GTO Explained in Under 10 Minutes

[@jakepokervegas]

How this channel does not have 1MM subs? All the videos are so well done. I know it takes countless hours to make each one, but the final result is impeccable! Thank you!

[@Cowtymsmiesznego]

I tend to distinguish between 3 approaches to poker strategy: - "true GTO" or "mathematical GTO" - we would make no assumptions about ranges or sizings and play a Nash equilibrium strategy starting from pre-flop. This is provably unbeatable in a 2-player scenario (although not guaranteed to make money), but funnily enough, it could be -EV in a multi-player scenario, if more than 1 other player is *not* playing the equilibrium strategy. This approach is being somewhat explored with "pre-flop solves" but generally it's intractable with our current software and computing power. - "practical GTO" - we take a post-flop heads-up scenario with a bunch of assumptions such as - what the ranges of both players are, what bet sizings they will use, maybe what the rake is. Then, we calculate the best mixed strategy to be taken across the flop, turn, and river and use it as the "baseline strategy" for our decisions & analysis, or just try to religiously play it. "Best" here is interpreted in the game-theoretical sense (it's the Nash equilibrium strategy of this post-flop sub-game that follows our assumptions). This approach is what most players mean when they run solves and say they "study GTO" and/or attempt to play it. Its advantage is that you can come up with a strong, EV-maximizing strategy, while only making a few assumptions about your opponent's play. - "exploitative play" - we will take any poker spot and make as many assumptions as we can. Those will be at the very be least what our opponent's range is in this spot, but very likely also how they're going to play specific hands in that range (including what sizings they would use in which scenarios), how they will react to our play, and might be as specific as to what exact hand they are holding in a particular situation. Things like live reads can influence our assumptions in this approach. This approach is what most players mean when they say they are "playing exploitative poker". Its advantage is that, if your assumptions are correct, you can generate much more EV than if you avoided those assumptions in the first place aiming for a "practical GTO" strategy. Neither the "practical GTO" nor the "exploitative play" approach can be formally optimal (in the sense of being a game-theoretical solution to poker) - as both of them make assumptions. And both of them use elements of game theory and probability to decide on strategy. Note that there one could even see a tiny overlap between the two - an exploitative player, given a complete black box of an opponent would have to resort to looking for a "GTO" strategy - as they wouldn't be able to make any assumptions. Indeed, most players do something in between the two - you will struggle to find "GTO" advocates that never made any additional, "exploitative" assumptions, just like you will struggle to find "exploit" advocates that will try to guess their opponent's exact hand and strategy in every scenario. And indeed, in this video FE didn't actually technically commit to either of the approaches - while the concepts he described are vital for the "practical GTO" approach, they could also be utilized by an "exploitative" player. A disconnect between the two groups arises because proponents tend to disagree on the set of assumptions they should be making (my intuition, as decribed above, is that "GTO" players try to make as few as possible, while "exploitative" players try to make as many as they can). But I think that even the most diehard "exploitative" player would agree that their strategy doesn't require guessing their opponent's exact holding every hand. And simialrly, I think even the most diehard "GTO" player would agree that if you had an omniscient oracle (a.k.a. Mike Postle) that would "guess" it for you, it would be optimal to use that information to your advantage.

[@interabie]

What is “Nash” equilibrium? Are you not using all three methods at once when playing poker anyways? In any scenario.

[@Cowtymsmiesznego]

​@@interabie A Nash equilibrium is such a strategy profile (a tuple of mixed strategies with one for each player) that no player can increase their expected payout by unilaterally deviating to a different strategy. As for your other question, no. These methods generally give different answers on how to play your specific hand. Most players, including me, use "something in between" (2) and (3) - they make some assumptions and then try to maximize their EV in the resulting subgame.

