Why YOU Should Put Your RNG Away 

I get what you are saying but even against an anonymous pool (like bovada) the tendencies of the average player still make relying on RNGs suboptimal. As a beginner player I failed to realize that balancing play with RNG is only optimal against another player who is also playing a near perfect GTO strategy, which is only going to be seen even semi consistently at the highest levels of the game. Although one thing that I disagree with is 4 betting against fish with weak hole cards, they just hate the fold button.

mixed strategies are part of game theory, but not to exploit "others". the only "others" are also playing perfectly. mixed strategies exist to make the Solver's perfectly playing opponent indifferent, just like that perfect opponent's strategies are formed to make the Solver indifferent. your first sentence shows your fundamental misunderstanding of the entire concept of GTO. in GTO, there is no exploiting. that's the Optimal part. Neither the perfect Solver nor its perfect opponent can deviate to exploit w/o facing exploitation. In the real world, the opponents are not playing optimal ranges, they are not using optimal sizings, they are not making optimal folds, calls or raises. "mistakes" (deviations from optimal play) are constantly being made by both players.

@@ekw555 I'm afraid it's you who misunderstood the concept saying there is no exploiting stuff in gto; although it's baseline is playing optimally against the perfect strategy, the main theme of the solvers is when it starts exploiting not perfect strategies if you input the opponent's approach that deviates from gto and see it completely destroying the opp's strat by taking super exploitative lines.

​​​​@@ekw555what are you defining as "GTO"? When most people say "GTO" what they mean is Nash Equilibrium. Equilibrium is defined as occurring when all players are maximally exploiting each other, in addition to no singular player being able to benefit from changing their strategy while all other players keep their strategy the same. So on a technical level it's wrong to say there's no exploiting in "GTO" I will admit there are some things I don't understand, about whether a strategy means you're indifferent or other people are indifferent, but it seems to me to be correct to say that employing a mixed strategy can be the consequence of trying to maximise EV against particular strategies. I don't have a solver or haven't done node locking to understand optimal strategies against either human or other equilibrium strategies. If after node locking in a villains human strategy, the optimal exploit is to use a mixed strategy for at least a few particular hands, that would prove my point

Employing a mixed strategy can be the consequence of maximising EV against particular strategies. The real question then becomes this; does maximising EV against bad strategies tend to make your own strategy contain less of a mixed strategy element? The answer to the question isnt obvious to me and I dont know. Because it just might be that against an imperfect human strategy, the (threshold of) hands you choose to mix with will change, rather than the element of mixing being removed all together. Does increasing the degree to which your opponents strategy is bad cause the optimal strategy in response to be less mixed? I'm assuming that it may do so in a lot of cases, but im not sure about generalising yet

@@GokuTheSuperSaiyan1 I don't think it makes sense to talk about "maximally exploiting each other" in the context of GTO/Nash Equilibrium. Exploitation only happens/is possible when someone deviates from GTO/Nash Equilibrium. I think that's what's confusing about your OP, because "mixing" doesn't exploit anyone/anything, it's done in order to make yourself unexploitable, ie, to achieve NE. Thing is, solvers have to do this because the "opponent" knows their exact strategy; but irl nobody knows anyone else's strategies. Hell, humans don't even employ consistent strategies. In general, indifference just means that multiple plays have the same EV. When your opponents are deviating from GTO/NE it's rarely the case that your actions are indifferent. You can see this yourself by node locking a solver. Once you node lock in a way that, eg, they aren't check-raise bluffing enough then you'll find that many hands that you were indifferent between betting and checking are suddenly NOT indifferent and always betting. In this video Pete is talking a lot about things that humans don't do enough (like protecting their checking range with strong hands) and how that clearly makes us NOT indifferent the way we would be against a GTO/NE strategy. There may still be mixing in node locked scenarios, but it won't be as common as in GTO/NE scenarios.

still in progress probably, 400k hands requires a lot of time

He’s been saying he will show results for the last 3 years…wouldn’t get any hopes up

yeeaaa. not quite the same 3b range that pete presented, probably. but it got through, that's what mattered.

I would if my opponent always plays scissors.

or even if they deviate by one percent towards scissors and away from the rest, and fail to adjust because theyre not aware of their own deviation.

your suspicions are correct. if you need validation just read the beginning of modern poker theory where it talks about this. Having a maximally exploitative strategy will in turn also leave yourself vulnerable to being exploited. Although at low stakes (assuming you are at low stakes) there will hardly ever be a time when you are going to be counter exploited unless you are extremely obvious.

By folding aces pre flop from time to time, they'll never see that coming

Fair argument, though if pool is over folding to 4b in general, and the pool leak is that they aren't aggressive enough, then you shouldn't really have to worry about it. IMO So really you should worry about the people who 3b 5%, because that makes the 4b KJo terrible. IMO

There is no HUDs allowed on GG

​@@jeffshackleford3152 you're right if nobody is making those adjustments. I just think it's the easiest way to level yourself into calling off 5bet jams with TT/JJ/AQ and even QQ/AK in what seem to be tight pools. But maybe you net a gain with all the 3bet folds you're getting idk. I don't mind the aggressive 4bet strat overall I was genuinely asking. Also forgot GG doesn't allow HUDs. I don't play there.

@@MikeD-rr2bj I wouldn't call 5b jams against anyone w/ TT or AQ, I might not even 5b jam those unless I knew the player was 4b properly, personally IMO. Even in the configurations where that is an appropriate play because pool doesn't 4b enough and folds too much to 4b, making their aggression range too strong for those to be profitable. Especially since the 0 ev hands are usually the most sensitive to slight deviations in V's strategy. AK, you just kind of have to accept that you are likely getting coolered their or at best flipping. Iirc, the real money w/ AK jams is from preflop folds and not from winning the runout.

@@jeffshackleford3152 yeah I mean I agree with all that so. Ultimately for me it's just back to: How long can we exploit before they adjust? How quickly can we readjust? How sure can we be that we aren't leveling ourselves against any particular villain, thinking that they are playing the game we are? And for me it seems like the answer to that last question is "not very." Just seems like an argument for balance. Though my gut tells me the least risky exploit will always do the best and worrying about the random villain with the courage to 5-bet light is pointless.

If I have a solver open while playing vs you and I do exactly what it tells me to do with the correct frequencies, there is a 0% chance you will win vs me over a large sample.

@@JeanLuc-mq1dgbut he isn’t doing that so your argument is weak

@@zero_zero107 he isn't doing what

@@JeanLuc-mq1dg playing you while you use solver over a large sample

@@zero_zero107 the dude said he would beat someone that "has their face in a laptop". I simply said he wouldn't. That's not an argument, it's a fact. idk what you're trying to say

How annoying are passionate educators! And free! So annoying.