Did GTO change your game? (1 Viewer)

[ekricket]

Sorry, I meant to say “sorry about your self-esteem problem which causes you to project your own inadequacies onto others.”

Hey I think you are misunderstanding things. You seem to have taken offense at something I wrote, but I assure no offense was meant. So I’m kinda sorry that your social skills aren’t developed enough to handle normal conversations, so I’ll try to keep things on a more elementary level from now on out of consideration for you. It concerns me that you may have misinterpreted my reactions to your arrogance, but I assure you it is completely normal for people to react in a less than positive way when dealing with arrogant self proclaimed experts, so nothing personal or offensive meant, it’s just how things work when normal people have conversations.

 

[LowerBama1714]

I like turtles.

 

[MrRossKeys]

The thing about GTO is that by definition (when applied correctly) it works in the long run no matter who the villains are, or how they play.

Actually, the thing about GTO is that by definition it is a theory, which means it cannot work [edit: 100% of the time] in the long run no matter who the villains are, or how they play.

Totally agree.

Here's the thing:
The definition of GTO may well be like it says above. "GTO... is based on the assumption that your opponents are also playing optimally", but that is often an incorrect assumption.

I agree with this.

If you know a little about GTO then you can better know how & when to deviate just like it says near the end of that definition I highlighted above.

Also agree with this.

Sometimes not using GTO lines at all, is the proper adjustmet

Totally agree with this.

 

[Taghkanic]

Actually, the thing about GTO is that by definition it is a theory, which means it cannot work [edit: 100% of the time] in the long run no matter who the villains are, or how they play.

I agree with this.


Also agree with this.


Totally agree with this.

Actually, game theory means exactly that: Play it out long enough and the game approaches a draw. How long it takes depends on the amount of variance built into a game.

 

[Taghkanic]

Hey I think you are misunderstanding things. You seem to have taken offense at something I wrote, but I assure no offense was meant. So I’m kinda sorry that your social skills aren’t developed enough to handle normal conversations, so I’ll try to keep things on a more elementary level from now on out of consideration for you. It concerns me that you may have misinterpreted my reactions to your arrogance, but I assure you it is completely normal for people to react in a less than positive way when dealing with arrogant self proclaimed experts, so nothing personal or offensive meant, it’s just how things work when normal people have conversations.

Guy Who Said He Stopped Reading My Posts Keeps Replying to My Posts

 

[ekricket]

Guy Who Said He Stopped Reading My Posts Keeps Replying to My Posts

So in the beginning, my post was a jest. However your need to be superior about something has turned it into something more, and your arrogance and disdain has continued to fuel it. I’m aware that people with these conditions are not fast to catch social cues, but I did think that perhaps you might be capable of it. However I realize now that I drastically underestimated your arrogance and the degree of your need to be the expert.
I agree with you that you are the superior asshole. Hopefully this will satisfy your ego and I from now on will pronounce to everyone that I know that you are the supreme arrogant ass anytime the subject comes up.

Congratulations.

 

[Lil Tuna]

 

[chipchipchip]

The moment GTO is better than exploiting my opponents’ mistakes at my table, I’m finding a different game to play. I’d bet in 99% of games out there a good exploitative strategy will crush a pure GTO strategy.

People’s mistakes in any typical game are SO SO BIG it would be crazy not to exploit them.

GTO is interesting to learn for me in an academic sort of way. I never expect to lean into it as a foundation of my play style.

 

[Taghkanic]

So in the beginning, my post was a jest. However your need to be superior about something has turned it into something more, and your arrogance and disdain has continued to fuel it. I’m aware that people with these conditions are not fast to catch social cues, but I did think that perhaps you might be capable of it. However I realize now that I drastically underestimated your arrogance and the degree of your need to be the expert.
I agree with you that you are the superior asshole. Hopefully this will satisfy your ego and I from now on will pronounce to everyone that I know that you are the supreme arrogant ass anytime the subject comes up.

Congratulations.

Seriously impressive how you are able to reply to posts you haven’t read. This incredible skill will take you far

 

[MrRossKeys]

Actually, game theory means exactly that: Play it out long enough and the game approaches a draw. How long it takes depends on the amount of variance built into a game.

So, I also agree with this.

But let's jump to the part where in reality "long enough" might be longer than one session... or "long enough" might not happen because villain gets moved or leaves the table... Essentially with perfect conditions the game approaches a draw, but in real world conditions it can only at best help guide us through scenarios... but it can never be perfect.