[@interabie]

⁠@@Cowtymsmiesznego As u mentioned, 2 and 3 are essentially the same and most players use both. The first is purely mathematical and based on ur hand alone. Whenever u have a very strong or very weak hand, u almost don’t need to think about ur opponents hand. If ur decision is easy based on ur hand and nothing else, then u wouldn’t need to make any assumptions or put ur opponent on a range. So ya, I’d say that ur using all three at once. Before u use the second and third strategy, ur always using the mathematical one first.

[@bilyonarelifestile2226]

GTO is bullshit, because people are not machines, and machines calculate GTO based on BS assumptions

[@uzoge]

@@interabie This is wrong on many levels, but probably most importantly: you do think about the range of your opponent with very weak and very strong hands as well.

[@julio6377]

it's amazing how you externalize all of this poker concepts and theory with such a comfortable tone, keep the good work up!

[@JazzYachtrocker]

No lie, I’ve been playing poker damn near my entire life (30+ years). I go in spurts where I don’t play for years and I came out of a dry spell recently. Last time I played heavy was a few years ago and I had a hard time grasping GTO. This video knocked it out of the park. It’s essentially the basic strategy of poker I’ve been playing my whole life but “solved”. I’ve been overthinking it and it’s caused a lot more unforced errors and leaks but this really solidified that my overall skills and techniques weren’t necessarily flawed we just had to put in the newest update. Thank you :). Edit: you got my subscription

[@LevelofClarity]

Excellent explanation. This really distills everything down into the most critical component parts of GTO theory. Still the best poker strategy channel on KZbin.

[@cypherchaos]

Been subbed for a minute, finally getting to actually delve into your in depth analyses. Thank you! Liking each one as I watch!

[@bappo795]

It is mind blowing how much you simplified GTO

[@luzid.vision]

Talking about probability with some fancy confusing screenshots of some weird software in the background, amazing.

[@maerkstrongrock6984]

Have you never seen cards and a black carpet?

[@wendellcook1764]

Love the visuals and the concise explanations. Thanks for all your effort.

[@donmasacre4919]

This is one of the best content in all the internet about GTO

[@Tom_Bee_]

"some of them might not even have graduated highschool" I took that as a personal attack. Ouch 😂😂😂

[@ryanjones4150]

Great introduction. I grind low limits, and let me tell you, the average player that only watched this video and applied the basic concepts would improve their game dramatically. Where I get lost in all the GTO information out there is how to study it to keep improving my game. I suppose that I will end up subscribing to GTOX to do that.

[@_Chris_D_3004]

It's pretty much useless as the micros because everyone is playing exploitive

[@cypherchaos]

Low limit players have MANY tendencies that I can see/find. That’s the best part of live action. Use the GTO and exploit those tendencies.

[@ryanoliveira5591]

i’m not sure if understood this at 4:02 why wouldn’t you call all the in with 10,9 if you know the probability of of his 10 hands are low. I feel like it would be the opposite. am i wrong

[@jrollinsbass]

this is where gto loses me. it starts strong then ends with call with pocket 4's. how about no I don't want to lose my money because your math is slim here.

[@uzoge]

It's because you block a lot of possible bluffs with T9 but not with 44. When you get shoved on, it's very likely that your opponent has either a really strong hand or air. If you intend to call, you basically bluffcatch in this scenario and what would you wanna bluffcatch with? Something that blocks a ton of bluff combos (T9) or something that blocks none (44)? Btw I think it was explained in the video as well.

[@jrollinsbass]

@@uzoge I know it was explained and I don't agree with it. the only thing you beat is A high and busted straights. every semi bluff beats you. and this blocker nonsense is given too much weight. there are still 3 more in the deck.

[@uzoge]

@@jrollinsbass you don't have to agree with it to be the correct GTO play. There is no semibluff on the river, you either bluff or bet for value. Furthermore, it's not the tens you block what matters, it's the part of villain's range you block with the T9 hand.

[@jrollinsbass]

@@uzoge raises with k6 OR A 9 would clearly be a semi bluff and you lose to them. the correct GTO play doesn't mean correct play.

