Fknife
Legend
Silver Level
    
    Hmm I would definitely stick to only using one term: perfect(3rd slide)/exploitive optimal(4th slide)/maximally exploitive (my imagination) strategy because that can be confusing. Other that that, as long as people know that they cannot improve their EVs by deviating from Nash, I think we are good (and you explained it well).1) Do you think it's not clear enough to warrant re-doing that part and re-editing?
Oh ok, I didn't know that.2) It's something we've said in the poker community for a long time now.
3) Yeah, maybe that can be confusing, but I'm not 100% sure where you mean. Do you have a timestamp? I was trying to say that just in conjunction with the nash chart, and not as a general statement for GTO play because clearly I explain how and when it does matter. I might re-do that section though because I don't want any confusion.
10:33 - 10:50: "(..) no matter what your opponent does, at the very least you're gonna break even (..)"
We could pick some random boards, 2 different ranges and come up with some Equilibrias (even in CREV with a MINIMAX script) for different eg: River Cards, right? Of course, it does not mean that it would be the actual GTO for Holdem, but going by definition of Nash - we would not have to care what Villain's strategy is (he can only play worse, if he does not know GTO). (And yes, I know that I ignored previous streets
So my point is: if we knew THE GTO (the actual solution), we wouldnt need to worry how others are playing. Yes, you said that in that timespan but I remember you also saying (or writing in one of your posts) something like: "we don't want to play GTO because our opponents are not playing GTO", which seems a bit contrary to Nash (unless you just meant that we should be working on our exploitive skills because most of the people suck at poker therefore we can make more profit following that way).








