look like mine.

Yep Boris, I do definitely picture you as a monkey puzzling over stuff all the time (not necessarily a banana though)

i am the one and only banana on ftr.

I'm interested in hearing an elaboration on m2m's point of view.

Originally Posted by eugmac

i am the one and only banana on ftr.

The only one with intact limbs anyway

Originally Posted by Carroters

GTO is not pointless. Once again...IMO, for the new player, GTO is secondary to learning the basics of exploitative poker like how to put your opponent on a rough range, understanding equity, EV, player types, c-betting, 3-betting. I don't think the most useful way to first understand these concepts is through anything that resembles learning what GTO is.

GTO teaches us exploitative poker. Do you not understand this?

Why do you think so many top class poker players are completely revamping their game from a GTO perspective? They aren't doing it to try and miss out on all the value on the table by not exploiting villains, that's for sure.

I also don't understand how you can not see how learning those concepts you listen through a GTO perspective is useful. It basically tells us the answer to all the questions we have like how much should we be 3betting against this player, how much should he be 4betting? How much should we be stealing OTB against these two blinds, etc etc.

And ye, spitting image of my avatar. Just in the process of growing my hair out a little bit so it's that length.

Originally Posted by ImSavy

GTO teaches us exploitative poker. Do you not understand this?

Why do you think so many top class poker players are completely revamping their game from a GTO perspective? They aren't doing it to try and miss out on all the value on the table by not exploiting villains, that's for sure.

I also don't understand how you can not see how learning those concepts you listen through a GTO perspective is useful. It basically tells us the answer to all the questions we have like how much should we be 3betting against this player, how much should he be 4betting? How much should we be stealing OTB against these two blinds, etc etc.

And ye, spitting image of my avatar. Just in the process of growing my hair out a little bit so it's that length.

Teach us how to learn GTO.

Originally Posted by ImSavy

Why do you think so many top class poker players are completely revamping their game from a GTO perspective?

It might have something to do with them not playing 5NL.

Originally Posted by Carroters

GTO is not pointless. Once again...IMO, for the new player, GTO is secondary to learning the basics of exploitative poker like how to put your opponent on a rough range, understanding equity, EV, player types, c-betting, 3-betting. I don't think the most useful way to first understand these concepts is through anything that resembles learning what GTO is.

I totally agree with this, that there is a progression people have to follow if they want to get really good at anything.

Originally Posted by ImSavy

Why do you think so many top class poker players are completely revamping their game from a GTO perspective? They aren't doing it to try and miss out on all the value on the table by not exploiting villains, that's for sure.

This too. When the best players are really into it there's something there. And I like all that stuff because I'm a math geek too.

However first I need to get a thought process that includes some semblance of hand reading. I'm thinking I just have to thoroughly analyze hands-with-ranges enough until it gets to be somewhat natural. But I'd like to hear other people's thoughts on getting to that level.

Right now I deal out flops and just run down all the hands from the nuts through all the one pair hands and count the combos for each hand. Kinda boring but I think it's useful. For example if flop is Txy there are 120 combos of top pair not set but only 24 combos of overpair. And of course when possible there's always a ton of straight draws because you get 16 combos for each draw. That kind of thing.

Originally Posted by jackvance

Is it "Preflop 3-Betting, 4-Betting, and 5-Betting Frequencies"?

It actually looks pretty good. The chapter titles are:
1. The Basics
2. Preflop Play
3. Post-flop Bet Sizing
4. Facing a Flop Bet in Position
5. Whether to Bet or Check in Position
6. Out of Position Flop Play
7. 3-Bet Pots on the Flop
8. Playing the Turn in Position
9. Playing the Turn Out of Position
10. 3-Bet Pots on the Turn
11. River Play
12. Multi-way Pots
13. Shallow and Deep Stack Play
14. Advanced Bet Sizing
15. Applying Theory to Analyze Hands
16. Sample Hands

The title is Applications of NLHE for those who haven't heard of it. It's a hefty 494 pages, typical 2p2 looking print job. I haven't started it yet. I expect it's all about balance. Probably I'll read it later. And sorry if off topic but it seemed kinda relevant. I do agree with people that GTO is a baseline to adjust from when playing better players like at higher stakes. It is all very interesting.

Originally Posted by Pelion

It might have something to do with them not playing 5NL.

I lol'd.

While Janda's book has a horribly butchered title, it is very good and I would recommend it for a non-beginner trying to move into the more mathy parts of game theory and defensive play (i.e. moving past the games where you can just value bet the hell out of TPTK and win).

Having said that, his first page after the acknowledgements is a disclaimer that pretty much states that if you try to play in this way against "non-experts" you will be doing it wrong.

