Polished Poker Vol. I Study Group

[John A]

Thanks for that advice. I really appreciate that.



It gets even funnier if you have 3 different players talking about a similar spot saying different things about how GTO "should" look like there :argh:

I asked some time ago a high stakes pro, who is streaming almost everyday on Twitch (plays on Bavada), about "that" GTO stuff and he just said: "yeeaaaa, you can play a bit with your ranges in CREV but at the end of the day it's still just a guessing game"

Agree.

I mean bottom line is if it's something a player wants to play around with, that's great. The issue is it's too complex to ever really implement into real time poker. The only real advantage I see in GTO is if you're playing at a high level (say 5000nl or higher) and you're against the same regs every day. When I played 1000nl+, you had the same group day in and day out and then the occasional fish. In that situation, analyzing some of my opponents play offline using GTO play to see where their main imbalances are occurring could be helpful. Outside of that though, I have a hard time seeing it's usefulness. Maybe there's something I'm over looking though. I have yet to see a GTO / crev analysis I've taken I've my own play, and after spending hours with decision tree's I said, "oh wow, I really never realized that before." If you have something though, I'd love to see it. I'm always trying to learn.

 

[Fknife]

[..]Outside of that though, I have a hard time seeing it's usefulness. Maybe there's something I'm over looking though. I have yet to see a GTO / crev analysis I've taken I've my own play, and after spending hours with decision tree's I said, "oh wow, I really never realized that before." If you have something though, I'd love to see it. I'm always trying to learn.

I don't know if you've noticed but there is a MoP Study Group thread in the Cash Games forum. Along with talking about stuff from the book, I'm also trying to post various interesting examples and things not mentioned in the book. There is nothing about GTO for now because we are not that far into the book but I really do have high hopes and expectations for that thread. I would be honored (it's not a sarcasm) if you poped in there from time to time. Especially when we get to the GTO part of the book, I think that you, me and all the other guys who follow/contribute to the thread, could learn/gain a lot from working together/sharing information about this stuff.

@Fig and @rhombus are both enjoying the MoP thread, right? Right guys? :afraid:

 

[John A]

Thanks. I think I'll pass for now though. GTO is kind of being sold like a new religion, and I've been around in this game long enough to know how and why these trends perpetuate. You should listen to this. At least from the 7:40 mark on.

http://hwcdn.libsyn.com/p/5/b/7/5b7...26697923&hwt=75e73d267b5777e3c5ae8ae92fab8c3f

I just have a lot of other areas of my game I need to put work into right now. Between running a business, playing, and maintaining a family, I need to prioritize well. I wish you guys much success though.

 

[Fknife]

You should listen to this. At least from the 7:40 mark on.

http://hwcdn.libsyn.com/p/5/b/7/5b7...26697923&hwt=75e73d267b5777e3c5ae8ae92fab8c3f

Chen's models are "too simplistic"?! That's all they had to say about the book?! Well, then that's your job to expand on them/work on new ones. Thats the point of that book, not to mention that 75% of people who start studying it don't even manage to finish it because of the overall obviousness and simplicity of models and math associated with them (now, that IS a sarcasm). I mean, do people still think that they will get everything just like that, without their own hard work? (Oh, I forgot that Harrington gives free hand charts in his books )

I still believe in what I'm doing.

I just have a lot of other areas of my game I need to put work into right now. Between running a business, playing, and maintaining a family, I need to prioritize well. I wish you guys much success though.

I understand. Thanks.

 

[John A]

Chen's models are "too simplistic"?! That's all they had to say about the book?! Well, then that's your job to expand on them/work on new ones. Thats the point of that book, not to mention that 75% of people who start studying it don't even manage to finish it because of the overall obviousness and simplicity of models and math associated with them (now, that IS a sarcasm). I mean, do people still think that they will get everything just like that, without their own hard work? (Oh, I forgot that Harrington gives free hand charts in his books )

I still believe in what I'm doing.



I understand. Thanks.

Mmm... you do realize who's speaking right? Magriel is a pretty well known mathematician and has won more background tournaments than anyone is history. He's no slouch at math, and he's also written about poker extensively.

So you think anyone who doesn't pursue GTO isn't intelligent enough to finish a book like Chen's? Gotcha.

