Still other signs: - You can easily list Beth_1-many examples of recent bad beats. - You always try to apply Zorn's Lemma to find a maximal element describing how shit you are, but it doesn't work because there's no upper bound on how shit you are. - You always try to justify playing a balanced strategy against bad players by appealing to Freiling's Axiom of Symmetry. Hope you enjoyed my math jokes.
I think soft skills are incredibly underrated- in my experience I found a lot of failure was poor management in terms of play length, time selection, BRM, table selection etc
I was kind resisting the idea of grinding solvers on my own because I was not sure how I could make use of it. The application of the solver on the A 10 example was really helpfull in that regard
0:15 You have to should be being balanced in every spot 2:00 Focus on your blockers cards very much and nothing else 5:00 Don't never let anybody or anyone keep or hold a draw at any cost never, especially if it's 3 of the same, cards have to be paid for and they cost money and should not be cheap or not expensive so you make money
I feel like in these kind of vids it should also be mentionned that some river nodes are overbluffed, not always the underbluffed ones, it gives the false impression that people in general are not bluffing enough on the river when in reality there are many many spots where people bluff way too much
Another mistake costing you money at the poker table: You overfold mid-pocket pairs like 88 and 99 against light 3-bets preflop when in certain spots like heads-up you could 4-bet shove or call to see a flop
My problems are always away from the table. I actually win more than i lose but I don't play regularly like other people. I will play for a few days 2-3 2-5 and make 4000$ then not play anymore as a example. I usually spend the money on vice things then the Money is gone in a month and i repeat the process later.
Good question - indifferent means the value of calling is the same as that of folding (0). This can happen when your opponent's value bluff ratio matches your pot odds exactly. Kind of like how if you flip a coin and bet $100 on heads, you don't expect to win or lose anything on average.
means you are not making money calling ATo here in a long run !!!( I mean million times long run in theory against good balanced opponent) , but the reality is most of people bluffing not enough compared to the solver OTR
If one action is lower EV than another action at equilibrium, a GTO solution will never take the lower EV action. So if calling has an EV of +0.0001BB, and folding has an EV of 0BB, a perfect solver would call at a 100% frequency. If a solver mixes calls and folds at any frequency, it is basically saying the EV of both options is exactly the same.
@@antihackerify That’s a limitation of the solver. If you solved it to equilibrium, the difference would go to zero or become a pure call or pure fold.
What are some wet board you would size up on? For example even UTG vs BB in position c bet on a KT8 two toned board the solver likes a 1/3 pot most of the time (occasionally 1/2 pot) even though we’re in position and the board heavily favors our range
The solver mostly likes going big on AK-high boards. BB has a very small proportion of nuts, so even when we overbet, they still have to call with plenty of bluffcatchers. Of course there are some flush draws he can defend with as well, but because the board is A-high, flush draws have a lot less equity against our value region. The key difference is that BB has more 2p, sets, combodraws and nut flushdraws on KT8. So he doesn't have to defend with as many weak bluffcatchers. On AKx there are less combos of these hands, so it's still a good tradeoff to size up. Yes we lose a bit of value against hands like 2nd pair, but the extra value we get from hands like Ax and weak flushdraws more than makes up for it.
I know I'd definitely get destroyed - I don't know what most of terms used mean lol. I used to play back when Poker Stars was a thing. Never heard any of these expressions or terms then. I remember hearing names of playstyles like Loose-Aggressive (what I wanted to be), Tight-Aggressive (Phil Ivey style), etc. I know I'd get wiped or be extremely lucky lol either way, that's basically a loser or one waiting to happen hahaha
Poker is a game of incomplete information, you play gto unless you have more information and that rarely happens ( too many players in the pool usuall y) . Sure, maybe overfold a little bit since most players underbluff but there are players who overbluff a lot since they know most people don't hero call even with good hands/blockers. I've seen some crazy bluffs out of the norm because my range was perceived as weak so just play gto until you have a ton of information on somebody.That's why solvers made the game so hard.
