I agree with this video 60% of the time.

@ConsciousPoker

7 жыл бұрын

Poker Dennis Lol too good

@fgcampjr

7 жыл бұрын

Poker Dennis 60% of the time, it works every time.

@McGavel1

7 жыл бұрын

Lol, 80% of success is showing up 60% of the time.

@BAlvn-yr6ej

7 жыл бұрын

Niggah...you play PK GEax, or just another stealer??????

@BAlvn-yr6ej

7 жыл бұрын

lomao

is hiding your big chips behind a stack: exploitive or GTO?

Being knowledgeable of GTO allows you to notice more effectively when other players are deviating from it, which allows you to deviate from GTO towards an exploitative line. This idea that one is better than the other, GTO, is a silly way to look at it. They're best when used together.

I can't even explain to you how much you improved my game Alec. Thank you for your contribution to the poker community. You have become my favorite poker player esp on youtube after LATB in the recent weeks.

Alec as a follow up please talk in depth about GAME FLOW in a live setting and how that affects your frequencies and decision making.

Awesome content Alec. I'm interested in hearing your opinion on the 'flow state'. I usually enter this mode deep into sessions and seem to tap into an intuitive instinctive game style that exploits opponents subconsciously. Do you ever experience this ??

Alec, can you please do a video on raising size post flop? How much should you raise when bluffing or value raising? I know it depends but just the general concept behind it.

Wow best video explaining both strategies!!!! thnx

Me, as a chess player (and a bad poker player) i found this video very interesting and you explained it very well. Thanks!

@ConsciousPoker

6 жыл бұрын

Thanks Carlos!

There is a significant difference between the definition of theory in chess and poker. In chess, there is endgame theory (dealing with positions in which most pieces have been taken off the board through the course of the game) and principles for middlegame play, but the theory that Anand is known for is opening theory, which basically consists of memorizing moves, sometimes 25+ moves deep into the game. And he won't memorize only the best move that his opponent could make each time it's his turn, but also the most likely alternatives. This type of strategy is especially deadly if the memorizer tries to drag his opponent into some highly complicated and extremely double-edged position where one suboptimal move that looks fine can lead to a huge advantage for the other side. Even if the person seeing the position for the first time manages to navigate all the complications and dodge all the landmines using only his brain (whereas his opponent has run it through a computer for hours and hours), he will likely use up so much time on his clock that his opponent will have a significant advantage for the rest of the game anyways. If the memorizer goes for positions that are less complicated or double-edged, the same is true but to a lesser extent. The thing about this kind of strategy is that when they're memorizing so many moves deep, their opponents might try to dodge all their preparation by making some unexpected move early on, like, move 4 or 5 or even move 1 (most famously, Bobby Fischer pulling out 1. c4 in a world championship match, being known for playing exclusively 1. e4). We call it taking opponents "out of book" because the opponent will be in a position that wasn't described in the book he read and studied about the opening he chose. You could call it exploitative play what Magnus Carlsen did, but when we're talking move 3 or 4 in chess, generally we don't talk theoretical optimal because nobody cares. The position is so undeveloped that multiple moves could be equally strong for all we know, and even moves that might be marginally less strong might be known to lead to positions where both sides can win and draws might be possible. We do make a distinction between "objective evaluation" and "practically chances." Objective evaluation is what happens when two of the world's strongest engines play the position out. Practical chances are reflected in how each side scores in that position or very similar positions. Highly complicated positions, especially those with heavy checkmating attacks on opposite sides of the board (because the kings are on opposite sides), tend to give both sides practical chances, and engines are notoriously bad at predicting what kinds of results humans will achieve in those positions. The clock is also a significant consideration in practical chances, because engines calculate extremely quickly but humans are a lot more prone to error if they must move within 2-3 seconds (normal in professional speed chess) or even within 30 seconds (normal for professional chess with long time controls). Positions can be objectively winning or lost for one side or the other and very hard or even impossible for the human with the winning side to play for a win; they can also be objectively equal and impossible for a human to defend for a draw. (Ex: grandmaster Ben Finegold in a lecture uploaded to KZread quoted another GM who was analyzing a game with his opponent after it ended. His opponent showed him one way he could have handled the position and that the computer considered it equal for the two sides - "objective evaluation" - at which point his opponent said "k yeah but there's no way I can defend that." There are positions that computers will defend forever in which every human player loses.) When talking opening theory, practical chances can be estimated by looking at how often white wins starting from that position, how often black wins, and how often they draw.

