Great content. I have a paid subscription to upswing poker, which has a lot of great content , but it really gets into the weeds. These videos strike a nice balance between presenting the high level ideas, while still going into some detail in order to highlight the overarching strategy. Thank you for making these lectures available to all.
And here we thought that giant sucking sound was industry leaving for Mexico! This whole thing is a commercial for GTO Wizard. That very professional site, like many others, is no doubt a useful study tool. And it has a free trial before they ask you for the money, $39 a month for basic, $129 a month for the, koff, choke, "Elite." Don't try using it during cash games, like poor silly Mike Postle (Google "poker cheats caught") -- the very lucky man who got caught staring at his phone a lot, then listening to his buddy on his "hidden" earpiece. Half-wit Mike was one of the lucky ones: he made a few thousand quid in local games before he got kicked out of poker for life. If he'd tried for the big time, he might have gotten all the little bones in his hands ground up in the back room with a rubber hammer,
I've watch some Nick Howard videos and intuition comes up in his criticism of Janda's more analytical approach. Carrell is another who's critical of GTO in favor of intuitive expertise. The method presented in this video gives a decent idea for where intuitive expertise can give your learning an added dimension and how to explicitly develop skilled post flop performance. Nick himself suggested with a comment on bluffs and bluff catching as exploit vs counter exploit that the river is the most important round to study.
Sound advice, and a good post, Aqua. Mastery of any skill consists of both learning from experts as well as honing your own craft. This RU-vid post is of course an advertisement for one of the many good ways of learning from some of the experts. There's a free trial, and then you can make up your own mind whether to pay them their monthly. It is no longer acceptable anywhere, and it was never very sensible, to try using this expensive service on a phone in your lap during a cash game.
4 bet pot when solver seems to mix X/b10/b25/geometric between all hands "randomly". I guess the mix is mostly due to extremely narrow ranges and preventing the exploitation by using blockers. It would be nice if you can talk about the heuristics in 4 bet pots.
humbly, one of the best videos of the channel. this knowledge is more important than any strategic tips.... and it comes pre loaded with those by nature
It always bothered me when youtubers would use one solution (like piosolver's here) while analyzing the hands of solver-studying players, and then say things like "you'd never be in this spot if you were playing anything resembling a GTO strategy". The fact that pio was the only solver here to have a 0% chance of taking the 3/4 pot bet is a great example of why (even if correct) that is a rushed conclusion that needs further explanation.
yea，i feel just a lot pictures comes out of my brain what does turn comes out or river, whats my opponent's response if i do something, just like play chess. U can use information and reading of the board, and ur hands blocking range to simulate decisions.
There can be more than one GTO solution. Practically speaking, we solve to a certain "exploitability threshold". So what this is actually saying is that different strategies can accomplish the same level of accuracy. If we require more accuracy, then fewer strategies would satisfy the constraint.
Does GTOWizard ever recommend finding a donk who will stack off with one pair and then pretending to be loose and aggressive with erratic behavior and showing quick bluffs and using table talk to goad him into calling when your range once you bet the river is just the nuts?
@@bryan-still-a-poker-player Wey-yull, Bryan, there's the good ol' Geschichte des Bocage: "So I wuz sitting under a tree, and a tank came at me down the lane. So I hit it with a rocket. "Then another one came down the lane. so I hit it with another rocket." "An' the only problem wuz, I ran out of rockets before the Americans ran out of tanks." So, yes, Ashes may win with that waiting game some time. For a while.😅
Ive never heard heuristics in a sentance in my life and now it's in every gto poker video. The english language has a massive vocabulary, lets try and use it yall? Love the videos though, appreciate the content. It is funny how GTO solvers pretty much tell us what we were doing already was done good. I do believe using advanced game theory in thr average live game can cost great players alot of EV with over bluffing and over calling too much.
Well said, Alex. One problem with some bluffs is that a skillful bluff represents a false proposition; many of the fish are too stupid to reason the situation through to understand what you are trying to represent. You've simply constructed for yourself the very difficult problem of scaling the fake bet so you take the pot rather than just building it up for your inferiors.
I believe because 33 and 44 unblock the most missed stuff that has decent equity against us ie mid sc's, A4 A5s, it will bluff off mid pps and it's using it to balance the monster hands that overbet. Its a polarised bluff, it easy insta folds vs any further aggression
Biggest mistake is that people seem to forget that every study or analyze is based on history and then they apply their "learned" knowledge in future situations just like a bot or a machine. They forget that every single hand is a new bet, and therefor it should be analyzed as such. E.g: This guy here seems to do so in this spot, so therefor I will play like this, everytime i play this guy again, because that is what my study and analyzes tell me. But you do not consider any other reasons for the play that guy did in that specific session or hand, you base your "knowledge" on. Was he drunk? Was he distracted by someone talking to him? Was he on tilt? Especially online people rely way too much on their hud's and it is so easy to exploit.
Didn't negraneau try using the gto wizard training vs polk and get his ass kicked because none of his multibetting lines made sense and it was overly complicated?
Is the solver gto wizard uses also publically available? I miss the nodelock feature in the wizard and pio edge is fine but not so intuitive to handle as gto wizard
GTO Wizard uses Jesolver, then we plug the solution into our own interface. Glad you like it! You can copy the ranges at any point into your own solver for further use.
Using GTO Wizrd in a cash game will get you taken to the back room where they smash your hands up with a rubber hammer. In Vegas it gets you a shallow rave out in the desert.
Doesn’t seems as bizarre, there is science field where you also perform simulation to find an equilibrium point (molecular biochimie simulation) and you could see that their is several pseudo equilibrium state, which are an equilibrium but not the optimal one, where you simulation can get stuck
Our solutions are accurate to 0.2%-0.3% pot. This is well above industry standard, but we're not resting on our laurels and continue to resolve spots to higher accuracy! The first point of this video shows that many strategies potentially satisfy "human-unexploitable" parameters. The second point explains the limitations of direct memorization. So the purpose of this video is to show tools and techniques you can use to take a step back, look at the larger picture, and study broader heuristics/trends.
@@GTOWizard yes to be clear Im not critisizing the 2nd part of the video and you provided a lot of valueable informations through out the video. Sure, compared to other webbased gto databases 0.2-0.3% is not bad but with manual solvers people can solve with a higher accuracy to identify which sizings should be used the most. We don't need to come up with ways to simplify the strategy ourselves and simple run the solver for a longer time period. 0.3% accuracies often lead to a mix of all the c-bet sizings we allow the solver to have while 0.1 or less % (or different sizings) quite often show a solution that is very easy to implement with less mixing - you know all that. I also understand that from a business point of view you need to maximize effiency. Solving everything with 0.1% would take way more time and wouldn't be "max ev" for gtowizard. Just wished to hear some self critisizm about that and not statements like "being exploitable for 0.3% of the pot is very little and btw well known solvers get the same result"
The Number One Mistake People Make When Giving Advice To The Young is perfectly clear: it's saying "Don't do so-and-so." Seriously. Effective teaching does not consist of saying "Thus and so is false." Jack's father was yer typical dummy who tried to discipline his son with "Don't you dare climb that beanstalk." If Daddy had tod the kid, "Watch out for nasty giants up there," Jack would have given him part of the credit, maybe even a pension out of all that gold. Granny's advice is, try teaching, not lecturing people.
