Introduction to Small Stakes No-Limit Hold ’em: Help Them Give You Their Money
Hi Everyone:
Here's part of the Introduction to or upcoming book Small Stakes No-Limit Hold ’em: Help Them Give You Their Money. We expect to have the printed book up on Amazon in less than a month:
Introduction
Let’s start this book off with a few examples. These are just a few of the many types of hands which for the live small stakes games, usually $2-$5 or less, that we play differently from the way almost all other players in these games will play them, and is also different from much of the standard advice that is out there. So why do we do this?
The answer is simple. Against poor playing opponents, the best strategy for maximizing your win rate is to exploit these players as much as possible, sometimes with plays that look extreme. Especially to an “expert” player who often relies on Game Theory Optimal (GTO) to model his strategy.
Now, we understand that those who usually play GTO will, when appropriate, exploit their opponents. They do so when they see an opponent playing very badly which will make them make changes to their standard strategy. But they usually do this only in very obvious cases.
But that’s not the way we play these small stakes games. In these games, assuming the game is eight or nine-handed, it’s common to be against four ot more terrible players, and even most of the remaining players, who are usually semi-competent, will still make some significant errors, especially late in the hand when the big bets are in play.
If you were to go into a higher stakes (live) game, usually $5-$10 and up, where there are many strong players, and do many of the things that we’ll be recommending, your results will probably be disappointing. But if you stick to a game like $1-$3 no-limit hold ’em where the maximum buy-in is usually 100 to 200 big blinds, and follow the advice that is contained in this book, we suspect that you’ll be quite surprised and pleased with your results.
Our approach is not looking to make lots of great plays where you may steal a pot or knock a player out who, if he had stayed in, might have beaten you on a later street. We’re also not interested in constantly balancing our strategy and putting our opponent(s) at an “indifference point.” The experts can worry about that stuff, and if that’s your approach, play the higher stakes or perhaps limit hold ’em where recognizing small edges is highly important. But if you simply want to let your opponents give you their money, we’ll show you how to do it.
A Few Examples
(Again, these examples show you only a small number of the many ideas we will soon tell you about.) To see what we’re talking about, here are five examples. Notice that in every one of these hands, we’re playing differently, and sometimes very differently, from the way most poker instructors, coaches, book authors, poker video content producers, etc., will tell you how to play. It's true that, in general, their advice may be reasonably good, especially against tougher players than those we’ll be addressing. But it won’t be well targeted for these small stakes games. And if you’re playing live, these are the vast majority of games that are spread in our public cardrooms.
Example No. 1: Here’s a hand that David played in a Las Vegas $1-$3 game. It’s an extreme example, but we want to start with it to show how different many of the strategies in this book are and to give you an idea of how different, in some situations, our approach to maximizing your expectation is from the typical player, and this includes most of those who are currently having some success in live $1-$2, $1-$3, $2-$5, and similar no-limit hold ’em games.
In a $1-$3 no-limit game, David was dealt the
K♦ K♣
two positions to the right of the button. The first four players limped in and David only called. The next two players folded, the small blind called, and the big blind checked.
The flop came the
J♠ 9♥ 7♠
The under-the-gun player bet, two players called, and then David threw his pair of kings in the muck.
Virtually no one else, at the time of this writing, would play a pair of kings in late position in a multiway pot this way. They would have made a substantial raise before the flop, and on the flop they would have certainly played their hand.
But let’s notice something obvious. If one of the last two positions or one of the blinds would have raised, when the action got back to David, he would have the option to make a big reraise, and if there were also a couple of callers, he would almost always be a large favorite to win a big pot assuming he got at least one caller.
As for his fold on the flop, given the way the hand was played, the reason for David’s fold is a little more complex, and that will be explained in detail later in this book. He would not have folded if the flop would have come something like the
J♠ 7♥ 2:♣
So, this example should give you an idea of what this book is about. To be specific, it’s playing your hands in the way that will exploit the weak players to the maximum. And as you can see from this example, some of the ways to do this aren't the ways that are generally advocated by the current crop of poker instructors and poker coaches as well as some of whom have been around. But there are ways, which will allow you to win the maximum at a reasonable risk that these small live stakes games have to offer.