Dude i just reraised with jj in the sm and one guy shoved wit a q off. we both opted to run it twice and a j came both times. Then almost instantaneously my ear phone cord hit the screen n ur vid popped up talking about. Jj. Wow. Guess my exploitive game is working. Been taking notes while playing to determine what each player does when. Cheers

Fantastic thought provoking video. I translate it to people don't have the ability to play totally GTO, maybe they can learn GTO in familiar spots but that in itself is exploitable if they are taken them down a game tree they are not as familiar with [like libratus did with its unusually lines]. However if we project the game forward another decade then there will be more and more familiar lines to the GTO people and less and less unfamiliar paths. This should mean in general the game will converge towards GTO and away from exploitative, never perfect but will converge close to it given enough time and incentive.

Hey Alec! Excellent ref in Magnus. I am trying to incorporate more theory into my game in hopes of plugging some leaks as I am mostly a live (exploit) style. Thanks for the vid, really helped a lot in my research. Also if you could post the names of that GTO app you were talking about that would be awesome! PS - did you watch Magnus visit Central Park/NYC to take on the street chess gang with Liv Tyler in tow? that was pretty sick.

My stance on this topic: A general understanding of what GTO means, is the very key to have any success in poker. It is otherwise like not knowing the first five, ten, fifteen moves of theory in chess, and the ideas connected with your play: You play blind, and have no idea of your play, but just roll a dice. Carlsen knows all basics extremely well, and only lacks some very specific analysis. Exploitative play is the step up, when you adapt to your opponents. Simplified, one could say: GTO = Play the hand (the range) , if perfectly executed completely invulnerable Exploitative: Play the player. So, you adapt your range to the situation ( e.g. tournament, tells) or specifically to the opponent. Again, on a basic level, compared to a GTO approach, against a station you bluff less, but go more for thin value. Against a nit, you bluff more, and fold more against resistance. While against a maniac, you likely bluff less, slowplay more, and call down lighter. If you adapt perfectly, you maximize your profits. However, if you cannot adapt to your opponent, as the situation is not clear to you, or he is simply unknown, or too strong, the very best you can come up with is going with GTO. Data from Next Generation "won" , as to be expected, by applying GTO against an otherwise unbeatable player: He drew. Sun Tse, the master of exploitative play, would have been very proud of him. Others could argue that he, in true Chinese manner, preaches being unexploitable all the way. :D

I never understamd the debate about GTO vs Exploitable, since GTO only makes sense if you have assumptions about the range and frequencies. Another day i saw a pro talking about GTO approach for call the river shove from NIT oop at 3bet pot, and the justify for that came putting ATo in the range of the nit. Since when Nits opén ATo from CO and play call 3bet to play OOP?

@ConsciousPoker The point about GTO strategy is that it is optimal not in just one hand but multiple hands against multiple opponents in multiple playing sessions in multiple events played over multiple years. The exploitative player cannot beat that but can leverage type 1 and type 2 errors made by human players playing with a GTO strategy. We created a game called @chesspokergame on twitter, which shows how perfect information of a chess game meets predicting the human moves of an elite player whilst trying to balance GTO play vs exploitative player of other chess poker players to become chip leader.

Thanks Alex for another informative video. I agree with what I believe your position is; while game theory is foundational to decision-making, it isn't 100% applicable against any player for any hand. Players have different levels of game knowledge and different play styles. Further, players change their game styles, more or less, as a reflection of their personal distractions: alertness, game stress, personal life stress, recent game success, bankroll health, their thoughts about their opponents' play strength, and a myriad of other distractions. I good player has to dial in on the play styles that their opponents are using in the current session and at the current time within the session, and whether any of the opponents are "running good" during the current session. A dead-money opponent can be sucking out time-after-time for no discernible reason. Regardless, they should be engaged with great caution, unless the hero flops the nuts and that hand stays the nuts. At times, a run-good opponent's bad calls and highly improbable suck-outs can drive you crazy and cost you a lot of money. Surrender to them and let them have their day, It wont likely last. Even the best pros lose their way against an opponent who's running good. They don't want to be embarrassed by making a "statistically good play" against a marginal player and be wrong. Losing a good call or being successfully bluffed seems to be far less painful if its to a good pro rather than a dead-money player. We aren't robots and neither are our opponents. Being a smart enough player to recognize the weaknesses and strengths of our opponents, and take advantage of those observations, is key to success, as long as we continue to make the necessary adjustments as the opponents' actions change during the session.