[@1Captain23]

How’s does having the ace Diamond at 3:03 make it impossible for ur opponent to not have another Diamond/flush?

[@manulift96]

There's only 1 ace of diamond in a deck - if you have it, there's no way the opp can have it. They might have a flush but they don't have the nut, so you can represent that you do have it and it'll have the same effect.

[@jonnyhatter35]

elegant and simple. Keep this nerdy shit coming, meng!

[@mig7290]

Thought I had OK GTO knowledge till I did several hundred GTO simulation hands and my score came down from a 94% high to 58%. My confidence...

[@Larry21924]

This is a phenomenal write-up. A book on a similar topic had a revolutionary impact on me. "Game Theory and the Pursuit of Algorithmic Fairness" by Jack Frostwell

[@inter_1097]

When I first started out i came up with a system where if my 1st hole card was a certain suit, then bluff. That was my way of keeping my opponents guessing on if I had a good hand or not.. that didn't work very well.

[@jimmystrokes34]

😂😂😂😂

[@josuegarita4638]

😂😂😂😂😅😅😅😅

[@treynolfi4365]

great breakdown. you distilled it down to the main ideas but made it natural to follow

[@stoicpoker94]

Great content bro very good and easy to follow and broke down very well just subbed

[@AclibButLikeTheRealOne]

Its 1 am and I gotta get up at 6am. Time to learn GTO.

[@royalemomentsyt]

What a great video! Deserves much more love

[@beanedtea]

When you play against idiots its almost impossible to bluff because they always just call you anyways.

[@keplernotgood9408]

Who bluff that guy who always call is idiot too

[@rleriche5044]

sounds great

[@RealmsOfThePossible]

Great explanation, would like to know your thoughts on semi bluffs.

[@darrylmeeking6839]

He talked about this early in the video, calling it incremental equity

[@Ze.NiTH_]

I love you. You are inspiring me yet once again! Keep the content coming :)

[@inter_1097]

I came here after Tamayo kept riding the rail for info at the WSOP Main.

[@bcni4732]

I learned so much and yet spit my coffee into the monitor because of laughing twice :D

[@GokuPoker]

love the channel - keep it up

[@PrimeTerrific]

The goal of "GTO" as we know it is NOT to maximize chips. When people say GTO they mean replicating the Nash equilibrium strategy, which is not he EV Maximizing strategy (exploitative). You can't have your cake and eat it too. If you are going to claim GTO is playing the Nash equilibrium and the holy grail of poker, don't turn around and then try and claim it's the same as the chip maximizing strategy, it's NOT!!!

[@williamdavis2505]

Incorrect. A NE strategy is the chip maximizing strategy when your opponent is also playing Nash. By definition. Correct that it is a strong and rarely met requirement that all players play Nash, and NE play does not necessarily maximize expected profit in this case. Did he ever say Nash even once? No. I found this a shortcoming. Did he ever even define GTO? Not really.

[@gsssgfdgsdf6312]

wen ariel chronicles next ep?

[@AcrylicGoblin]

Absolutely excellent video!

[@d-law868]

Ofcourse the content was subliminal but :) you did forget the normal fantastic intro music my dear friend ❤

[@aryanagarwal3]

didnt understand why call with 4-4 but not 10-9

[@yellowdoritos]

Tbe opponent just went all-in. We want to guess if he's more likely to be bluffing or to be telling the truth. In the opponents case, he could have bluffed with a hand such as 10Q, 107, etc. If he did, he wouldn't have hit on the river, so he would lose to any pair. 10 doesn't hit, so 10 is a bad card for the opponent to have on this river. If we have 109, we hit a pair of 9s, but the chance that the opponent has a 10 is lower, since we have one of the four 10s. That means that the chance he has J or A (good cards for him) is higher, which means that the chance that he isn't bluffing is higher (he would beat our pair of 9s with a J or A), so we fold. Now if we have 44, the chance that he has a 10 is higher, because we don't hold one of the 10s. Thus, he has a higher chance to not have hit anything on the river and to be bluffing, so we call. Another example is if we had Q6. We only have a pair of 6. If we hold the Q, he's less likely to hold a Q himself (Q is a bad card, doesn't hit anything on this river). That means he is more likely to hold a 9, J or A, and thus not to be bluffing, and thus to beat our pair of 6s.