Maybe we're saying the same thing... it just feels like some are trying to promote the idea that GTO in itself is perfect poker... and I detest that notion lol

 

[chipchipchip]

My take on GTO discussions in the poker universe are that it’s the new “move up where they’ll respect my raises.” But most people that are talking about using GTO will not only never, ever get good at it, they’ll never get good at poker period. And that’s okay! Whatever keeps them coming back with another buy in is good enough for me.

 

[RainmanTrail]

Cliff Notes: Yes, GTO works, and is an advancement in strategy. People might think they are studying it, but they don't fundamentally understand how to use it.

It reminds me of every single math course I ever had at every level; elementary school, high school, university, and graduate. You can teach the formulas and some students will be able to solve the problems while others won't. But it's those "story problems" that most people seemed to struggle with, not the formulas themselves. Taking mathematical concepts you learned from the coursework and applying them in ways that allow you to solve real-world problems. This is the real skill. And it's one that even some of the "best" students lacked. GTO strategy is the mathematical "story problem" of poker. You can study it all you want, but if you don't know how to translate what you've learned into solving real-time problems, it's not going to do you any good. And if you are good at doing that to begin with, you were probably already beating poker without it. But yes, you can get better by studying it if you're already a winning player. But studying GTO isn't doing to turn a donkey into a shark.

 

[Nanook]

@RainmanTrail
Well stated!

 

[MrRossKeys]

Cliff Notes: Yes, GTO works, and is an advancement in strategy. People might think they are studying it, but they don't fundamentally understand how to use it.

It reminds me of every single math course I ever had at every level; elementary school, high school, university, and graduate. You can teach the formulas and some students will be able to solve the problems while others won't. But it's those "story problems" that most people seemed to struggle with, not the formulas themselves. Taking mathematical concepts you learned from the coursework and applying them in ways that allow you to solve real-world problems. This is the real skill. And it's one that even some of the "best" students lacked. GTO strategy is the mathematical "story problem" of poker. You can study it all you want, but if you don't know how to translate what you've learned into solving real-time problems, it's not going to do you any good. And if you are good at doing that to begin with, you were probably already beating poker without it. But yes, you can get better by studying it if you're already a winning player. But studying GTO isn't doing to turn a donkey into a shark.

Great points. I've always viewed you as someone who "gets it" when it comes to the intersection of math and poker. Thank you for your explanation.

Wish you still lived closer so I could catch one of your cash games again. Fun times!

 

[JeepologyOffroad]

Thread is not what I expected

 

[jja412]

Thread is not what I expected

View attachment 1054604

Uh....yeah. You could say that.

 

[dpeks13]

I came here ready to talk about the 1969 GTO Judge

 

[RainmanTrail]

Great points. I've always viewed you as someone who "gets it" when it comes to the intersection of math and poker. Thank you for your explanation.

Wish you still lived closer so I could catch one of your cash games again. Fun times!

Looking forward to splashing pots with you again at a meet up some day! It's been too long. I hope all is well!

 

[Legend5555]

Cliff Notes: Yes, GTO works, and is an advancement in strategy. People might think they are studying it, but they don't fundamentally understand how to use it.

It reminds me of every single math course I ever had at every level; elementary school, high school, university, and graduate. You can teach the formulas and some students will be able to solve the problems while others won't. But it's those "story problems" that most people seemed to struggle with, not the formulas themselves. Taking mathematical concepts you learned from the coursework and applying them in ways that allow you to solve real-world problems. This is the real skill. And it's one that even some of the "best" students lacked. GTO strategy is the mathematical "story problem" of poker. You can study it all you want, but if you don't know how to translate what you've learned into solving real-time problems, it's not going to do you any good. And if you are good at doing that to begin with, you were probably already beating poker without it. But yes, you can get better by studying it if you're already a winning player. But studying GTO isn't doing to turn a donkey into a shark.

I can't remember where I heard this, probably Galfond, but GTO involves learning in a way we typically don't.

Those who use solvers to really study GTO are basically proposing a problem to a teacher, and the teacher is just giving them an answer instead of given them rationale and concepts to solve with. Then it's up to the student to try and figure out the reasoning by looking at the answers to several similar problems. We basically will never know the exact reasoning because even the computer doesn't. It's just hard calculating a strategy over millions of spots until it finds an equilibrium point.

Galfond put up a pretty cool video yesterday about GTO.

 

[Taghkanic]

So, I also agree with this.