I agree great job Alec

Is poker not a repeated game? Even if you may never be in the same scenario twice, you can still approach the game from a GTO perspective if you assume you're drawing one sample from a normal distribution population. i.e. it's as likely for you to meet a player who calls too much, as it is for you to meet a player who folds too much.

The camerawork is straight out of a Paranormal Activity movie.

I think most players who try to use GTO will understand it just well enough to get their asses handed to them especially in a live game. Maybe 2-3% of players will ever get anywhere near GTO play.

I think although it's a nice comparison with the chess players a key difference is that in chess your former decisions make up the board where as in poker you get a new 'board' every hand. So in a heads up poker game with a theory kind a guy vs a intuitive guy, the 'Magnus' of the two would probably get away with funky plays in some of the hands but that doesn't win him the match, and short of some gaining in stack size does not help him in later hands. In the chess match however the funky plays give him an advantage through out the remaining match. I think it's bad to compare a chess move to a poker move because of that reason. I still think you're right though about exploitave play giving you an edge over a GTO player, it just not so big as in the chess game you mention.

I love chess even if idk any real strats for it! Thanks for the tips in advance - keep findin those spots & keep stackin! EDIT: Cool points about GTO vs Xploit. As I learned from the very beginning of the book you recommended called "Expert Heads Up No Limit Hold'em: Optimal And Exploitative" after entering your course 4SP proves that hero can never "optimally exploit" villain without understanding what it means to be balanced and therefore how to spot when someone is out of balance even if you've only seen 1 hand. That's why I also like this chess analogy cuz one thing I do know about chess is that you gain a lot of power if you're constantly making villains run away and not let them get into a position to fight back. Oh, shoot - "Magnus" documentary is on NetFlix - wooot! Gonna watch that after this vid as I work on smapps & play some freerolls. Especially cool point about how since GTO is so complex (generally need perfect information to execute correctly) that implementing it even slightly incorrectly CAN turn a profitable play into a losing one. Thanks again - keep up the good work - peace.

great vid. killin it alec!

Watched Magnus after watching this video - what an epic documentary (on NetFlix now for anyone interested). I like how when he was a kid and his dad held up a stick to jump over for his sister and him, his sister jumped over it and he just crashed right through it. Keep up the good work - have fun - peace.

Free will! This broaches on a deep critique of epistemological presuppositions in everyday reasoning, and even approaches metaphysics. For those interested, explore Gilles Deleuze’s work on Nietzsche (‘Nietzsche & Philosophy’, ‘Difference & Repetition’, and ‘The Logic of Sense’)- specifically, the conceit of ‘affirming all of existence in a single throw of the dice’.

GTO strategy is essentially defensive, the purpose is to make oneself unexploitable - but it is not optimal against players who are far from optimal. The purpose of bluffing in GTO is to force one's opponents to call value bets, but calling stations are going to do that anyway, so the optimal move is to never bluff them. The way to use a GTO strategy is to play unexploitably against new opponents until you've worked out the flaws in their game and then adapt your strategy to exploit those flaws.

Nice video Alec!!

I think GTO and exploitive may be a false dichotomy. If your opponent shows a leak then it's game theory optimal to exploit it until they adapt. The main problem with the GTO concept, as normally applied (which Alec alludes to) is that in live play you're unlikely to play enough hands with really good players to have to balance your range. My theory is you show them one or two plays once in awhile that give the appearance of balance (not actual balance), such as in this tournament scenario: you raise KhQh from the cuttoff at an early blind level and you get called by both blinds and on a Kd-9s-4s flop you just check back the flop. If that hand shows down your check-back range is going to get mad respect from any player who is paying attention because you did it against two players. But you only have to do that once at that table. The rest of the time you can go bet, bet, bet with that hand in that spot if you get a good run out for your hand. What people don't know is that you might not do that when antes are in against two players.

who cares what they might say Alec, you've explained it to where you followers understand perfectly and highly appreciate the content. keep'm coming!!!!

Something I haven't yet heard anyone address is that how the Labratus AI beat the humans in HUNL. The computer USED READS! It made adjustments. I think it is significant, to say the least, that the super-computer that beat humans at poker did not use a static style.