[@jrollinsbass]

@@yellowdoritos i understand the logic i just dont agree with it. literally the entire board beats those 4's. they are complete trash in this scenario

[@randypage26]

Finally GTO explained simply 👏🏾

[@ToLyLive]

great video as always! thanks

[@shtcoinmaxi1367]

If we were all as good as rampage then we would not need GTO

[@degas]

😳😂

[@d-law868]

Bo-hoo Rampage will never be mentioned again…his loss , that’s not how you maximize EV ‘Rampage’

[@Weasel_1.1]

We'd actually need gto more lol

[@Hedonism96]

@@Weasel_1.1best players aren’t studying m8, hate to break it to ya

[@cypherchaos]

He’s a luck box 😂

[@MacDaniboi]

My ears hear one thing, but my brain hears: Play balanced, solid poker, bluff sometimes but not too often, bet sometimes, but not always when you think you have a winning hand.

[@jrollinsbass]

yeah the game ive been playing for 25 or so years. like when daniel was talking about the old school way of playing where you put someone on a hand and then keep them on it the entire hand made no sense even 25 years ago. every move someone makes historically I reevaluate what is happening. I also do not agree with GTO hand rankings where overcards are valued more than pairs. pairs are always a slight favorite

[@ryantabaczyk8229]

This video is a great resource easily makes money like a printer

[@Schubeedoobee]

LOL... Old Man Coffee...

[@lockalhost]

Please correct me if I'm wrong: Why do you use wording such as "maximizing our chips", when GTO sees poker as a zero-sum game and only seeks to play "balanced" strategies, where its main goal is literally to not make or lose a single chip? In a raked game, the EV of playing GTO (assuming everyone else is playing *perfect* GTO) is negative - you should be walking out of that game. Now, of course there's money to be made by playing GTO, since opponents have lots of leaks in various spots, from preflop to postflop (overfolding, overcalling, underbluffing, overbluffing ...), so we print money as soon as they deviate from the GTO gameplan, by sticking "harder" to the GTO gameplan ourselves.

[@JohnSmith-nx7zj]

A GTO strategy does not necessarily “maximise chips” in each situation unless your opponent is also playing a GTO strategy. A simple example of this is rock paper scissors. The GTO strategy is simply to use each possible play with a 1/3 probability. This strategy is unexploitable. But if you know your opponent plays rock 2/3 of the time then the optimal strategy is just to always play paper.

[@Cowtymsmiesznego]

It's better than that - the (only) GTO strategy for rock/paper/scissors literally can't win. You will always have the EV of 0, regardless of how badly your opponent tries to play.

[@dang7716]

Well put

[@DanielJones-f9z]

Ive played with old man coffee in Vegas hes got very little game

[@ZsebtelepHUN]

I just wanted to have 10 minutes of stress free life without having to see any of the Botez sisters, but no. Its 2024, its impossible anymore.

[@joegonzalez1941]

Little GTO, u really looking fine, 3 dueces and a four spead and a 389! Going up to Pomona and let then know, guess i got the wrong GTO, Pontiac should sue for stealing their logo!

[@rleriche5044]

Here out of curiosity. I do this stuff anyway. Would have thought it was common sense.

[@darren4635]

too many people are playing GTO these days so because almost the entire field of players uses this strategy now it means the entire field has reached nash equilibrium and the only people winning at poker now are the people running the events and taking your rake.

[@TharsisTPSouza]

I thought GTO (Nash Equilibrium based) aims at minimizing regrets instead of maximizing chips as presented in this video.