Example No. 2: This hand was played by David. Under-the-Gun in a $1-$3 game at a full table, David held the
A♠ K♠
Instead of raising first in as most poker instructors would recommend, he limped in for $3 and got three callers behind him plus the big blind. So, after the rake, there was $15 in the pot.
The flop came the
K♣ 9♥ 4♣
and with top pair, top kicker, David bet $15 and got one caller. The pot (after the rake) is now $42.
David saw that his lone opponent only had $80 left. And when a T♦ came on the turn, David bet $80 and was called by his opponent who was now all-in. Unfortunately, a club came on the river and this player showed the
6♣ 2♣
for a flush which won the pot.
Now some of you might say that if David had raised before the flop, as most players would, he would have won the pot. But notice that he got his opponent to call a large bet (for this game) getting 1.5-to-1 odds when he needed to make a 4-to-1 shot. So, theoretically, David won much more playing the hand this way than he would have won playing the hand in a conventional manner. And over time, these theoretical wins do turn into real money.
Example No. 3: Here’s a hand that Mason played. A timid early position player limped in, and Mason had concluded that this player absolutely never bluffed. Everyone folded to Mason who called with the 7♥7♦ on the button. The small blind folded and the big blind checked.
Three random cards, including one overcard to the sevens, flopped. The big blind checked, the timid player bet a modest amount, and Mason folded.
Example No. 4: Here’s another hand that Mason played. In a $1-$3 game, an overly loose-aggressive player, two positions to the right of the button, raised to $10. The button called and Mason, who held the
A♠ K♠
in the big blind called. Notice that the standard play would be to make a big reraise.
The flop came the
J♥ 6♦ 3♠
Mason checked, the loose-aggressive player bet $15, the button folded, and Mason called with his ace-king and three-flush. The turn was the 6♠ giving Mason a four-flush. Mason checked, the loose aggressive player bet $25, and Mason called.
The river was the A♣. Mason checked, the loose-aggressive player bet $50 and Mason called with his (now) aces-up and king kicker. The loose aggressive player then turned over the
A♦ 2♥
Notice that he had bet a total of $100 on all four streets and never had the best hand.
Example No. 5: And for our final example, here’s a hand that David played. Before the flop in a $1-$2 game that had a maximum $300 buy-in, David called a limp with the
8♠ 7♠
Five players, not including the small blind, saw the flop, and after the rake there was $10 in the pot. The flop was the
A♠ 9♠ 4♣
which gave David a flush draw. An early position player bet $8, and David called. Now there was $25 (after the rake) in the pot and both players had plenty of chips. The turn was a blank and David’s opponent bet $15 into the $25 pot bringing it to $38 (after the rake). This meant that David would be receiving immediate odds of $38-to-$15, or 2.53-to-1, to call. And since making a flush on the river is approximately 4-to-1, even if David can collect an additional bet when his flush comes in, this does not seem like enough to warrant a call. But David went ahead and called, bringing the pot to $52 (after the rake).
The flush card came on the river. The early position player checked, and David bet $70, $18 more than the size of the pot. And after thinking for a while, the early position player called and his top pair lost to the flush and David made $108 on his $15 call, which is approximately 7.2-to-1 on a 4-to-1 shot.
I stopped reading once they posted like 10 facts about gto.
I think 2 of the facts were legit. The rest not so much
I’ll post them today
Oh, the Miller book. I like this one better. The Miller book gives too many rules, like never limp. That sort of thing is good for fish to keep them playing solid. The Sklansky book assumes you know how to play, and discusses adjustments when playing 1/3 or whatever.