But let's jump to the part where in reality "long enough" might be longer than one session... or "long enough" might not happen because villain gets moved or leaves the table... Essentially with perfect conditions the game approaches a draw, but in real world conditions it can only at best help guide us through scenarios... but it can never be perfect.

Maybe we're saying the same thing... it just feels like some are trying to promote the idea that GTO in itself is perfect poker... and I detest that notion lol

Long-term means long-term.

Play one hand and anything can happen. Play 1,000 hands and things start to become more predictable. Play tens of thousands of hands and results start to reflect actual theory.

We all are going to play tens of thousands of hands (maybe millions if you multitable online) eventually.

This is of course also true of playing with no theory, or TAG, or LAG, etc. But the baseline is lower: More players will be more likely to lose long-term without GTO. GTO players become less and less likely to lose, but may make fewer profits depending on how close to GTO their opponents are.

Poker has variance. We all know that. There is no strategy which is guaranteed to prevent short-term disasters because coolers and one-outers do happen.

But that is not a reason to ignore GTO in the short term. It still can produce better and more consistent results whether applied perfectly or just used to inform exploitative decisions.

 

[LowerBama1714]

Long-term means long-term.

Play one hand and anything can happen. Play 1,000 hands and things start to become more predictable. Play tens of thousands of hands and results start to reflect actual theory.

We all are going to play tens of thousands of hands (maybe millions if you multitable online) eventually.

This is of course also true of playing with no theory, or TAG, or LAG, etc. But the baseline is lower: More players will be more likely to lose long-term without GTO. GTO players become less and less likely to lose, but may make fewer profits depending on how close to GTO their opponents are.

Poker has variance. We all know that. There is no strategy which is guaranteed to prevent short-term disasters because coolers and one-outers do happen.

But that is not a reason to ignore GTO in the short term. It still can produce better and more consistent results whether applied perfectly or just used to inform exploitative decisions.

AKO (Alan Keating Optimal) is way more fun…

 

[Poker Zombie]

@Nanook, I appreciate everything in your latest post. Not that I (or anyone) should be the "post police," just pointing out that what I am about to say is not intended to be too personal or ruffle feathers.

Your original response (which quoted me and another member) proceeded to communicate that I am "probably" one of the people you suggest learn a little GTO and then proceed to misuse it, and lose more because of it. The only issue I have with your first statement is that it is impossible for you to know or even imply your statement based on the one sentence I wrote about GTO.

Since first being exposed to GTO about 11 years ago I have become more of a winning player than I was before it. For me it is not solely based on following GTO by the letter, but the concepts opened my eyes to many things about poker that weren't even on my radar beforehand. In short, it has helped a little, but it isn't my main driver for decision making while playing.

But even then, maybe I don't care about being a winning player? Maybe I'm a maniac and love to gamble? Maybe I've found some holy-grail of awesome that profits me more than GTO (not sharing it with you guys ). I could have a comprehensive understanding of GTO and decide not to use it to adjust my play style and it wouldn't prove that I misuse it.

So I'll reiterate the main point of my response to you, which first started as a tongue-and-cheek joke, then escalated to another joke, and then finally into what I wanted you to take away: your categorization of my statement was totally unwarranted and unnecessary, and felt like it steered away from the original goal of the thread and into the subject of "Nanook knows more about GTO than MOST other people."

I totally understand that you didn't mean to offend me or anyone else. But when the original question was about whether players understanding of GTO (whether vast or small) has adjusted their play style, a response (yours) invalidating others experience with the subject matter isn't something I believe fits with what the OP was looking for.

AND... maybe, just maybe I've been jaded in the past by others who preach GTO as gospel and immediately talk down on people who don't use it, don't understand it, or don't like it. It is possible your words came off more like "us vs them" than it should have... and this is me trying to own up to any projection I may have reacted to.

So yes, I had a problem with you using my quote to prove your point, especially because there shouldn't have been a way that my quote gave you the impression that I am somehow misusing GTO. Other than that, I'm happy if you're happy. Especially if you've been winning for 20+ years... that in itself is very impressive (seriously).

Happy Saturday.

Sounds bespoke for sure. It’s not that I don’t understand it, it’s more that you are a shitty explainer.

There’s a little player named Betty that I’d like to introduce you and your cute theories too. Real world is often quite different than theoretical world.

My explanation is pretty much standard. Sorry about your reading comp problem.

My bad. I thought this was the GTO thread.

Turns out it's the GTFO thread. Carry on.

 

[Highli99]

Funny how GTO conversations really make people stabby.

Great video by Phil. His voice is so peaceful and soothing it helps me find zen in the midst of all the swirl.