[@williamdavis2505]

Nash Equilibria require expected utility maximizers, which can be assumed to be expected profit maximization in poker by assuming players are risk-neutral. Regret minimization is related if not identical. If regrets are losses, or negative profits then regret minimization is dual (with identical equilibrium conditions) to profit maximization. For other types of regret an iterative minimization can be shown to converge to a Nash Equilibrium. Basic NE applies to simultaneous one-shot games of perfect information. Refinements are required for repeated games with imperfect information. The players still maximize expected profits. The strongest additional condition for equilibria in imperfect information games is that the players are also “Bayes rational,” that they make inferences and form beliefs according to the laws of conditional probability and Bayes’ theorem. Equilibrium strategies require strong assumptions on all players. Play off the equilibrium path is more vast and interesting. All players are typically not risk-neutral Bayes-rational expected profit maximizers.

[@PrimeTerrific]

@@williamdavis2505 but when people tell you to replicate the Nash equilibrium strategy regardless of what your opponent does, they are telling you not to be an EV maximizer anymore. That is definitely not "game theory optimal".

[@williamdavis2505]

@@PrimeTerrific agreed. If you play Nash the best your opponent can do against you is to also play Nash, but if your opponent deviates you can increase your expected profit by exploiting your opponents errors. Exploitative play can be optimal, and better than playing equilibrium strategies when your opponent is not. You have revealed a problem with how the jargon is used. People use exploitative to mean not GTO, but as you correctly point out it may still be optimal. Myself I avoid saying GTO. The jargon is too often tossed around by people who do not even know what a Nash Equilibrium is. If you mean play the equilibrium strategy say that instead. Btw “GTO” also does not mean “balanced” although people seem to think it does. It sounds similar to equilibrium in common parlance. Yes we should use mixed strategies but call them that instead. How do we determine the mixing proportions? Good question, one that this video fails to address. No reason to assume 50/50 like the term “balanced” seems to apply. Mixing means you play the same hand in different ways, e.g. 60% call 40% raise. If by balanced you mean play different hands in the same way this might be a characteristic of many strategies. There are more hands than actions. This does not distinguish an optimal strategy, although at least it seems it must be a characteristic of one. Game theory optima are all based on Nash Equilibrium and refinements like Bayesian Nash Equilibrium. This is where any attempt at defining what GTO is should start.

[@dieselviper7811]

Most of this sounds like what I was already doing but I’m still losing wtf

[@longxiong496]

Same

[@BartRovers_]

Haha you should read what you wrote here again.

[@inter_1097]

It's possible you're playing a lot of bots and not realizing it.

[@happygutslol]

I thought it was abt great teacher onizuka 😂

[@brettreason484]

GTO doesn’t work against donks in 1-2 & 1-3 players that call with any draw are so dangerous and usually take all the chips. No strategy necessary the game is 80% luck when you eliminate the fear of financial loss.

[@_Chris_D_3004]

Read modern poker theory over and over again until you understand it

[@hermain77]

well done, keep up

[@rockywinn]

old man cofee lol

[@robertoojeda1460]

Great info and would love to learn a lot from this, I did found the back ground piano music annoying since your voice is not in sink with the music, your voice speed is at 80mps and the music is at 40 , is just a something I thought…..

[@pokernightoutnyc]

5 POKER SECRETS FROM THE PROS: It's not really about the cards. Never show a bluff Sometimes you have to fold your Aces. You make your own luck. Become a lifelong student of the game.

[@TheSoca123]

I thought this was an anime video 😂

[@nunyo7259]

None of this matters if you dont know what your opponents image of you is.

[@Jimmy-lx3zp]

so its just playing good poker tbh

[@bobbychess5652]

Exactly

[@-..-..-..-..-..-..-..-..-..]