I heard that to "solve" LIMIT holdem, you'd need about 8 TB's in size of data. That's limit. So I still assert, and will side with Margriel, that there's no practical application. But it can be fun to solve math problems. Double quack quack.

 

[Fknife]

Mmm... you do realize who's speaking right? Magriel is a pretty well known mathematician and has won more background tournaments than anyone is history. He's no slouch at math, and he's also written about poker extensively.

Oh, I didn't know that. There are so many people in the world, I don't keep track of who does/did/is good at what etc.

But yeah, as I said I don't have to make any money playing Poker or anything like that so I am allowed to be wrong. I just treat it as a hobby and maybe it won't lead to anything useful, maybe I'm wasting my time - I don't care.

So you think anyone who doesn't pursue GTO isn't intelligent enough to finish a book like Chen's? Gotcha.

Wow, yea exactly! You really are a mind reader

I heard that to "solve" LIMIT holdem, you'd need about 8 TB's in size of data. That's limit. So I still assert, and will side with Margriel, that there's no practical application. But it can be fun to solve math problems. Double quack quack.

It's even 5,000TB of data for 100bb HUNL according to some approximations done by Tipton in his book. Still, I think that coding a software to fetch the necessary data based on current state in the game tree is trivial assuming that we already have THE GTO solution and the appropriate amount of storage. Time will show.

 

[Figaroo2]

I don't know if you've noticed but there is a MoP Study Group thread in the Cash Games forum.
@Fig and @rhombus are both enjoying the MoP thread, right? Right guys? :afraid:

laughing..of course Martin.....
Now when you two have quite finished your GTO chat how about some feedback on that last hand I posted. pretty plse.
My game feels stuck at the moment. Trying to up my aggression levels but just seems like im either forcing too much and not getting paid along with getting stacked more.

 

[John A]

Ha, I've been done. When Martin can show me how a toy game is going to help you in poker, and provide some models of GTO (which GTO doesn't even exist), in real world poker situations, I'm putting my time elsewhere. It's just hard to watch products like pokersnowie claim to be GTO when it's not even solved yet, and by all mathematician accounts, it would take several terabytes of information to program it, but they sell it in a nice 120mb application. It's just all a big scam. But I've seen them all come and go before. I know snowie had to walk back a lot of it's claims after being called out, and I'm sure it's pretty good at offering reasonable balancing advice, but it's not GTO or even close to it. I honestly don't want to discuss this here though. Maybe in another thread.

Any ways... I guess you mean your AJ hand. I missed it.

Should you bet the flop? No. Not OOP against anyone reasonable on this kind of texture unless you have really high fold to c-bet stats.

What are you repping by c/cing and then over betting the turn? Not really much of anything. I'm surprised you didn't get shoved on with his actual hand. Any ways, I like the river bet! Good job.

 

[Fknife]

Ha, I've been done. When Martin can show me how a toy game is going to help you in poker, and provide some models of GTO (which GTO doesn't even exist), in real world poker situations, I'm putting my time elsewhere.

Sure, you don't even have to look far (from CREV instructional videos): Finding an equilibrium in a 4-bet tree. Shove/Fold toy-game is probably one of the simplest (too simple? ) model of a real world Holdem scenario at shallow stacks BvB. Same goes with popular half-street (eg: "polarized vs bluffcatcher") River games, which everybody is constantly blabbing about.

There are lots of great resources which try to apply toy-games into real world poker situations (or should I say it "the other way") for example: very practical "There will be Homework" or "Applied Game Theory" series by DC coaches (am I allowed to mention other training sites in this thread? :afraid + stuff which I've already mentioned (and there is probably more). You can look that up if you're interested and have time to play around with that stuff.

It's just hard to watch products like pokersnowie claim to be GTO when it's not even solved yet, and by all mathematician accounts, it would take several terabytes of information to program it, but they sell it in a nice 120mb application. It's just all a big scam. But I've seen them all come and go before. I know snowie had to walk back a lot of it's claims after being called out, and I'm sure it's pretty good at offering reasonable balancing advice, but it's not GTO or even close to it. I honestly don't want to discuss this here though. Maybe in another thread.

Ok...I will ask again: what was the point of your original question about GTO?