 

[MrRossKeys]

Long-term means long-term.

Play one hand and anything can happen. Play 1,000 hands and things start to become more predictable. Play tens of thousands of hands and results start to reflect actual theory.

We all are going to play tens of thousands of hands (maybe millions if you multitable online) eventually.

This is of course also true of playing with no theory, or TAG, or LAG, etc. But the baseline is lower: More players will be more likely to lose long-term without GTO. GTO players become less and less likely to lose, but may make fewer profits depending on how close to GTO their opponents are.

Poker has variance. We all know that. There is no strategy which is guaranteed to prevent short-term disasters because coolers and one-outers do happen.

But that is not a reason to ignore GTO in the short term. It still can produce better and more consistent results whether applied perfectly or just used to inform exploitative decisions.

I agree with all of this. And I am not promoting the idea of ignoring GTO at all. I did mention initially that the concepts find their way into my game, but to the original question of the thread: I did not overhaul or change my game drastically because of it. There's obviously a ton of value in it, but just as many have stated, there's just as much detriment to applying it incorrectly as there is value in understanding and applying it correctly.

Maybe i'm nitpicking a point that isn't being argued, but when you say "play 1,000 hands and things start to become more predictable..." I am trying to apply this logic to situations where this just isn't the case. In a situation where no one is playing with any GTO knowledge for example, novice/newer players, players that you only get to play over the course of 30 hands instead of 1,000 hands, etc... there are so many instances where deciding to purely solve for protected loses over the course of 1,000 hands just doesn't make sense to me.

Playing in a tournament with veteran and/or professional players sounds more ideal for GTO than the types of games I play most often. Maybe the point you're making is that GTO isn't supposed to be as opponent/situation specific, but that's the point I am opposing.

Hopefully I am making sense in the small difference of our main points. Happy Sunday.

 

[Taghkanic]

I agree with all of this. And I am not promoting the idea of ignoring GTO at all. I did mention initially that the concepts find their way into my game, but to the original question of the thread: I did not overhaul or change my game drastically because of it. There's obviously a ton of value in it, but just as many have stated, there's just as much detriment to applying it incorrectly as there is value in understanding and applying it correctly.

Maybe i'm nitpicking a point that isn't being argued, but when you say "play 1,000 hands and things start to become more predictable..." I am trying to apply this logic to situations where this just isn't the case. In a situation where no one is playing with any GTO knowledge for example, novice/newer players, players that you only get to play over the course of 30 hands instead of 1,000 hands, etc... there are so many instances where deciding to purely solve for protected loses over the course of 1,000 hands just doesn't make sense to me.

Playing in a tournament with veteran and/or professional players sounds more ideal for GTO than the types of games I play most often. Maybe the point you're making is that GTO isn't supposed to be as opponent/situation specific, but that's the point I am opposing.

Hopefully I am making sense in the small difference of our main points. Happy Sunday.

Strong disagree.

The whole point of GTO (as I’ve read about it) is that how your opponents play becomes irrelevant.

You cannot be exploited, long-term, because there is no strategy against you which will lead to any outcome worse than a draw.

 

[Taghkanic]

The simplest explanations I’ve heard involve “toy games” like Rock Paper Scissors.

1/3rd is GTO for Rock Paper Scissors.

If both players are able to throw each option exactly 1/3rd of the time, in even amounts, the game pretty quickly becomes a draw. You don’t need anything like 1,000 times to get there.

Now if the GTO player sticks to 1/3rd, and the other player deviates even a little, the GTO player will win more.

If one player is a hardo who throws Rock 50% of the time, the GTO player could use that knowledge to exploit the opponent’s tendency by increasing his Paper throws.

But if the GTO player does nothing and sticks to his 1/3rd strategy, he still wins. There is nothing the hardo can do but to also go back to playing 1/3rd GTO and get back to a draw. That’s the “unexploitable” part.

By sticking to the 1/3rd line, the GTO player is giving up some potential profit, but doesn’t risk the hardo noticing GTO’s adjustment and revising his 50% Rock strategy.

…….

The good news for those who sre triggered by the mere mention of GTO is that poker is a multi-way game with multiple cards and streets and positions and (in NL at least) infinite bet sizes.

There aren’t enough computers in the world to solve full ring NLHE. So instead they derive lessons from simulating billions of hands, and grouping them into buckets which approximate GTO for similar situations.

I guess that heads-up limit has been truly solved by a computer lab, but that’s about it. (Limit has a far smaller decision tree.)