There are a lot of regs and part-time players who have difficulty because of the games getting harder, etc. Online poker is a mess, and very tough. Limit games are much less played. 5/10 and up NL players are using GTO, copying how a
I really admire hjow different this book is, it really is play passive pre flop and limp and over cal a lot
they dont really want you raising too much pre flop. for instance there is a section in their preflop where they say with AA if you see a raise and 2 callers that if we wanted to raiise, raise it lightly so you get more callers. to me that's goes against everything on 2p2 for the last 15+ years as with AA with that much money i assumed you would want to be HU also a few times they say raise with QQ+ but at times limp from up front to get more peoplein pot and they say sometimes just call to see flop
again its very intriguing to hear about this since its fundamentally against what A LOT of people say but who am I to judge, its just fascinating. maybe im reading the context wrong too tho not sure if they get into handling 3 betting or not as not that far
That's what I meant. They say things against the general consensus, and don't seem to be aware that consensus exists.
I think they have a point about sometimes limping or raising smallish. If people are going to limp/call or cold call a smallish raise with like 50% of hands, maybe it is better to build the pot rather than drive them out.
Small pp and Axs clearly play better multiway. Often it is a mistake to call with a small pp likely HU. Axs can be used as a 3-bet bluffing hand, usually in tougher games. With a small pp, you get great immediate odds say 6-way. Then if you hit, you can get a lot from someone who makes some random 2-pair and can't fold it. With Axs, you can make various draws and strong hands, but you are really looking for the nut flush. Again, you get people calling with almost any suited cards, and they will have a hard time folding when they make their flush.
Now with JJ+/AK, it is usually considered better to play it 3-way against mostly good but dominated hands. if you play it 6-ways, you sort of have negative implied odds. When you make and overpair or TPTK, you likely want to play it strongly. However, when someone make some random 2-pair, you likely lose more than you win with a better one pair. Now maybe if you are good, you can handle the tricky postflop situations.
It is sort of standard for 1/3 players to make huge raises with some portion of 99+/AQ+ and bet smaller or limp lesser hands. This is viewed as fishy, and gives way too much information. But there are some reason that kind of play makes sense.
There are some hands that play better for an limp or small raise in ep. There is also often no point in raising to drive out players rather than limp behind or make a pot building raise (but to way more than 2xBB as Sklansky suggests) with marginal or speculative hands.
So they say it way to strongly, but IMO they have a good point that you don't want to make a big raise that will drive out players with every hand you decide to play
That's what I meant. They say things against the general consensus, and don't seem to be aware that consensus exists.
I think they have a point about sometimes limping or raising smallish. If people are going to limp/call or cold call a smallish raise with like 50% of hands, maybe it is better to build the pot rather than drive them out.
Small pp and Axs clearly play better multiway. Often it is a mistake to call with a small pp likely HU. Axs can be used as a 3-bet bluffing hand, usually in tough
While its true that you dont want to blast everyone out of the pot but you don't really want a 3+ way pot either
Oh, the Miller book. I like this one better. The Miller book gives too many rules, like never limp. That sort of thing is good for fish to keep them playing solid. The Sklansky book assumes you know how to play, and discusses adjustments when playing 1/3 or whatever.
There are a lot of regs and part-time players who have difficulty because of the games getting harder, etc. Online poker is a mess, and very tough. Limit games are much less played. 5/10 and up NL players are using GTO, copying how a
I think the Miller book, The Course, is a good book. But it seems to be designed for games where the make-up of the players is much stronger and more competent than the players we're addressing in the small stakes live games. For example, Miller says to have a hand like ace-five suited in your three-bet range, and against better players where you might need a more balanced strategy, this can be good advice. But we don't see where it has much positive value in the games we're addressing.
Also, Miller says to never limp in if first to voluntarily enter the pot. That's not our advice since we're looking to get poor players into spots where they might lose a lot of money on a later street (and these are spots where a better player is much less likely to do this) or where we might be able to get a three-bet in (before the flop) with a strong hand.
Mason
I really admire hjow different this book is, it really is play passive pre flop and limp and over cal a lot
they dont really want you raising too much pre flop. for instance there is a section in their preflop where they say with AA if you see a raise and 2 callers that if we wanted to raiise, raise it lightly so you get more callers. to me that's goes against everything on 2p2 for the last 15+ years as with AA with that much money i assumed you would want to be HU also a few times they say raise
Going by memory, I don't think it says anything like this. Perhaps you can find the place and I'll take a look.