You are not really playing “GTO” it’s just a bunch of heuristics you using to mimic the solver , it def has a ton of frequency mistakes or even some fundamental mistakes that higher level player can picking up on to exploit you. It’s not that safe to just play “gto”
@@TacoBully Nobody plays GTO, but you can aspire to play as close as possible and the better your assumptions are the better you will play. GTO is just how to be balanced with all known variables so whatever the villain does is a mistake unless he plays perfectly. Overbluffs? i make money with bluffcatchers. Underbluffs? He doesn't make enough money with bluffs. Give the solver your strategy and it will crush you 100% of the time, Libratus did it just from the incomplete information he got from playing thousand of hands
If a certain spot is underbluffed (and you have the data to back it up) then I think it makes sense to overfold as a default. The EV you lose against the occasional crazy overbluffer will be much less than what you gain from the rest of the player pool. Trying to imitate GTO actually gives your opponents a lot of leeway. Think about what you're doing when you call at the optimal frequency: blockers aside, you're making villain's bluffs indifferent. So whether they overbluff or underbluff, it's actually impossible for them to make a mistake. You can perhaps make a bit of money by using better betsizes and having a better understanding of blockers - but the latter especially is something that lots of supposed "GTO" players tend to mess up.
@@PokerGiraffe Sure, if you have the data. So you start with the supposition that most people don't bluff enough and you build from there and you try and see what's the lowest card you can call and win, sometimes even 2 pair is not good enough like in your example. But it's still gto in the sense that if you put in a solver that the villain doesn't bluff enough the solver will absolutely tell you that you should fold a ton. GTO is just optimal strategy in a set of suppositions, the trick is to have good understanding of villains and of the pool, an adjust accordingly but studying gto ( in normal ranges ) will prepare you for aggresive opponents that overbluff. "Think about what you're doing when you call at the optimal frequency: blockers aside, you're making villain's bluffs indifferent. So whether they overbluff or underbluff, it's actually impossible for them to make a mistake. " What? If they overbluff you print money on them, not sure what you are saying here.
@@sabincioflec8413 what's funny is that the people who have a problem with your line of reasoning, are usually people who don't want to put in effort into learning because they already "like their playstyle", and the black/white argument 'it's impossible to play gto' is their end all argument. it's a bad argument because we always play against other human beings, so the more "studied" you are the more theoretical nuance you'll have to base your bigger picture decision making on. i feel like that's where the crux is, most people want to base their decision on a feeling and then leave it at that, wether win or lose
No one who actually understands how GTO works will play GTO. When Doug was playing HU with Negreanu, he had a whole team analysing Negreanu's leaks so that he could exploit them for the max. I'm not familiar with Jarretman, but chances are he's not playing as balanced as you think.
@@PokerGiraffe I see this issue the same way as you do, but allow me to respectfully bring up some counterpoints: 1) Doug Polk has said in numerous interviews that his team looked for leaks in Negreanu's game, but even then his strategy was to mimic GTO (even tho with some simplifications of frequencies and sizes) as much as possible. Additionally, he has dozens of videos (including recent ones) advocating that we should play as close to theory as possible and that this style is a long-term winner against everyone. He really seems to believe in this. 2) Jarretman is publicly known for playing as close to GTO as he can without adapting to anyone. In fact, in the only interview he has ever given on RUclips, he openly talks about how this is his strategy. 3) Both Doug and Jarretman do not play like a GTO BOT, obviously. They are unbalanced because it wouldn't be humanly possible to be perfectly balanced. Therefore, I understand that they might be exploiting various players even unintentionally. However, my provocation is about how there is a clash of ideas, considering that some strong professional players seem to advocate mimicking theory, while others say it wouldn't be possible to win that way.
I definitely think it's possible to win - in fact I was playing like this for a long time and still winning. It's just that when I look back now, it's clear that I could have won much more by thinking more about my opponents' mistakes, and how to exploit them.
@@PokerGiraffe People always warn that if you go out of your way to exploit you can be exploited yourself, but that only matters when you are playing against elite players. Most players below highest stakes just play how they play and aren't even paying enough attention or educated in poker enough to even realize what you are doing.
