Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="Phoenix Wright, post: 5880239, member: 419963"] Exactly! GTO may be best against computers that play "perfectly", but at least for the human players at my tables: they make mistakes and my exploitative play is sufficient. My perspective has always been that "solving" poker only applies if: a) the opponents are also playing "perfectly" (nash equilibrium) - which they aren't even close to doing in my games b) the "long-run" is reached; which as highlighted here, isn't usually reached. Maybe "long-run" balances for consistent cash games or a poker players' career, but one game is by no means "long-run." I believe that poker has changed in many ways (a big part due to computers/solvers), but GTO is not the only way the game of poker has evolved. Even on a psychology level, many players are now better informed due to how much easier it is to obtain information. Now there are YouTube videos, online poker courses, forum communities like CardsChat and many other resources. Basically, books were near the top in resources previously. I can't say I played poker enough back then, but I wouldn't be surprised if the game shifted from this mindset (and GTO especially) in another decade from now. Maybe more emphasis will be on more than just the math. Keep in mind that the solver is only as good as the accuracy of the ranges one inputs. I know some players who I can profitably fold against if they show little aggression at all; I see one River bet and know they have at least AK lol. Pot Odds (for example) is not how you decide to call or not - it it merely one factor in the decision-making process (an important one, but not the only one). Given the identical pot odds, I'll call a maniac more often than a nit; the solver wouldn't come up with this obvious fact if you don't input the opponent range accurately. [/QUOTE]

Verification

Search

Reply to thread

About CardsChat

Our Community

Our Site

Follow us