Deviating from GTO
Posted by R0b5ter
Posted by
R0b5ter
posted in
Low Stakes
Deviating from GTO
Say we are raising a normal range UTG and get 3 bet by a very nitty player on the button. Say for the examples sake that we have him on a 3bet of 2% in this situation over a huge sample. According to GTO we should have a minimum defense frequency of somewhere in the area of 60%. We have our set strategy with constructed defense ranges which we can almost play robotically. The question I have is in this particular situation are we always deviating from GTO and turning ourselves exploitable by tightening up our defense range substantially? I mean I know some of the GTO talk would be that if he is 3betting so small we will profit by him never 3bet bluffing us plus we will make a lot of money with AA etc. But the thing is we could do that PLUS profit by folding each time he 3bet us except with the very top of our range. So is an exploitave based approach always alright in these spots?
Another example could be where we have a strong hand on the river say AA on 9,9,x,x,x rainbow. We raised preflop IP and bet all streets. On the river we get XR all in for a huge overbet. Our read says the player has never done something like this before and has an extremely low XR%. According to GTO we have to be defending a healthy percent here in order to not get exploited and AA is probably one of those hands. But with my exploitave experience would probably fold nearly everything except boats here. Is this kind of deviation from GTO wrong here?
I know these questions are probably very trivial and I have a good feeling for the answers myself but I still would like to hear what other players say about this.
Thanks
Loading 19 Comments...
Regarding your second example, given Villain is "hugely overbetting", I strongly doubt that AA is in the top of your range. ;) But say you have a hand in the top of your range, say A9, which you still think can´t call - then your question obviously is a good one - namely, how strong of a read we need to deviate from GTO, does a foggy read on the player pool ("nobody plays anything but a boat like that") do the job? As mentioned, if we have no clue, and think Villain is principally capable of doing that as a bluff - we should go with GTO, imho. Otherwise deviate. But there´s a fine line and I think most players overestimate their ability to make "correct reads" or trust their gut too much.
But yeah anyway I have a hard time going with GTO in spots like these even vs unknowns since my poker brain just says "out all of the million hands you've played a raise like that is not a bluff often enough for you to call".
"According to GTO we should have a minimum defense frequency of somewhere in the area of 60%."
I understand that you need around 60% of folds to get instant profit on a 3-bet (with 0% equity), but that means we should defend 40% against a 3-bet to avoid this. How do we get to the 60%? We consider the equity they have in the hand as well? How do we do it?
Thanks,
João
(Note that one can just as easily described this the other way around, since GTO is where the two meet.)
Against someone who "bluffs" too infrequent, whether it be 3-bet preflop or on the 99xxx river, it is no longer the most profitable strategy to call down as frequent as you would against an optimal opponent.
If you play poker to win real money instead of theoretical money, don't call those nits in these spots!
I mean it in he sense that two players start with typical human strategies and that they keep adapting against each other and that both of them will reach GTO strategies.
Then during that process, both players want to maximize the amount of value they steal from the other player by bluffing, but at the same time hey don't want to bluff so often that hey are giving away value to the other player.
AFTER they both reach GTO all this figurative language becomes meaningless.
Dont confuse yourself there, a pair of GTO strategies is just a pair of strategies where neither player can unilaterally improve his value by changing his strategy. Barring the freedoms they have that don't affect the value of their strategy those are fixed strategies. They don't move, they don't have a goal, they don't "want" to maximize or minimize anything. They just are!
"Another example could be where we have a strong hand on the river say AA on 9,9,x,x,x rainbow. We raised preflop IP and bet all streets. On the river we get XR all in for a huge overbet."
Maybe this player sees all 99XXX boards the same. What if they see 998Q5 differently than 99232? They may take one line on one board, and another line on the other board. If you see these as the same spot, and your opponent doesn't, your opponent has the opportunity to be one level ahead of you no matter what strategy you're employing.
Once we were able to play 100% GTO though, we just wouldn´t care about Villain´s range or what he thinks / does whatever. We´re keeping our lumps together and Villain can jump up and down or run in circles, there´s nothing he can do to increase his winrate.
How can you calculate optimal frequencies for a situation if you're not seeing it properly?
Not saying GTO isn't good, or that it doesn't have good points... just that it can only go so far, and has some major flaws.
If a concept of GTO is proven wrong by math, than GTO no longer exists for poker.
Now, I know that this mostly is "theory" as nobody knows the nash ... but just take the "rock paper scissors" game. If I choose any option with exactly 33% you can do what you want - you won´t win. Ever.
So, if we´re talking about the same thing - GTO can´t have any "flaws" - by definition. :) Unless you mean by flaw that we don´t maximize EV against non-optimal players. That is true, obv. but that means we have to KNOW the strategy / leaks we can exploit.
I guess I'll need to make some videos on this soon...
Agree on this.
Be the first to add a comment