So: You are not going to encounter a live table where anyone can play perfect GTO.

Even online you might at worst play against bots which are approximating GTO with, like 90% accuracy, using approximations to estimate correct moves in spots. (Again, as I understand it the computing power does not exist to solve multi-way NLHE, and probably never will. But the bots don’t need to know every single solution, just be able to recognize millions of situations which are roughly comparable.)

That does not mean that there is no point to understanding GTO.

Plus, the better pro-GTO podcasters and authors I’ve read don’t even recommend anyone trying to play perfect GTO.

Instead they say to use ann understanding of it to (a) better spot opponents’ deviations from optimal and exploit them for bonus profit—as with the RPC toy game vs the 50% Rock hardo—and (b) make your own play less exploitable and harder to discern.

 

[Eriks]

The simplest explanations I’ve heard involve “toy games” like Rock Paper Scissors.

1/3rd is GTO for Rock Paper Scissors.

If both players are able to throw each option exactly 1/3rd of the time, in even amounts, the game pretty quickly becomes a draw. You don’t need anything like 1,000 times to get there.

Now if the GTO player sticks to 1/3rd, and the other player deviates even a little, the GTO player will win more.

If one player is a hardo who throws Rock 50% of the time, the GTO player could use that knowledge to exploit the opponent’s tendency by increasing his Paper throws.

But if the GTO player does nothing and sticks to his 1/3rd strategy, he still wins. There is nothing the hardo can do but to also go back to playing 1/3rd GTO and get back to a draw. That’s the “unexploitable” part.

By sticking to the 1/3rd line, the GTO player is giving up some potential profit, but doesn’t risk the hardo noticing GTO’s adjustment and revising his 50% Rock strategy.

…….

The good news for those who sre triggered by the mere mention of GTO is that poker is a multi-way game with multiple cards and streets and positions and (in NL at least) infinite bet sizes.

There aren’t enough computers in the world to solve full ring NLHE. So instead they derive lessons from simulating billions of hands, and grouping them into buckets which approximate GTO for similar situations.

I guess that heads-up limit has been truly solved by a computer lab, but that’s about it. (Limit has a far smaller decision tree.)

So: You are not going to encounter a live table where anyone can play perfect GTO.

Even online you might at worst play against bots which are approximating GTO with, like 90% accuracy, using approximations to estimate correct moves in spots. (Again, as I understand it the computing power does not exist to solve multi-way NLHE, and probably never will. But the bots don’t need to know every single solution, just be able to recognize millions of situations which are roughly comparable.)

That does not mean that there is no point to understanding GTO.

Plus, the better pro-GTO podcasters and authors I’ve read don’t even recommend anyone trying to play perfect GTO.

Instead they say to use ann understanding of it to (a) better spot opponents’ deviations from optimal and exploit them for bonus profit—as with the RPC toy game vs the 50% Rock hardo—and (b) make your own play less exploitable and harder to discern.

Great explanation. Seems like different things are being argued in this thread. No one is trying to say that GTO is the best strategy to maximize profit. Only that it is a strategy that cannot be exploited.

So assuming one sits at a table full of unknowns, the best theoretical strategy should be to employ GTO* and then deviate from that according to the information that is picked up ingame. But until you’ve actually seen that player X seems to call too much on the river, you should stick to GTO* and make your river bets balanced.

*or as close to GTO that’s possible

 

[Legend5555]

I think most people get this but just in case, to simplify what has been said above:

GTO is not a profit maximizing strategy, it is an exploitation minimizing strategy. Of you could actually play GTO, then you can't do worse long term than break even.

Players generally have several leaks, so even if GTO loses money in a spot where if paying attention and adjusted it could win more, it's also probably winning more in some other situations against the same opponent than it probably should. There is some self balancing in GTO in that regard. But GTO is still never going to win the most it could.

I think most people would be wise to take some lessons from GTO. But it's hardly necessary to know it really well outside of the truly upper echelons.

 

[MrRossKeys]

Strong disagree.

The whole point of GTO (as I’ve read about it) is that how your opponents play becomes irrelevant.

You cannot be exploited, long-term, because there is no strategy against you which will lead to any outcome worse than a draw.

Being exploited long term...... my entire point was to point out that "long term" only exists in situations where long term exists, which for some players (depending on the game and circumstance) doesn't exist.

AND since we're going there with the "cannot be exploited" argument, I'm going to ruffle all the feathers (cordially) by disagreeing with this idea, at least as written. I think the main benefit to GTO is the baseline of strategy and knowledge to start from with the opportunity to deviate from it built-in.