On page 62 it says:
We’re not sure why this happens but suspect that many players in these live small stakes games have a phobia about being “pushed around.” Or perhaps they are thinking “He would never actually raise this much with a great hand like aces or kings.” Maybe they are using the second reason as a rationalization when the first reason is the real culprit. In any case, you should seriously consider raising up to about ten times their initial raise with aces down through queens plus ace-king suited.
On page 68 it says:
Assuming average small stakes stack sizes, average small stakes opponents in terms of skill, an early position raiser, middle position for you, and no callers between you and the raiser, you should usually reraise to about three or four times the initial raise with AA, KK, and maybe QQ, JJ, and AK (suited or offsuit).
And on page 69 it says:
If his raise is more than about three or four times the big blind (when no one else is in) you need a better hand than usual to call. (Those calls would now include the bottom end of hands you might usually reraise with). If he’s raising limpers already in, you can stick to your normal calling requirements as long as his raise isn’t that much larger than normal. The hands that you reraise with should usually be aces or kings, and these hands should reraise big. Maybe even very big.
Mason
“Dispensing with GTO”
1. Except for heads up NLHE , nobody, and this includes computers, know what the perfect GTO strategy is although in some cases they are close
2. Since GTO is designed to beat all styles of opposing play from the tightest to the loosest, it should be obvious that it does not win at the rate of a good player who knows that his opponent is much too tight or too loose and plays accordingly
3. It doesn’t attempt to read hands. It doesn’t attempt to put someone on a hand or even a range of hands based on their previous play. Rather is plays the best strategy that exists under the assumption that the opponent is also using GTO. It doesn’t play the best strategy against other ranges as a good player might and this is particularly true against a poor player who’s making a lot of mistakes.
Fact one, imo, even if true is irrelevant. You don’t need to know perfect Strat to mimic GTO and get similar results
Fact two, GTO isn’t designed to beat all styles of play is it? I thought it was designed to lose the least amount of money possible against opponent(s)
Fact three, I don’t think gto plays the best strategy that exists under the assumption the other player is playing GTO
How right or wrong am I ?
It obviously isn't optimum to try to play GTO at lowth stakes. However, there are thingst that have been learned from GTO. I don't agree with totally dispensing with it. Maybe the authors don't understand it.
If people are willing to limp/call or cold call a raise to say 15 at 1/3 with like 40% of hands, I don't see why we should raise big to force them to play better ranges. It may be better to narrow tthe field with premium hands. However, if you have say AJo, QJs, or 88, is it optimal to narrow the field to comparable strength hands and get them to fold junk? You can raise bigger with bigger hands, but most fish at 1/3 do that and it becomes readable even to 1/3 players.
I'm going to copy/paste my notes on this book and give my review at the end.
1. Limping first in - important.
1A. Buying in for the minimum to have an advantage over larger stacks!
1B. In a typical $1/$2 live game - we should be opening $6 preflop as a default!
2. Short term tilt is an important concept
3. over limping 22-44 in GTO in the CO has the same EV as raising 2.5x! Check GTO Wizard
4. Page 14 - GTO can be essentially memorized and does not take as much talent as
exploitative play. This statement is not correct, no one is memorizing full GTO game trees, especially river nodes.
5. page 52. No calling it's either a check or raise. Bad wording
6. Page 55. Don't cbet vs the non bluffer! fold to his turn bet. Very important.
7. Page 56. You can fold A3cc on A96r OTF against weak player!
8. **How do you identify a non bluffer? Player profile - how long does it take you to identify a non bluffer?**
9. Being 9 handed vs 6 handed encourages limping. Difference between online vs live play
1. Isolation Raises - 3 reasons to make them:
A. If you're in late position
B. Opponents make big mistakes post flop
C. Players who may fold preflop when they play well postflop
2. Small raise with hands like 98s and 55 to sweeten the pot over limpers. If a hand makes money when it
limps, it reasons that it should make about double the money when you raise 2x.