Originally Posted by Pelion

It might have something to do with them not playing 5NL.

But it doesn't. It has to do with going about learning how to play poker in the correct way.

If you were learning any solved game would you not want to know the solution. If we were playing Rock Paper Scissors you'd start off by learning that taking each option 1/3 of the time is unexploitable and you're never going to lose playing this.

We'd also learn from this that anyone not playing 1/3 of everything is making a mistake (funnily enough in RPS we don't profit from the mistake but in poker we do) but this gives us information on how to adjust to them. If they are playing rock too much, something we don't actually know if they are until we know what Nash is for the game, then we know we adjust by playing more paper and less scissors.

Are you saying that if you joined a game of rock paper scissors and noticed that everyone picked scissors every time, you wouldn't figure out you should start off playing rock until Nash solved it for you?

Originally Posted by Pelion

Are you saying that if you joined a game of rock paper scissors and noticed that everyone picked scissors every time, you wouldn't figure out you should start off playing rock until Nash solved it for you?

I'm using a very simplified example to try and get the point across. You should be smart enough to understand how it relates over to poker.

Let me try to work it out. Is it something along the lines that we don't need Nash to tell us that we shouldn't be bluffing calling stations?

No...I don't suppose that could be it...

ffs u r all clueless about this please read a math textbook

pelion savy never said just bluff into a calling station

when you have NO READS you are best off defaulting to as close to GTO as u can THEN U DEVIATE WHEN U ACCUMULATE

GAME THEORY TAKES INTO ACCOUNT ALL ASPECTS OF PKER: BET SIZING, ETC ITS NOT SOME MYSTICAL GAME THAT IS ONLY FOR ELITE MOTHER FUCKERS

THAT BEING SAID YOU DONT HAVE TO UNDERSTAND YOUR OWN RANGE TO BEAT MICROSTAKES

BUT AT SOME POINT U R GONNA

LIKE FFS INSTEAD OF POSTING A HAND WHERE UR LIKE DURRRRR WTF DO I DO HERE MAYBE U SHOULD WRITE DOWN YOUR GOD DAMN RANGE AND THEN FIGURE OUT HOW TO PLAY IT READLESS

AND IF I HEAR ANYONE BUT SAVY SAY GTO ONE MORE TIME IM GONNA BAN YER ASSES CUZ NONE OF U KNOW WTF U R EVEN TALKING ABOUT. AGFFSGFDHGSGDSFDSSDGSDGSGSDGSDGSSDGSGSGDSFASDDSdfa dgdsgs

u all tilt me so hard im gonna go open shove my roll at 200/400... with hu nash range of course

as soon as we deviate from equal measures paper scissors rock then we are no longer playing gto and knowing what gto is at this point makes no difference to our lives.
we can transfer this to poker. we can definatly never play gto and never understand it to beat the micros. life does get harder for us when we start to need it but dont understand it at all.
i suppose youll get what you want from the micros if you never learn it but you could always use those cheap stakes to actually start to understand the game.

Originally Posted by seven-deuce

Teach us how to learn GTO.

... and define "balance" for us, as you mean it in this thread.

I'm now fairly convinced that we're all in agreement in this thread, but we're using terminology differently.
We've gotten all worked up, but we never bothered to determine if we all understand GTO in the same way.
The fact that Savy says, "GTO teaches us exploitative poker. Do you not understand this?" is clear evidence to me.

So how about we stop the finger pointing (of which I am guilty, and I apologize for any 'tardedness in my attitude) and iron out these terms?

Let me get this straight. Savvy, tell me if this is what you're thinking:

At the micros, people make lots of mistakes. If we have a good understanding of their tendencies and can hand read etc, then we can play exploitatively and crush them without any GTO knowledge at all. I think this is what Carroters is saying. And this is possible even if we aren't hand reading because there are heuristics ie ABC poker that will let you crush the micros.

I think what Savvy is saying is that, if you're so inclined, you can learn GTO from the beginning. And why not, if you move up, you'll want to know it later anyway. And (I think this is his main point), against bad play like at the micros, balanced GTO is still going to be winning. That in fact ABC heuristics are kind of outdated and we should just start with GTO. It will be just as profitable, maybe a little more effort than learning ABC, but just as good for people starting out or not yet moved up.

I don't know if that's true but that's what I'm hearing, and it is a very interesting idea.

So the question is:

You're a microstakes player. You're serious about the game but right now not very good. You want to learn, win, and move up, of course. What is better? Learning ABC, and delaying GTO, maybe forever? Or starting with GTO? And foregoing the common wisdom that is ABC?