Everything you said makes a lot of intuitive sense. However, and this is mostly regarding point number 1, why did the perfect GTO bots absolutely dismantled every type of poker player they faced (Pluribus and Libratus) by using 0 exploits? Based on general knowledge of how humans play, they massively underbluff in most nodes of the game tree, and the bots completely crushed them. The only player who barely lost slightly, was Linus who is the best GTO player of all time that we know of as of rn. So there must be something to GTO that you/we are not taking into account 🧐
The problem is nobody can achieve super human accuracy in terms of playing “GTO”. Knowing your real opponent’s weakness and act on it is far more valuable to humans
That's a great question. The short answer is that against all but the best players, a good exploitative player (like Linus) will make even more money than the bots did. And yes, Linus is an exploitative player, along with 90% of top HS regs. Because no one who actually understands how GTO works will actually try to play GTO :) What makes him different is that he understands GTO better, and therefore can exploit better.
Yes, i understand both of what you guys said, ofc exploits will always be better than GTO, but that’s not what I was getting at. I’m not advocating for playing GTO over exploits. My point was that you said on point number one, that being balanced every where is a sign of a losing player, which is not true at all since we already saw two perfectly balanced GTO bots always being a winner and never losing vs any player it faced regardless of whether they were overcalling vs under bluffers or they were overvaluing their blockers as you stated in point 2. A sign of losing players is being too passive every where, overly aggro everywhere, playing bad ranges pre, tilt, bad understanding of range interactions, etc. Being balanced and understanding blockers and applying them correctly are signs of WINNING players, not losing ones. Using said knowledge of where not to apply blockers and where not to be balanced vs certain players is a sign of being an even greater winning player, ofc.
@@NoLongerGrilling What I'm gonna say might not be related to your question but still relevant. What you are saying is all true in theory in a zero-rake environment but in practice, playing GTO does not guarantee you are a winning player in expectation because of 2 reasons. 1. Rake exist and the edge you have playing GTO might not be big enough to beat the rake in practice. IMO, in most online cash game environment, playing GTO does not beat the rake and the players who claim they play GTO are subconsciously playing exploits in some spots. Don't take this as a fact, just my opinion. 2. GTO strategies are not guaranteed to win in expectation in non-heads up games. This is a mathematical fact even though we can't mathematically proof this is true for poker (yet). Even when a GTO player's Villains are not colluding, there are many ways for them to make playing GTO lose in expectation.
@@DottMySaviour Point number one is a great counter point. Rake is the determining factor that makes some slightly winning players otherwise into losing players. Point number two I kind of agree with, but not fully. We also saw Pluribus go against multiple opponents in some hands in 6max and he still crushed them. I wished we had the complete data on how it did in those specific multiway spots in order to draw a better conclusion. But given how well it did vs everyone, it’s reasonable to assume it was at least break even in those multiway pots. And btw, ty for the response.
blockers are a great tool to balance your frequencies against good players. obviously irrelevant in low stakes but against good players if you think they are somewhat balanced and you neither want to overfold your bluff catchers, nor be a calling station, just look at your hand and decide if out of all available bluff catchers that you have if this is in the best x% to bluffcatch with due to blocking properties. Playing against a good or even better opponent this will make it so you are not constantly trying to guess his hand and instead play a sound strategy. Obviously none of this matters against easily exploitable weak players
Other signs that you're a losing player:
- You lose more money than you win
- You struggle to pay your bills
- People want to play with you
Cot dam, no wonder they get up and ask me if I've been gone too long !!!
@@Jacobson-dp7gg why would you say that? He is one of the best.
Micro stakes russians have a picture of u and they Kiss every day .
Still other signs:
- You can easily list Beth_1-many examples of recent bad beats.
- You always try to apply Zorn's Lemma to find a maximal element describing how shit you are, but it doesn't work because there's no upper bound on how shit you are.
- You always try to justify playing a balanced strategy against bad players by appealing to Freiling's Axiom of Symmetry.
Hope you enjoyed my math jokes.
I think soft skills are incredibly underrated- in my experience I found a lot of failure was poor management in terms of play length, time selection, BRM, table selection etc
Yes, thats why, IMO, a lot of players who are crushing 500nl+ still get into money/drug/girl trouble and are never herd from again.
Agree 100% - the mental side is super important too
The class representative is there:
a. try to be balanced in every spot
b. focus too much on blockers
c. you bet too big on wet board to charge draws
I know I'm a losing player because I stopped playing NL50 around two decades ago
15" POKER HAAAAARRRRDDD
I totally get this assuming your opponent bluff / fold at any optimal frequency in low to mid stakes is stupid.