3. Understanding rake, you want more players in the pot! On average we don't want to raise limpers
with mediocre hands, only hands that play well multiway.
4.Page 99: "When opponents almost never bluff, you should fold more often against them than against
others postflop. That's obvious. But you do that after the first round (preflop). Before the flop, you should
fold less often because of the extra edge you'll be playing with."
5.Page 121. Min betting (betting the size of the big blind when checked too). Range composition
should be great hands or poor but not hopeless hands!
Example 1:
We overlimp 87o OTB, flop comes AJ7r - checked to us. Considering min betting instead of checking back!
Example 2:
Raised MW pot and are OTB with FD. Checks to us - we can consider min betting so we don't get bet out
of the pot OTT. Exploit vs both Regs and Fish because if you nodelocked a sim to us doing this the OOP
players would have to develop significant donking ranges to counter our strategy and they won't do that.
Example 3:
MW pot OTB with 99 on K95r - min bet works well here. Question for the authors: Would you not min bet on FD board? Ask him this
question page 123.
There's almost no SBvsBB HU spots because the vast majority of players chop here.
Online this is the highest EV spot to study. It has 100% practice priority but it is virtually non existent
in live games. This is one of the main reasons a lot of live players have difficulty transitioning to online
play. The highest EV spot online is a spot you have almost never been in!
Page 124-125: Rope-a-Dope play - Bet-->Call-->we XR. Overbluffed HU in X-XR!
I like that you add KK to the play because it protects you from observant opponents.
I'm predicting a lot of 1-3 star reviews on amazon out of 5 stars because this book is going to go over
most players heads. A lot of these plays are very good as exploits but your readers aren't going to
1) Understand theory well enough 2) Understand MDA and how people actually play this game
Live players will be too static in their strategy to appreciate this book and mediocre online players
will be too steeped in solver play. You need to understand MDA at a deep level to recognize how good
some of these plays are.
I think you guys both understand MDA (I know you don't call it that but we are talking about the same thing).
on a deep level except you learned it through trial and error instead of from a Database like you would online.
The preflop play is actually very very good. If most of your opponent's are fish you are supposed to limp
and over limp a lot. This strategy doesn't work online because usually there aren't more than 1 or maybe 2 fish per table and if the fish does limp you are incentivized to play him heads up and isolate him. Limping is also much better at 9-10 handed games vs 6 handed games because isolation plays have less success vs multiple opponents and the possibility of a limp-XR goes up. Again, online players who read this book will very likely misinterpret your reasoning here and claim "you don't understand the games," or "the games have passed you by" when ironically it is them who don't understand the adjustments.
This is coming from someone that has studied MDA at a high level for the past 30 months.
Live players may have the same fate as the online players because they are likely too static in their approach to the game and don't understand the theory part well enough to know why they are adjusting.
I'll give you an example: Your "wait for the aggro player to bet so that others call and you XR to fold out all the capped ranges OTT and the likely weak range of the aggro player is the exact same play as an online play when they XR your delayed cbet (HU). The X-XR-B line is weak precisely because of the reason you just stated, but it works because the delayed cbet is range is too weak to withstand multiple streets of aggression.
I like that you add the KK hand into that line as well because this will confuse observant opponents and make them doubt their read on you (It's why I reverse MDA lines against better competition).
I think you two might have underestimated how advanced this book is. To understand why these plays are good the reader is going to have to understand the logic behind the play. I don't think most readers will do that and because of this I think this will be your worst reviewed book ever, although it is probably your best. I'm looking at the Amazon reviews right now and I'm seeing a lot of 1-3 star ratings. I would lay a lot of money that they those readers don't understand most of the concepts laid out in this book and that the review is a reflection of this frustration and has nothing to do with the merit of the book. I can see the narrative being that David and Mason are getting senile in their old age and that the game has passed them by which really couldn't be further from the truth.