Great video Alec. Isn't it common sense though that GTO serves as a starting point or servant to exploitative play, as you always adjust to your opponent's play (to varying degrees) to maximize ev? For example if your opponent is a nit only 3 betting AK and QQ+ than you should always fold to a 3 bet with hands like AQS 100% of the time unless you were deep stacked enough to play implied odds, even though this is very exploitable to someone with poker knowledge. I know this an extreme example, but it's a pretty bulletproof argument that I see no way for GTO to refute.

Doug made a similar video. They both make the same point imo. ... Have a good strat going in (without reads/stats), then make some adjustments as you get more info.

I agree, If everybody plays game theory optimal then poker becomes a zero sum game. I also agree with your logic that other variables such as tilt-factor should impact your decision-making. Poker book author Mike Cairo calls that his, "Law of Loose Wiring". Personally, I subscribe to the theory that "poker is a game of decision-making under conditions of uncertainty" and that our goal in playing is to, "reduce uncertainty in order to make decisions easier for ourselves" and increase uncertainty in our opponents in order to make decisions harder for them. (Decide to Play Great Poker by Annie Duke). I think GTO is about creating uncertainty in good opponents rather than trying to beat them. I suspect that over the course of a lifetime many players would be better off playing as GTO as humanly possible against players whom they would otherwise have difficulty exploiting. I also suspect that poor game selection would result in the boring primarily breakeven [minus the rake] sessions you alluded to.

I highly recommend reading "The Art of Learning" by Josh Waitzkin

@Bartolo5636

5 жыл бұрын

great book i have it on audio and listen to it often

Seen vif play every hand in a tight game n was up 50 g in a 10 g buyin but he hadda sick read on the table

I think theory is exploitative sometimes. I shoved on a guy after the river with K high last night knowing that I had the best hand. Yeah his line said he was drawing to a mid-straight and missed and I had strong pot odds; but I’d have never made that play if I didn’t have some history with him and know that he’s a loose player who’ll try to bluff you off your hand post-river with any draw on the board and air in his hand.

your best video to date

This video is so good

@ConsciousPoker

5 жыл бұрын

Thanks Matthias!

Learning poker and GTO has had profound implications for how I approach life. For example, when you were saying how Magnus took his opponent away from theory, into the woods where he can get lost and be exploited, I immediately started thinking about how great of an idea it would be to take women to new places and new experiences, preferably to ones where I am already familiar with, in order to have an information edge on them (I hesitate to say "exploit" specifically, but you know what I mean!) Actually, I should probably change my KZread account to be anonymous, lest people start judging me and, you guessed it, exploiting me! In fact, me giving this much information on this post is probably negative EV for me! Aaarrrggghhh!! Where do I stop!? Then again... if I can network with Alec the Great, it might all be worth it. Gonna check out your poker products now :)

Woa woa woa whats all this computer poker talk. Ive heard of programs u can get to play multi tables. But is it that good to study habits as well as play strategy?

Good incite, only issue I have is that in your example with the JJ vs Polk, you made a justification for calling 2 times back to back in that scenario and your reasoning was that you should call 23% of the time based off the math, and if Doug knows this then you should call more often, making the assumption that Doug is going to adjust based on an exploitation, but if he doesn't then you end in the exact same spot as you were before you made the original call, I guess my where I'm confused is if you do make that assumption the you should be calling 77% of the time but if your assumption is wrong then you end up losing 3x what you could've originally won by following GTO

@jondemars6831

7 жыл бұрын

Sorry, not 3x, 2x

I think Alex misses some key insights into what makes GTO play highly profitable against even good players. It's wrong to focus on 0 EV calling decisions. If you pick a spot where Pio says call/fold are equivalent, then against a balanced player using pios sizings, it doesn't matter what you do. If you drill into pios ranges though, very rarely is that really the case. Very often even a blocker to a backdoor flush draw can make a hand a fold relative to its superficially equivalent brother because it incrementally removes more of your opponent's c-bet bluffs. If you go back to PIO and look carefully, I bet you find not all JJ are equivalent. Secondly, and more importantly, the money from GTO play really comes from accurate sizings and betting frequencies. At the correct betting frequency and correct sizing you make the most money. This is the bit it's really hard to get right, and it's why the rock-paper-scissors analogy which is OK for bluff-catching call decisions isn't really the main thing. You literally make gradually more money as you increase your bet size to optimal and lose money if you go too far. You literally make more money as you add in accurate value bets at the right sizes and bluff the correct call-blocking hands. The money you make doing these things correctly is huge relative to how well even top "GTO" players do them.