To me, it clearly looks like you're already made up your mind long time ago so it was definitely not about having a friendly conversation and sharing ideas how to add those concepts to our games. So why bringing that up (besides some obvious reasons)?

(There might be also the case that our views/understanding of GTO (what it is or how it should look like) are a bit different))

If you want me to stop posting here, let me know.

 

[fishinthesea]

My game feels stuck at the moment. Trying to up my aggression levels but just seems like im either forcing too much and not getting paid along with getting stacked more.

I know exactly what you're talking about fig.... : /

 

[Figaroo2]

Any ways... I guess you mean your AJ hand. I missed it.
Should you bet the flop? No. Not OOP against anyone reasonable on this kind of texture unless you have really high fold to c-bet stats.
What are you repping by c/cing and then over betting the turn? Not really much of anything. I'm surprised you didn't get shoved on with his actual hand. Any ways, I like the river bet! Good job.

Actually looking at this hand again I'm surprised i just didn't give it up on the flop, it really hits his calling range hard. If there was no back door flush I would certainly have folded.
re the turn overbet, this is just an example of me trying to up my levels of aggression with a strong semi bluff. I would never have played this sort of line previously which is why I posted the hand for comment!!
Actually you are right I'm not really repping anything other than a semibluff! I was sort of thinking along the same lines as the turn lead overbet against a steal but can see why its not appropriate here as I could just be leading into a set and spewing, whereas a stealers range is likely to be much weaker.
I was fortunate to back into the J and have him dominated. I'm mulling over what I would have done if I'd missed the river, as we have shown aggression and got called I'd probably assume I was beat and have check folded. can we ever bluff there if say a Q came?

 

[John A]

Sure, you don't even have to look far (from CREV instructional videos): Finding an equilibrium in a 4-bet tree. Shove/Fold toy-game is probably one of the simplest (too simple? ) model of a real world Holdem scenario at shallow stacks BvB. Same goes with popular half-street (eg: "polarized vs bluffcatcher") River games, which everybody is constantly blabbing about.

If you'd like to continue discussing this, then why don't we create a new thread somewhere?

I think there's a disconnect for you between real world application and mathematical formulations. I'm not going to have an EV tree with me when I'm playing. As a good player, I already understand about how often I need to check or check-raise, etc... to balance my ranges against good opponents. I have yet to find any material that is trying to be GTO that has opened my eyes to something new. It's not as if I haven't looked, or spent time thinking about this. I pre-ordered Mathematics of Poker, and have read it. I hosted a GTO workshop 1.5 years ago with Josh Potkins and Jay RosenKrantz. If you knew anything about me at all, you'd know that anything I do, I put full effort into. If I thought something would make me better, I'm all about it. I don't care what it is. I'm just telling you, right now GTO is a pipe dream at best. And anyone who tells you otherwise is lying to you.

That being said, for someone who doesn't have any idea about how to balance ranges, then looking at some EV trees can be helpful and maybe even insightful. But let's not get confused and call that GTO math.

There are lots of great resources which try to apply toy-games into real world poker situations (or should I say it "the other way") for example: very practical "There will be Homework" or "Applied Game Theory" series by DC coaches (am I allowed to mention other training sites in this thread? :afraid + stuff which I've already mentioned (and there is probably more). You can look that up if you're interested and have time to play around with that stuff.

I like DC, and I play, talk and I'm friends or acquaintances with many of their coaches. Hence me hosting a workshop with them. I've spoken with Josh and others about these topics a good amount.

Ok...I will ask again: what was the point of your original question about GTO?

To me, it clearly looks like you're already made up your mind long time ago so it was definitely not about having a friendly conversation and sharing ideas how to add those concepts to our games. So why bringing that up (besides some obvious reasons)?

I wanted to gauge a public response to what people thought about GTO. It's being over hyped, and I'm interested in people who are studying my material on this thread what their opinion is of it. I don't want them to get overly confused, because it can be a confusing topic.

I never said that I was looking for a discussion on it. I asked people what they thought about it. I've been very friendly, but on the contrary, you've been quite rude, overly sarcastic in many of your responses. I assume because someone is stating that they don't agree with you, but beyond that it's a little perplexing how you've responded.

(There might be also the case that our views/understanding of GTO (what it is or how it should look like) are a bit different))

If you want me to stop posting here, let me know.