1:15 i'd fight him

[@subhoo-vg6xu]

i kind of used it subconsiously withotu knowning this lol

[@blingting]

Well said

[@vikasathani1468]

Practice with luck ❤

[@DanielJones-f9z]

This is for playing poker against professional poker players who are thinking about this sort of thing. 99% of poker players are fish that cant fold a medium strength hand to save their life bluffing against them does not work. -21 years of playing poker professionally

[@CarlitoJr408]

So do what I've been doing for twenty years... Cool.

[@JanuaryAngelocci-l2o]

Macejkovic Alley

[@stephenwhite7646]

I feel this is borderline cheating. And what makes it worse. The people who use this think they are the best at poker.

[@karanswaich9601]

I agree.how anyone thinks it isn't , is beyond me

[@eightinnn]

Why would it be cheating?

[@CandieKalberer-g2j]

Jones Summit

[@EdwardClark-n9v]

Sven Cliff

[@Mario20sanchez]

Liquid gold !!!

[@robcoop6521]

Disappointing. This isn't Great Teacher Onizuka.

[@tolat]

Good

[@dillonkeller4477]

Man, I gotta stop being a nit lol

[@jeff3638]

Intuitive😅

[@nextinstead]

I mark the cards when i sit at casinos

[@dxfifa]

Way too many idiots (even high profile) who think GTO is solver vs solver unexploitable play. Balanced and unexploitable does not equal Game Theory Optimal against a human player. GTO and solver strat literally changes with range and frequency of villain(s) at each node and implementing it relies on humans understanding both balance/exploitation axis AND accurately ranging the opponent. Human application of GTO is basically maximising your EV by playing your range in such a way that is mathematically guaranteed to win the most EV. You could say mathematical and methodical exploitation rather than intuitive or inconsistent exploitation of the opponent's range. The more balanced and unexploitable the opponent's range and actions are, the smaller the adjustment the solver would give to solver vs solver unexploitable neutral EV play and the more subtle the deviation. People need to remember if you put a shitty unbalanced exploitable range into a node for villain, the solver isn't going to suggest "balance", and if it did, that would not be "Game Theory Optimal".

[@dxfifa]

As soon as you're playing your range rather than your hand, and attempting to consistently mix your strategy for different hand classes rather than just choosing one action on intuition or playing your hand, or hand classes linearly with no attempt to balance, you are able to begin making an attempt at a humanised GTO strat. However, most players are not consistent enough with range and frequency, use intuition/make reads and disconnect the nodes (ie changing decision throughout hands) enough that they are attempting a +EV exploitative strategy. In GTO based strats there are no "reads" outside of opponent's range and frequency and there is no inconsistency in how hero plays in each node/spot, thus a randomiser is needed, or some ability to track your percentage of action. If it's meant to be c/x/r 50/40/10 and you (without randomiser but knowing the theory) end up at 58/30/12 then you're using too much intuition to play GTO. As lame as it sounds if you train to be as good of a human GTO approximation by knowing spots as possible but don't use randomiser, you fail then and there unless you are super genius at remembering what you did the last 100 times you had this spot over 30000 hands or whatever

[@lulws4940]

This shit is so dumb it only works if the other players abide by similar strategies

[@jackofallgames3097]

Anyone who believes in this shouldn't be playing poker. No program is gonna help you read your opponents. Playing the cards instead of the man is exactly what real players want you to do

[@shawnrose8683]

lol what a joke

[@Ac3p3rgAA]

try gto on low limits lulz. worst mistake ever

[@mec635]

Scam

[@christophermc2]

Can you do another video about exploitative play please?

[@7betJesus]

wut ?!?

[@kendellsmith104]

Anyway none of this translates to reality. Every poker game online or local everyone plays every damn hand and goes all in anytime they have any ace and some with literally any hand doesn’t matter what it’s with and they pot winner is completely random

[@Zach-tf2qu]

Sounds like someone’s mad about losing to bad players.

[@mec635]

Scam

[@mec635]

Scam

[@mec635]

Scam

[@mec635]

Scam

[@mec635]

Scam

[@mec635]

Scam