Very good vid! Like your work!
I was kind resisting the idea of grinding solvers on my own because I was not sure how I could make use of it. The application of the solver on the A 10 example was really helpfull in that regard
0:15 You have to should be being balanced in every spot
2:00 Focus on your blockers cards very much and nothing else
5:00 Don't never let anybody or anyone keep or hold a draw at any cost never, especially if it's 3 of the same, cards have to be paid for and they cost money and should not be cheap or not expensive so you make money
Always a good day when the giraffe drops new video, cheera
I feel like in these kind of vids it should also be mentionned that some river nodes are overbluffed, not always the underbluffed ones, it gives the false impression that people in general are not bluffing enough on the river when in reality there are many many spots where people bluff way too much
For sure, it completely depends on the line and formation.
Another mistake costing you money at the poker table:
You overfold mid-pocket pairs like 88 and 99 against light 3-bets preflop when in certain spots like heads-up you could 4-bet shove or call to see a flop
To be fair I don't think anyone is folding pairs in my games 😅
Sign number one: Your losing sessions total more than your winning sessions.
Or even better, your total profit/loss is in negative
Depends on whether you play live or online!
Signs you’re a losing player: you lose money
I go in knowing full well any money I gamble anywhere anytime will all be 100% gone :D
My problems are always away from the table. I actually win more than i lose but I don't play regularly like other people. I will play for a few days 2-3 2-5 and make 4000$ then not play anymore as a example. I usually spend the money on vice things then the Money is gone in a month and i repeat the process later.
Save it and build your bankroll. Expensive vice is better
Can you explain what "ATo is indifferent facing a jam" means? How can it be calling most of the time but be indifferent to a jam?
Good question - indifferent means the value of calling is the same as that of folding (0).
This can happen when your opponent's value bluff ratio matches your pot odds exactly. Kind of like how if you flip a coin and bet $100 on heads, you don't expect to win or lose anything on average.
means you are not making money calling ATo here in a long run !!!( I mean million times long run in theory against good balanced opponent) , but the reality is most of people bluffing not enough compared to the solver OTR
If one action is lower EV than another action at equilibrium, a GTO solution will never take the lower EV action. So if calling has an EV of +0.0001BB, and folding has an EV of 0BB, a perfect solver would call at a 100% frequency. If a solver mixes calls and folds at any frequency, it is basically saying the EV of both options is exactly the same.
@@nikolson191 not exactly like that, sometimes It hás a small differece of 0.01, so, definatelly not 0.000001.
@@antihackerify That’s a limitation of the solver. If you solved it to equilibrium, the difference would go to zero or become a pure call or pure fold.
still no new video? I'm even going through 2 cards videos QaQ
very good content thanks
Thanks for watching!
What are some wet board you would size up on? For example even UTG vs BB in position c bet on a KT8 two toned board the solver likes a 1/3 pot most of the time (occasionally 1/2 pot) even though we’re in position and the board heavily favors our range
The solver mostly likes going big on AK-high boards. BB has a very small proportion of nuts, so even when we overbet, they still have to call with plenty of bluffcatchers. Of course there are some flush draws he can defend with as well, but because the board is A-high, flush draws have a lot less equity against our value region.
The key difference is that BB has more 2p, sets, combodraws and nut flushdraws on KT8. So he doesn't have to defend with as many weak bluffcatchers. On AKx there are less combos of these hands, so it's still a good tradeoff to size up. Yes we lose a bit of value against hands like 2nd pair, but the extra value we get from hands like Ax and weak flushdraws more than makes up for it.
I know I'd definitely get destroyed - I don't know what most of terms used mean lol.
I used to play back when Poker Stars was a thing. Never heard any of these expressions or terms then. I remember hearing names of playstyles like Loose-Aggressive (what I wanted to be), Tight-Aggressive (Phil Ivey style), etc.
I know I'd get wiped or be extremely lucky lol either way, that's basically a loser or one waiting to happen hahaha
Poker has definitely changed a lot, but i don't think you'll do as badly as you think ;)
Losing players worrie about balance during play too much but not life balance and soft skills off the table 😜
Poker is a game of incomplete information, you play gto unless you have more information and that rarely happens ( too many players in the pool usuall y) . Sure, maybe overfold a little bit since most players underbluff but there are players who overbluff a lot since they know most people don't hero call even with good hands/blockers.