I don't care what you do, beyond just being polite and courteous. If someone has a difference of opinion from you, it doesn't mean they are dumb. They might even be more informed than you. But I would like to discuss this topic somewhere else. I don't want to derail the thread. Ty for asking.

 

[mottotom27]

Sorry, i'd just like to say i really think some people would do well to take good advice when it's given. It's fine to follow up with an additional query or clarification when you're unsure of something but here it's just straight up arguing with a good poker coach who clearly has more experience than yourself, who knows what he's talking about. That's not the way to go imo.

That being said, i admit i am surprised by John's theory that GTO is nonexistent. Not that i don't trust it, i just had always assumed GTO was standard for pros in the highest limit games where even a slight leak can be exploited, but perhaps the reality is they are just extremely good at range balancing without playing perfectly GTO.

As an aside question, do you think that range balancing should be a greater part of your game vs unknown players? (e.g. I once posted in another forum about how to respond in 3bet pots vs unknowns, and one response was "defend in such a way that your opponent cannot make an outright profit from a 3bet" and so they advocated a 1/3 defending range given your opponent pretty much breaks even if you fold to 3bets 1/3 of the time.)

Obviously you can adjust your ranges if you have reads on your opponents, (e.g. folding more to 3bets vs nits) but vs complete unknown since you have no idea about their playing style, would a more balanced approach yield higher potential EV long term?

 

[Figaroo2]

I like John am willing to thoroughly explore any ideas and concepts that will make me a more informed player.
Personally Id like to thank Fknife (Martin) for the hard work he has done in helping explain to me the basics of gto and some of the maths involved.
Im in a better position in terms of understanding these concepts than I was a few months ago.
I quite understand why some of us like to study the theory of the game in detail.
Personally I am of the opinion that gto is irrelevant up to 25nl and perhaps with just a few of the best 10nl regs.
The player pool is so vast at the lower levels that balance is irrelevant just play to exploit the weaker players.
Even most of the regs have a few exploitable facets.
One of the laws of poker is don't do the same thing all the time which explains in one short sentence all i needed to know when learning the game.

 

[Fknife]

Sorry, i'd just like to say i really think some people would do well to take good advice when it's given. It's fine to follow up with an additional query or clarification when you're unsure of something but here it's just straight up arguing with a good poker coach who clearly has more experience than yourself, who knows what he's talking about. That's not the way to go imo.

Dude... (Ok, I will be polite).

First of all, I complete agree/(d) with John. He said nobody knows THE GTO - I agreed. Then he added that maaaaaybe it's ok to take a look at what has already been done GTO-wise (notice there is no "THE" before GTO - I'm not talking about the actual solution) eg: those various frequencies (1-A etc), which you are constantly talking about, which was actually my point. So we agreed once more. I don't know what happend after that (and why it did) - when he started to 'criticise' MoP (I mean, why would you do that in first place?), after I just told him about the thread - nothing more, and PokerSnowie (where did that come from?).

Anyway, I already took that discussion with John somewhere else so I won't be bothering you. Have fun.

Edit:

I like John am willing to thoroughly explore any ideas and concepts that will make me a more informed player.
Personally Id like to thank Fknife (Martin) for the hard work he has done in helping explain to me the basics of gto and some of the maths involved.
Im in a better position in terms of understanding these concepts than I was a few months ago.
I quite understand why some of us like to study the theory of the game in detail.

Thanks. There is so much more I have planned for this thread. I'm glad at least one person is enjoying my work.

 

[mottotom27]

Dude... (Ok, I will be polite).

Don't be! You can say whatever you want to me

First of all, I complete agree/(d) with John. He said nobody knows THE GTO - I agreed. Then he added that maaaaaybe it's ok to take a look at what has already been done GTO-wise (notice there is no "THE" before GTO - I'm not talking about the actual solution) eg: those various frequencies (1-A etc), which you are constantly talking about, which was actually my point. So we agreed once more. I don't know what happend after that (and why it did) - when he started to 'criticise' MoP (I mean, why would you do that in first place?), after I just told him about the thread - nothing more, and PokerSnowie (where did that come from?).