I plan on re-reading this book to fully grasp some of the plays since they will not work online (based on 6max vs 9-10 max dynamic and also fish are more aggro online than live)---->Actually a very important point. The psychology and shame of getting caught bluffing drastically reduces live bluffing relative to online bluffing. The player type of "non-bluffer" is almost non existent online. But will very likely be common when playing live.
1. Page 128. Early position raises and we just call in late position with TT. Flop comes 962r. If he bets
half pot we should raise for protection because if he comes over the top we will know he has JJ-AA and he
will fold out all overcards. Good play when deeper against weaker competition.
2. Profit from live small stakes NL comes from 2 areas:
A. Recognizing when to make unusually large bets against opponents who call too much.
B. Saving lots of money with with 3 types of folds.
1. The flop fold when your hand is good but not great.
2. The fold against a big bet that can't be a semi-bluff.
3. The early multiway fold when your opponent to the right of you bets.
Page 144: Be cautious when the hand you think your opponents are putting you on is close
to the hand you actually have. No matter how well you play or how good your hand is, you'll
not beat your game if your hand is often essentially face up.
Page 144: "If you flop top pair of kings down through jacks, you should usually bet if your kicker is smaller than your pair but often check if it's higher since hitting your kicker when it's the higher card may
result in a nice win from someone who would have folded but has now turned top pair.
Page 146: QJcc on A84r HU as PFR vs BB. You suggest checking as a default play to gain information on
your opponent. If he checks turn you delayed cbet. Question for the Authors: Are you betting river here as well if he x/c turn?
page 148: Reduce variance when you have a nut hand but your opponent has outs on you. Set vs Straight
Flush vs Ace of suit etc.
page 160: "The fact is that almost all bets, especially on the river in small stakes games, are not bluffs."
Much different online! They overbluff in a lot of nodes.
page 173: A9642 runout no flush. If you have A3o you should bet small (not theoretically correct - you rarely
bet 1/3 OTR when IP).
page 174: After x/c flop or turn - it is frequently correct to donk river rather than check to the bettor.
Donk spots include Flush complete turn/river and straight completing turn/river.
page 174: We call a preflop raise out of the big blind in a MW pot with ATcc. Flop comes Ts6h2h.Turn 9d and we x/c turn. If the river is a heart we should donk lead. For thin value? Most players will X back weak Tx so we need to develop xc/xc/donk range to get value from them.
Page 195: If you would have called that larger all-in bet, then it's almost always true you should move in
yourself, even if you think you're less than 50 percent to win. This prevents him from saving money on the river those times he has a draw or a weak hand and gives up without betting again - important concept. We are allowed to ship <50% equity hands OTT.
Overall I give this book a 5 out of 5 stars. And would highly recommend.
I also have some questions for the authors scattered throughout my notes.
“Small raise with hands like 98s and 55 to sweeten the pot over limpers. If a hand makes money when it
limps, it reasons that it should make about double the money when you raise 2x.”
You’re a coach and you believe this?
“Small raise with hands like 98s and 55 to sweeten the pot over limpers. If a hand makes money when it
limps, it reasons that it should make about double the money when you raise 2x.”
You’re a coach and you believe this?
It's a good heuristic, yes.
It's probably higher than 2x vs fish and lower than 2x vs regs.
Fish don't understand relative vs absolute value as a general concept so playing for stacks will be higher EV.
It sounds made up to me.
But this quote is also in there
“ over limping 22-44 in GTO in the CO has the same EV as raising 2.5x! Check GTO Wizard”
Wouldn’t you get 2.5x the EV?
It sounds made up to me.
But this quote is also in there
“ over limping 22-44 in GTO in the CO has the same EV as raising 2.5x! Check GTO Wizard”
Wouldn’t you get 2.5x the EV?
No it's a mixed strategy in a solver so it's the same EV. This is what I'm talking about. At equilibrium it's the same but no one plays like this so we raise instead to gain more EV from fish.
So you’re saying the authors used the solver to determine the 2x increase in EV?