I've seen some crazy bluffs out of the norm because my range was perceived as weak so just play gto until you have a ton of information on somebody.That's why solvers made the game so hard.
You are not really playing “GTO” it’s just a bunch of heuristics you using to mimic the solver , it def has a ton of frequency mistakes or even some fundamental mistakes that higher level player can picking up on to exploit you. It’s not that safe to just play “gto”
@@TacoBully Nobody plays GTO, but you can aspire to play as close as possible and the better your assumptions are the better you will play. GTO is just how to be balanced with all known variables so whatever the villain does is a mistake unless he plays perfectly. Overbluffs? i make money with bluffcatchers. Underbluffs? He doesn't make enough money with bluffs. Give the solver your strategy and it will crush you 100% of the time, Libratus did it just from the incomplete information he got from playing thousand of hands
If a certain spot is underbluffed (and you have the data to back it up) then I think it makes sense to overfold as a default. The EV you lose against the occasional crazy overbluffer will be much less than what you gain from the rest of the player pool.
Trying to imitate GTO actually gives your opponents a lot of leeway. Think about what you're doing when you call at the optimal frequency: blockers aside, you're making villain's bluffs indifferent. So whether they overbluff or underbluff, it's actually impossible for them to make a mistake.
You can perhaps make a bit of money by using better betsizes and having a better understanding of blockers - but the latter especially is something that lots of supposed "GTO" players tend to mess up.
@@PokerGiraffe Sure, if you have the data. So you start with the supposition that most people don't bluff enough and you build from there and you try and see what's the lowest card you can call and win, sometimes even 2 pair is not good enough like in your example. But it's still gto in the sense that if you put in a solver that the villain doesn't bluff enough the solver will absolutely tell you that you should fold a ton.
GTO is just optimal strategy in a set of suppositions, the trick is to have good understanding of villains and of the pool, an adjust accordingly but studying gto ( in normal ranges ) will prepare you for aggresive opponents that overbluff.
"Think about what you're doing when you call at the optimal frequency: blockers aside, you're making villain's bluffs indifferent. So whether they overbluff or underbluff, it's actually impossible for them to make a mistake. "
What? If they overbluff you print money on them, not sure what you are saying here.
@@sabincioflec8413 what's funny is that the people who have a problem with your line of reasoning, are usually people who don't want to put in effort into learning because they already "like their playstyle", and the black/white argument 'it's impossible to play gto' is their end all argument. it's a bad argument because we always play against other human beings, so the more "studied" you are the more theoretical nuance you'll have to base your bigger picture decision making on. i feel like that's where the crux is, most people want to base their decision on a feeling and then leave it at that, wether win or lose
15" POKER HAAAAARRRRDDD
what is your opinion about full-gto players that are good, as doug polk and jarretman? why they win, then?
No one who actually understands how GTO works will play GTO. When Doug was playing HU with Negreanu, he had a whole team analysing Negreanu's leaks so that he could exploit them for the max.
I'm not familiar with Jarretman, but chances are he's not playing as balanced as you think.
@@PokerGiraffe I see this issue the same way as you do, but allow me to respectfully bring up some counterpoints:
1) Doug Polk has said in numerous interviews that his team looked for leaks in Negreanu's game, but even then his strategy was to mimic GTO (even tho with some simplifications of frequencies and sizes) as much as possible. Additionally, he has dozens of videos (including recent ones) advocating that we should play as close to theory as possible and that this style is a long-term winner against everyone. He really seems to believe in this.
2) Jarretman is publicly known for playing as close to GTO as he can without adapting to anyone. In fact, in the only interview he has ever given on RUclips, he openly talks about how this is his strategy.
3) Both Doug and Jarretman do not play like a GTO BOT, obviously. They are unbalanced because it wouldn't be humanly possible to be perfectly balanced. Therefore, I understand that they might be exploiting various players even unintentionally. However, my provocation is about how there is a clash of ideas, considering that some strong professional players seem to advocate mimicking theory, while others say it wouldn't be possible to win that way.
I definitely think it's possible to win - in fact I was playing like this for a long time and still winning.