In this example, we are only solving for one scenario : Hero facing a river action heads-up with top pair, first to act. According to your statement "how your opponents play becomes irrelevant" means we will dismiss the opponents actions, tells, and story up to this point. Hero can bet here, check call, or check fold. According to GTO in this scenario hero should bluff 1/3 of the time and fold to a pot-sized bet 2/3 of the time. If hero bluffs less than 1/3 or more than 1/3 then he/she is not playing optimal GTO, which is supposed to protect hero from being exploited. And once again, it's not supposed to matter how your opponent plays.

But the issue is that, even without employing GTO, I as the villain in this situation could identify that the hero is bluffing around a third of the time and folding around twice every three opportunities on the river. So over the course of a moderate amount of hands I could time my bluffs to match up with hero's folds... also timing my value bets to hero's bluffs... The GTO player would not adjust for this because what I do is irrelevant to him/her, and hero just assumes that they will not be exploited over X number of hands so it will all work out. However, GTO player has already been adjusted to by non-GTO player... and villain is exploiting hero with or without using any GTO knowledge.

Now, in best case scenario the GTO player's baseline gets adjusted as play evolves giving hero the best world of exploiting other player's weaknesses all while protecting him/herself over the course of X number of hands. But, this adjustment doesn't happen with the mindset that your "opponents play is irrelevant." Quite the opposite.

If one player is a hardo who throws Rock 50% of the time, the GTO player could use that knowledge to exploit the opponent’s tendency by increasing his Paper throws.

But if the GTO player does nothing and sticks to his 1/3rd strategy, he still wins. There is nothing the hardo can do but to also go back to playing 1/3rd GTO and get back to a draw. That’s the “unexploitable” part.

So just for fun, I tried this out in the smallest sample size...

GTO / Hardo
Paper / Rock
Scissor / Paper
Rock / Rock
Paper / Scissor
Scissor / Rock
Rock / Paper
Paper / Rock
Scissor / Scissor
Rock / Rock
Paper / Paper
Scissor / Rock
Rock / Scissor

This is 1/3 vs 1/2, and it's 4-4 before repeating to infinity. I did not try this starting with other combos, but at least in this configuration it's a draw if neither player deviates from Rock 50% and GTO... Someone has to switch it up to become profitable. GTO player should have the advantage because the knowledge is there.

Happy Monday (is that a oxymoron?)

 

[Taghkanic]

There’s a lot of fundamental misunderstanding of GTO terms and/or distortion of core concepts being thrown around throughout this thread.

(At least as I have studied them. As already said, I can’t say I’m great at applying them in-game, but I have some basic grasp of the concepts I am trying to deploy.)

1) Long-term refers to *your* long-term. Not the small sample size of one session.

If you could play GTO perfectly, over the tens of thousands of hands you play in a year or a lifetime, the worst you could do would be break even.

It would not matter whether your opponents were nits or maniacs or GTO bots.

The principle remains the same: For any game, there is at least one equilibrium strategy which makes you unexploitable long-term.

If you deviate from that equilibrium because you think your opponent overbluffs, or overcalls, or folds too much, etc., then you’re playing exploitatively. Which is a good idea *if you truly have good reads on someone.* Even then, GTO can help you see what mistakes people are making and how to take advantage.

2) GTo doesn’t mean you play the same way every hand. Just the opposite.

It means means that theory is always a factor determining the correct balance of actions and sizes to make you unexploitable over time.

GTO is not a rigid strategy; any argument claiming that is a pure a straw man. If you are facing a river bet with a bluff catcher, depending on the board texture, the bet size, etc., GTO attempts to compute what the correct balance of responses is to make you impossible to exploit. ***Long term***

GTO still reacts to each specific action, position, streets, bet sizes, etc, But it is not doing it from the old Harrington-type standpoint of “Here is the one correct play in this spot.”

Solvers propose for any given spot a range of actions and sizes based not just on your specific cards or pot sizes or your belief about what kind of player you’re facing. It’s looking at the variety of ways you might wind up in that spot—and balancing your options across them.

So a solution facing a river lead might include 50% shove, 20% call, 5% fold and 25% reraise some smaller amount.100% fold or 100% shove advice is not the usual.

What it’s not doing is making reads. Though I guesss there are now solvers which allow you to adjust a villain’s range based on profile and spit out a GTO solution based on that added data. Can’t say I’m advanced enough with the tech or have enough free time to run all those sims.