It should be pointed out that playing GTO poker does NOT guarantee you will break even if the game is unfair, asymmetrical, OR THE POT IS RAKED. If there is a rake, GTO can only guarantee that your loss will not be bigger than what is taken out of your pots. In 100 hands of 1-3 poker that figures to be 10-15 big blind1. Even more in 1-2. This is probably why that Bart fellow said that the rake made those games worthless. If you are partially relying on GTO to make you money, your opponents have to be quite bad.
But here is the thing. While both exploitive and GTO play do better and better as opponents play worse and worse, the growth of your results is higher if the play is exploitive. In other words, if perfect opponents result in GTO losing 12 bb/100 while your loss rate is 18/ bb if you try to play exploitively, very good games might only add 20 bbs to the GTO player while adding 30bb to the smart exploiter. GTO would net 5bb, while exploiter nets 12.
The bottom line is that in order to make any money at these small games, you have to be finding really good ones and then play in a style that is often quite different than GTO and is in fact a style that would get you beaten rather badly if you tried it in merely mediocre games.
I understand that’s the premise of your book and that you guesstimated / made up a lot of these theories. My question is, what if you’re wrong? What if GTO makes more than exploitative ?
I understand that’s the premise of your book and that you guesstimated / made up a lot of these theories. My question is, what if you’re wrong? What if GTO makes more than exploitative ?
The GTO Framework doesn't even exist in low stakes live games because of preflop. If you look at a 9 handed solver on GTO Wizard there is 0% limping so once someone limps the framework falls apart.
GTO is just an idea, it's something to be measured against so you have a benchmark. It's not to be taken literally almost ever (only against world class opponents).
I understand that’s the premise of your book and that you guesstimated / made up a lot of these theories. My question is, what if you’re wrong? What if GTO makes more than exploitative ?
If by "exploitive" you mean "properly exploitive" then it is logically impossible that GTO would make more. The world's biggest fans of GTO know this. There is a leak in your understanding.
If by "exploitive" you mean "properly exploitive" then it is logically impossible that GTO would make more. The world's biggest fans of GTO know this. There is a leak in your understanding.
I def didn’t mean properly or I would’ve written that. I am aware that not everyone can properly max exploit
Now ask yourself what’s easier to execute, GTO based strategy or exploitative strategy , which is why I asked
What if GTO style makes the player more than exploitative style?
Fact two, GTO isn’t designed to beat all styles of play is it? I thought it was designed to lose the least amount of money possible against opponent(s) GTO
No. Game theory is designed to maximize your minimum expectation or minimize your opponent's maximum expectation. While I tire of reading your posts, it's clear to me that there's much about poker / game theory that you're quite confused about. On the Internet you should look up and read about the minimax theorem / maximin principle and what a saddle point is.
Among our stuff, you should read the chapter "Betting and Game Theory" in my book Gambling Theory and Other Topics - Expanded Edition, much of the book The Intelligent Poker Player by Philip Newall, and the game theory discussions in David's book The Theory of Poker Applied to No-Limit.
I assume you've at least looked at Matt Janda's books. If you haven't spend some time with them as well.
Mason
I def didn’t mean properly or I would’ve written that. I am aware that not everyone can properly max exploit
Now ask yourself what’s easier to execute, GTO based strategy or exploitative strategy , which is why I asked
What if GTO style makes the player more than exploitative style?
Your question is similar to the question "what if the basic strategy in blackjack does better than someone who bases his strategy on card counting but doesn't do it expertly".
My answer to both is "if the player often strays too far from basic strategy when he shouldn't, he will do worse. But only if his straying is sometimes quite bad. If his straying is done only when it is obvious that he should, and he otherwise plays close to GTO or basic strategy, he will of course do better. And if the opponents are really bad that will be most hands. Just like it would be if the dealer hit up to 18.
Card counting one way versus card counting another is not a good analogy for playing exploitative or GTO
It’s basically Bart Hanson style versus winning 500z style.
Minimize your opponents max expectation sounds like “lose the least” to me.
Your opponents expectation is how much you lose
Minimizing how much you lose=trying to lose the least imo
