GTO solvers vs. Instinct

Do you think the solvers are the real and best mode of play or you believe in your instincts. I listened to most of the big players and also observed there modes of play and it's like they play against it,I understand GTO is good but i too tend to believe that it shouldn't be the optimal way of play as it makes one too predictable and also at times you miss very good exploits, Daniel N. Phil Ivey, mizrachi and even Adrian Mateo's kinda play against this in my observation,
What's your thoughts?

I think solvers are the best baseline, not the best way to play every opponent. They teach balanced strategy so you're not leaving obvious leaks, but real poker is played against people, not perfect bots.

The best players know GTO very well-they just know when to deviate. If someone is overfolding, overcalling, or tilting, exploiting those mistakes is usually more profitable than sticking to solver-approved lines. The key is understanding why you're deviating, not just trusting a gut feeling.

For me, it's GTO as the foundation and exploitative play as the money maker.

GTO (Game Theory Optimal) provides an unexploitable or hard-to-exploit strategic foundation.
What many players call intuition is actually pattern recognition developed through millions of hands, not mere instinct or a hunch.

I think it's difficult to play GTO, it's best to play depending on what level you're playing, micro tournaments or medium level etc.

Often when people say GTO they mean GTOE where the solver plays itself to equilibrium. In real life we never want to play someone who is making errors to equilibrium.
However, how do we know they are making errors. Yes, if the player is very unbalanced then we can easily attack that. We have labels for those players NIT- Maniac- Calling Station.

Most players make less obvious mistakes, so we use GTO strategies and then tweak that.

Simple example our Villain plays well till the river but never has enough bluffs on the river for us to bluff catch them-Studying GTO lets us know how many bluff combos they need so we would use GTO on that river to fold.

It all depends on your goals. If your goal is profit, then your instincts are an obstacle to getting it.

Can't play something I never studied so I guess instinct, TAG and exploitive poker for me. Besides playing GTO at the stakes the majority of us play(micro-low stakes) is just way over thinking it. Playing GTO likely costs one money at them stakes. None of the players at those stakes are playing anything near GTO and are still the same stupid mistakes they've been making for months, years and decades.

Cheers!!!

I think people blow GTO up a little bit. Anyone who has done basic stuff like study ranges has studied some GTO, just not in very much depth.

GTO will not make you too predictable, its the opposite.....it balances calls folds, bets and 3 bets in spots where you usually wouldn't to keep your range balanced without understanding GTO. Also in the micros, who is going to notice this in reality

If playing the micros, you have to instantly deviate, as the population will call more often and so bluffing at GTO levels/spots is a waste of time and will burn your money. You can probably get away with raising bigger on average too for value.

I haven't studied much GTO, but the small amount I have is great to have as a base, but I wouldn't be trying to play like this as a rule.....I think the best way to play is via a combo of what you have learned and what your gut/instinct is telling you.

But if you do want to improve your game over time, then studying more GTO is the way to go, but when you do, you have to understand the why behind what the solver is telling you, otherwise you won't actually understand what the point is, and whether/how to deviate at low levels games, against weak opponents

It's probably a combination of the two.

Instinct for me, I don’t believe in these solvers, too much human intuition required for the game. Also solvers do not factor in bad beats or the likelihood of them possibly occurring in real world scenarios.