You're talking about GM Magnus Carlsen? Yea I think he applies a GTO like in his game. BTW I'm also using the same program Chessbase for more than already. And yes it makes your preparation a lot easier and you can easily crush your opponents.

wizard beats solider comes to mind.

GTO assumes that their understanding of the theory is superior to their opponent's, hence the reason behind adapting it as a winning strategy. It only becomes a zero-sum game when they are playing against opponents with equal theoretical knowledge (and application). Also, Magnus won simply because Anand's theoretical knowledge wasn't good enough. I am not sure we know the limits of a human being's ability to apply theoretical knowledge. It seems at least possible that someone will come around with analytic abilities superior to Anand, and who could then beat Magnus. I think this argument comes down to the type of person, and their individual strengths. That is probably the best way to determine which strategy is superior for each individual. I don't think we can say whether one is better than the other in all cases (even all live cases).

The point of GTO is you are actually meant to randomize the 20%. If you are calling everytime and saying 'this time is the 20%' then you are not following GTO at all.

@jordanmitchell8894

5 жыл бұрын

I think his point (and I could absolutely be wrong), was more along the premises that if we get caught up with this idea of playing what we believe is a mathematically balanced and optimal game, there is potential to make -EV plays, because we are so caught up in trying to make sure that we fall within these set parameters and deviations that we potentially miss out on opportunities that apply to that exact scenario. I think hes just expressing the idea to use a balance of intuition and math in those spots (right here, right now, this game, this hand) rather than just "i need to fold or call here right now to make sure I fall within that 23% range."

Just look at HuSnG'ers approach to NASH, if your "fun" player on the other side dosent play it you shouldnt either. Poker is about playing the other player for what level he is playing on. Someone that plays their own hand you play one way, Phil Galfond you play another way. Against a fun player you can bet every paired board and be huge +EV, a high stakes reg will pound you right back after a very short while. Poker starts with the theoretical structure of that game, in PLO you get AAxx 2.5% of the time, if you hold an A yourself the likelyhood of somebody hanving AA drops by to half. So then you should be alot happier to 3b when holding and A in your hand, you are much less likely to get 4 balled by AAxx. After that you use that in the best (of your ability) way vs your opponent and out play him

This is true in chess at lower levels, too. Masters are generally better than non-masters at figuring out how other players play and trying to play exploitively against their tendencies. Ironically (considering Magnus is 20 years younger than Anand), it's one of the few advantages that more experienced players have vs whiz kids.

@McGavel1

7 жыл бұрын

interesting!

Wrong. GTO means that AT LEAST you are break even against another GTO player, but, if the other player isn't playing GTO, you are going to win money. The more the other player is deviating himself from GTO the more he is being exploited by your GTO game.

Alec you have to teach me how to play like you.

i am sorry to say that but i think you try somehow to justify your obviously (bad) call (from GTO perspective) against doug polk. If you have worked with for example PioSOLVER you will know that you dont have to memorize every single hand with betsizing and action(flop,turn,river). GTO should help you to find patterns in difficult situations , f.e. which sizings has the highest ev on a given board against a assumed range of an villain etc. I also play mostly live and would say i am a feel player. But sometimes i find myself in some spots were i dont think i played it right. Then i use Pio as a kind of experimenting software that can tell me were i got wrong with my play and how should i play in a similar situation ( not the same but many situations occur all the time like playing draws IP or OOP)

Anytime you want to back off the cheesy music a bit will be fine. :P

What is this extra information that i am missing on live poker? What about the absurd amount of info i get on my big fucking HUD? I have more info on villain playing on-line.

Bang bang.

The players who balance game theory and exploitive play the most, and can exploit the game in the most scenarios, is going to have the most EV long-term

Alec, now that argument I can get behind on: You knew you would be beat a lot of the time, like most of the time, in that specific JJ hand, but consciously decided to take the risk and say it is not THIS time that I'm beat. But please don't talk about gut feeling etc. when instead you thought might have had a specific read in that situation or when you decided to take the risk and call to not to be too exploitable by another good thinking player.

Wish i could watch your vids but the music is too distracting for me!

