Finding EXPLOITS In Today's Poker Games | Red Chip S5E26

Even though GTO is all the rage, the highest winrates will always be captured with solid exploitative strategies when playing against humans. In this episode, coach “w34z3l” shares how you can derive exploits in today’s games. Enjoy!
*LINKS*
· GTO vs Exploitative Poker: • GTO vs. Exploitative P...
· Poker Exploits 101: redchippoker.c...
· Enroll In The CORE Poker Course: redchippoker.c...
*JOIN US ON DISCORD*
Join our free poker Discord today: redchippoker.c...

[@Joao15coimbra]

Great content as usual! Still baffles me how people still think solvers are the Holy Grail and try to mimic them using randomizers and memorizing % of mixes 🙄 but hey, looks cooler on stream I guess 🤦‍♂️

[@susymay7831]

If you node lock for exploits it is best to node lock after each street, making street by street assumptions about your opponent.

[@looper6394]

great explanation as always. however, i dont agree with your node lock max exploit reasoning (around 20:49). gto+ does not have a max exploit tool like crev, because if you node lock and solve via gto+ it will give you the max exploit strategy (with the assumption that the rest of the game tree is played gto again). lets say you node locked so that one player is overfolding in one spot, the gto solution for the other player will definitely go for it and bet any2 in that spot.

[@pokerweasel]

If we assume that the rest of the tree is played GTO then this is not the max exploit strategy :p That's the point!

[@looper6394]

@@pokerweasel can you further explain or give an example?

[@susymay7831]

If you node lock for exploits it is best to node lock after each street, making street by street assumptions about your opponent.

[@pokerweasel]

​@@looper6394 So basically, the solver won't max exploit. It WILL exploit, but it will do so in a way that is not open to counter-exploitation by the other decision nodes. Max exploit strategy will push the exploit as hard as possible. It doesn't care if it's open to counter-exploitation, since it will assume villain has a fixed non-adjusting strategy at all of the other nodes.

[@pokerweasel]

@@susymay7831 This is true and one way we can try and get the solver to give us max exploit. Problem is that it starts to become impractically complex to node lock every single decision node with villain's precise range. In most cases we won't even know our opponent's strategy with this level of granularity. Besides, key idea in video is that most players never bother with locking the other nodes since they believe node locking a single part of the decision tree will result in max exploit strategy.

[@angeloperezceo8101]

Wizzle you did it again!!!

[@terencehill3972]

LOL I have to listen to this again I didn’t get it 🤣

[@mothecat776]

Hey Coach. You say break even for 1/2 is .33 and 1/3 pot is .25 . I though it was .25 and .20 [ PotOdds=(pot+bet)/bet EV=1/(1+PO) ] No??

[@pokerweasel]

What you are describing is break-even on a call. What I am describing is break-even on a bluff. So vs a 1/2 pot bet, we break even if we win 25% of the time when call. When we are making a 1/2 pot bluff, we break even if villain folds 33.3% of the time.

[@abdulrahmanayman5221]

BROTHER, YOU ARE THE BEST!!! You oooh really helped me!! THANK YOU VERY MUCH!

[@roberatilan5646]

so too make this work u have to be playing the same people over and over or hope pool data is accurate.