It's just that when I look back now, it's clear that I could have won much more by thinking more about my opponents' mistakes, and how to exploit them.
@@PokerGiraffe People always warn that if you go out of your way to exploit you can be exploited yourself, but that only matters when you are playing against elite players. Most players below highest stakes just play how they play and aren't even paying enough attention or educated in poker enough to even realize what you are doing.
That's a great point. Being exploitable is fine (and sometimes even good) if your opponents are not finding the exploit.
I see a lot of winnings high stakes players are blue liners. I feel nowadays everybody want to be redliner.
What is your toughts?
I think the only line that matters is the green line :)
Everything you said makes a lot of intuitive sense. However, and this is mostly regarding point number 1, why did the perfect GTO bots absolutely dismantled every type of poker player they faced (Pluribus and Libratus) by using 0 exploits? Based on general knowledge of how humans play, they massively underbluff in most nodes of the game tree, and the bots completely crushed them. The only player who barely lost slightly, was Linus who is the best GTO player of all time that we know of as of rn.
So there must be something to GTO that you/we are not taking into account 🧐
The problem is nobody can achieve super human accuracy in terms of playing “GTO”. Knowing your real opponent’s weakness and act on it is far more valuable to humans
That's a great question. The short answer is that against all but the best players, a good exploitative player (like Linus) will make even more money than the bots did.
And yes, Linus is an exploitative player, along with 90% of top HS regs. Because no one who actually understands how GTO works will actually try to play GTO :)
What makes him different is that he understands GTO better, and therefore can exploit better.
Yes, i understand both of what you guys said, ofc exploits will always be better than GTO, but that’s not what I was getting at. I’m not advocating for playing GTO over exploits.
My point was that you said on point number one, that being balanced every where is a sign of a losing player, which is not true at all since we already saw two perfectly balanced GTO bots always being a winner and never losing vs any player it faced regardless of whether they were overcalling vs under bluffers or they were overvaluing their blockers as you stated in point 2.
A sign of losing players is being too passive every where, overly aggro everywhere, playing bad ranges pre, tilt, bad understanding of range interactions, etc.
Being balanced and understanding blockers and applying them correctly are signs of WINNING players, not losing ones. Using said knowledge of where not to apply blockers and where not to be balanced vs certain players is a sign of being an even greater winning player, ofc.
@@NoLongerGrilling What I'm gonna say might not be related to your question but still relevant.
What you are saying is all true in theory in a zero-rake environment but in practice, playing GTO does not guarantee you are a winning player in expectation because of 2 reasons.
1. Rake exist and the edge you have playing GTO might not be big enough to beat the rake in practice.
IMO, in most online cash game environment, playing GTO does not beat the rake and the players who claim they play GTO are subconsciously playing exploits in some spots. Don't take this as a fact, just my opinion.
2. GTO strategies are not guaranteed to win in expectation in non-heads up games. This is a mathematical fact even though we can't mathematically proof this is true for poker (yet).
Even when a GTO player's Villains are not colluding, there are many ways for them to make playing GTO lose in expectation.
@@DottMySaviour Point number one is a great counter point. Rake is the determining factor that makes some slightly winning players otherwise into losing players.
Point number two I kind of agree with, but not fully. We also saw Pluribus go against multiple opponents in some hands in 6max and he still crushed them. I wished we had the complete data on how it did in those specific multiway spots in order to draw a better conclusion. But given how well it did vs everyone, it’s reasonable to assume it was at least break even in those multiway pots.
And btw, ty for the response.
blockers are so overrated,,,so what u have 1 suit in your hand that might block your opponent,,,,I focus on the player and my cards,,,,
blockers are a great tool to balance your frequencies against good players. obviously irrelevant in low stakes but against good players if you think they are somewhat balanced and you neither want to overfold your bluff catchers, nor be a calling station, just look at your hand and decide if out of all available bluff catchers that you have if this is in the best x% to bluffcatch with due to blocking properties. Playing against a good or even better opponent this will make it so you are not constantly trying to guess his hand and instead play a sound strategy. Obviously none of this matters against easily exploitable weak players
Can you speak chinese?
可以的
King Qing!
Dad came back with the milk
Sup man, id love your videos, for a nice experience I suggest use a lofi music in background.