I'm sorry if you took my post as an insult targeted directly at you (your tone suggests you were annoyed by my comment), i was merely offering a general "word of wisdom" since there are a lot of people on forums like this who are quite rude and defensive about their views and refuse to believe they're wrong when one or more experienced players give clear reasons why so. I'm not going to laboriously analyse the discussion between you and John to figure out if my advice applies directly to you, but i was just making a general statement and it's something to bear in mind.

Anyway, I already took that discussion with John somewhere else so I won't be bothering you. Have fun.

I'm glad at least one person is enjoying my work.

Wow it really does sound like you're disgruntled at my comment! As stated, it wasn't designed to cause offence. I am open to discussion with anyone who has some interesting hands/opinions to share about poker.

 

[Fknife]

@mottotom27: I'm sorry I jumped at you.

I don't want to derail this thread anymore, so let's just stick to John's book, shall we? Btw, I've just started reading it, it looks like a good one (no, it's not my next sarcasm again)

 

[John A]

Sorry, i'd just like to say i really think some people would do well to take good advice when it's given. It's fine to follow up with an additional query or clarification when you're unsure of something but here it's just straight up arguing with a good poker coach who clearly has more experience than yourself, who knows what he's talking about. That's not the way to go imo.

That being said, i admit i am surprised by John's theory that GTO is nonexistent. Not that i don't trust it, i just had always assumed GTO was standard for pros in the highest limit games where even a slight leak can be exploited, but perhaps the reality is they are just extremely good at range balancing without playing perfectly GTO.

That's why I asked the question to you guys in the first place. I don't want you guys to get taken by the hype. I think most top players acknowledge and agree with what I'm saying. Some may be confused, or not fully understand still, but overall most agree. That doesn't mean you can't try and pursue it if it's of interest to you. I'd just avoid products that claim to be GTO, because it does not exist.

As an aside question, do you think that range balancing should be a greater part of your game vs unknown players? (e.g. I once posted in another forum about how to respond in 3bet pots vs unknowns, and one response was "defend in such a way that your opponent cannot make an outright profit from a 3bet" and so they advocated a 1/3 defending range given your opponent pretty much breaks even if you fold to 3bets 1/3 of the time.)

Obviously you can adjust your ranges if you have reads on your opponents, (e.g. folding more to 3bets vs nits) but vs complete unknown since you have no idea about their playing style, would a more balanced approach yield higher potential EV long term?

It depends what stakes you're talking about. At anything below 400NL, I wouldn't begin my line reasoning by trying to balance anything. I'd play as exploitative as possible and keep my eye on what my opponent is doing.

As far as 3-bet defending ranges vs. unknowns, I'd say the same thing. If the player is unknown, even regulars have pretty wide differences in 3-betting range, so I'd only defend with the top of my range until I know otherwise. Once you have a somewhat plausible idea of their frequency, then find a balancing range. If you suspect someone is a regular, and they are 3-betting you in position, I typically advocate 4-betting right away at the start of a session with almost your whole range because you don't want to be stuck in a 3-bet guessing game. It's better to set the tone early and work out from there (at higher stakes 100nl+).

 

[John A]

I like John am willing to thoroughly explore any ideas and concepts that will make me a more informed player.
Personally Id like to thank Fknife (Martin) for the hard work he has done in helping explain to me the basics of gto and some of the maths involved.
Im in a better position in terms of understanding these concepts than I was a few months ago.
I quite understand why some of us like to study the theory of the game in detail.
Personally I am of the opinion that gto is irrelevant up to 25nl and perhaps with just a few of the best 10nl regs.
The player pool is so vast at the lower levels that balance is irrelevant just play to exploit the weaker players.
Even most of the regs have a few exploitable facets.
One of the laws of poker is don't do the same thing all the time which explains in one short sentence all i needed to know when learning the game.

Yes, and this is a good approach and why you're learning and growing so much. And I'm personally all for studying EV trees or any math of the game if it's helping you understand situations. It's important to have a good grasp of those concepts so it's great you guys have a framework to study that in. I read some of the Mop thread yesterday and it looks like you guys are doing good work and Martin is doing a good job of explaining those concepts and leading a study of the book.

 

[John A]

That being said, i admit i am surprised by John's theory that GTO is nonexistent. Not that i don't trust it, i just had always assumed GTO was standard for pros in the highest limit games where even a slight leak can be exploited, but perhaps the reality is they are just extremely good at range balancing without playing perfectly GTO.

Just a quick side note since you asked, but I thought it was a little funny. I just went to pokersnowie's website and read their about. This is what it says now:

Is PokerSnowie perfect?

To create a system that plays a certain game perfectly, the game has to be solved. Solving a game means creating a huge database with the correct action for any given game state. This database must contain every possible state of the game. For No Limit Hold'em, a game state is the exact situation, the given cards, the actions that happened in the game, the chip amounts at the table, the exact bet sizes etc. Without doing any calculations it is obvious that a game that complex cannot be solved with the current computer power and probably not in the next few hundred years.

So part of the reason for your confusion Motto was because of products like Pokersnowie that made insane claims, got called out on them by knowledgeable players, and now have done a complete 180. If we didn't have some sleazy marketing out there on books and software about this topic, then there wouldn't be all of this confusion.

 

[rhombus]

What about preflop poker, how solveable is that, especially with database analysis from a HUD

 

[John A]

I think with certain set parameters it could be solvable on small tables. I think if stacks start getting too wide and different though, it would still be pretty tough. I've had a lot of experience with no-limit AI, and I just know all of the data tree's and math involved to get some simple spots close to solvable. You extrapolate that into perfect strategy for a set number of players, it's a lot of data.

 

[Figaroo2]

What do we think of these two call downs and what are you putting them on?

Poker Stars, $0.10/$0.25 No Limit Hold'em Cash,

SB: $35.44 (141.8 bb)
BB: $25 (100 bb)
MP1: $25 (100 bb)
MP2: $25.35 (101.4 bb) NUTBALL 80/20/86 in 30 hands
MP3: $25 (100 bb)
CO: $18.39 (73.6 bb)
Hero (BTN): $25.50 (102 bb)

Preflop: Hero is BTN with J:diamond: 9:spade:
MP1 folds, MP2 calls $0.25, 2 folds, Hero calls $0.25, SB folds, BB checks

Flop: ($0.85) 5:spade: J:club: 7:diamond: (3 players)
BB checks, MP2 checks, Hero bets $0.60, BB folds, MP2 raises to $1.20, Hero calls $0.60

Turn: ($3.25) 9:diamond: (2 players)
MP2 bets $2, Hero calls $2

River: ($7.25) Q:diamond: (2 players)
MP2 bets $21.90, Hero calls $21.90

Results: $51.05 pot ($2 rake)
Final Board: 5:spade: J:club: 7:diamond: 9:diamond: Q:diamond:

Poker Stars, $0.10/$0.25 No Limit Hold'em Cash, 8 Players

SB: $28.39 (113.6 bb)
BB: $13.85 (55.4 bb)
UTG+2: $25.31 (101.2 bb)
MP1: $13.42 (53.7 bb)
MP2: $39.90 (159.6 bb)
Hero (MP3): $26.34 (105.4 bb)
CO: $25.25 (101 bb)
BTN: $22.01 (88 bb) 28/8/36 in 45 looking fishy

Preflop: Hero is MP3 with J:heart: A:club:
3 folds, Hero raises to $0.75, CO folds, BTN calls $0.75, 2 folds

Flop: ($1.85) 3:club: 4:club: 4:diamond: (2 players)
Hero checks, BTN bets $0.75, Hero calls $0.75

Turn: ($3.35) A:diamond: (2 players)
Hero checks, BTN bets $1.60, Hero calls $1.60

River: ($6.55) 3:diamond: (2 players)
Hero checks, BTN bets $6.26, Hero calls $6.26

 

[mottotom27]

first hand i snap fold the river. did you pay any attention to his bet size?? he bet 3x pot bro, two pair is like never good there, especially given just about every draw got there! plus you only have 30 hands on him i don't see how you can have enough evidence to justify he's the type to regularly make 3x pot bets on the river, sure he might be aggressive but he'd have to be crazy to have bluffed this. Just fold and make life easier on yourself.

#riveroverbetsarethenuts

 

[fishinthesea]

Sorry mottom, I disagree. Just based off his high aggression over 30 hands, I would've made the call.. I feel the flop min re-raise is a fairly good indicator of him having some sort of Jack. Having hit two pair on the turn, I must think I'm good against a player with this high aggression.