@McGavel1

7 жыл бұрын

Distractions are what you see when you take your eyes off you goals. GL - find those spots - never give up!

its good you shortened the intro. its not really needed. people want to get to the bread and butter. this may be my favorite of all your videos. always arguing with peers about this. I agree GTO is not optimal live.

Great video, very important points. The extra information available during live poker alters the situation so much that percentages for the "GTO play" just aren't accurate anyway.

@ConsciousPoker

7 жыл бұрын

Michael Piccillo thanks man

Here is why you are wrong and need to stop giving poker strategy advice: >GTO play is in some sense “correct”. For example, in the game of rock-paper-scissors, the GTO strategy is to throw each choice randomly 1/ 3 of the time. Of course, it is hard for humans to be completely random, but insofar as you can, nobody will be able to beat you in RPS in the long term if you play this strategy. However, if you are ever playing a strategy that involves throwing any action with other than a 1/ 3 probability, your opponent can take advantage of you. In fact, he can do very well just by figuring out your most likely throw and using whatever counters it 100% of the time, at least until you notice and change your strategy. This part, right here: >This motivates the primary reason we will focus on GTO play. You have to have some idea of what it looks like before you can even start thinking about what your opponent is doing wrong and implementing a strategy to take advantage of it. You must know that the correct rock-throwing frequency is somewhere around 1/ 3, before you are able to come to the conclusion that an opponent who throws rock 40% is doing it “too much”. steemit.com/poker/@jokerpravis/on-the-definition-and-meaning-of-game-theory-optimal-gto-excerpt-from-wil-tipton-s-expert-heads-up-no-limit-hold-em That's an excerpt from Will Tipton, someone that understands game theory.

Any one who say ‘I’ll be good x percentage of time’ to justify his/her action is very exploitable. The last point on this vid is gold!

so many incorrect statements in this video with regards to Breaking Even with the GTO strategy anyway I believe exploitative players can extract more value from weaker players but will lose to GTO players (provided the GTO players are able to remain balanced, keep a poker face etc)

"Nine-tenths of tactics are certain, and taught in books: but the irrational tenth is like the kingfisher flashing across the pool, and that is the test of generals." - T. E. Lawrence (Lawrence of Arabia)

The difference between playing theoretically sound poker (obviously not lol GTO) and exploitative isn't as massive as you lead your viewers to think. You can have a good theoretical foundation while making exploitative adjustments. If you throw the theory completely out the window when playing live how are you better than Doyle or Hellmuth or dnegs and other soul read and levelling war experts?

@ConsciousPoker

7 жыл бұрын

John Smith agree they are often similar. Just important to distinguish approach.

@Marlonzen

7 жыл бұрын

He literally said that GTO foundation was important and necessary. Literally, very early in the video. Try to pay attention.

@JohnSmith-cy8hq

7 жыл бұрын

yes for online. And then he proceeded to completely render it irrelevant when playing live.

Off topic with this comment but you really should invest in a decent camera Alec. The picture quality is poor in that it is soft, washed out and generally just not pleasant to look at, just my opinion here but Im sure others will agree. Cheers.

1:55 - 2:00 it was 2013 not 2014 and anand is a 5 time world champion. not hard to fact check.

I would really like to see Doug respond to this video

@chlorineisnotabeverage

7 жыл бұрын

ashliski poker beef?

Okay, so why then did you overbet shove the river in your recent LATB hand against Cate Hall after you had hit the nuts? In your video, you cited being "balanced" (between bluff and value bet sizes) even though you said you'd expect her to call a 2/3 pot bet. In other words, you took the GTO line, which contradicts what you just posted in this video.

@ChinGuan31

7 жыл бұрын

if alec expect her to call most of the time by betting larger he will get more value , e.g if i bet $50 you will call 100% of the time and if i bet$300 you going to call 50% of the time , by overbet , betting $300 is the right way to go, because its more plus ev, it doesn't link to GTO Line or balancing , its just pure more plus ev

@negativevariance1363

7 жыл бұрын

Well he was planning to bet-bet-bluff shove the river. Except that he happened to hit the nuts on the turn. So the exploitative play would be to bet less on the river to get a call. The GTO play is to shove the river with both his bluffs and the nuts.

@ConsciousPoker

7 жыл бұрын

Negative Variance it's important vs players who you play against regularly and play on a high level. That doesn't happen often though.

@ConsciousPoker

7 жыл бұрын

Negative Variance there are also times when GTO and exploitative lead to same decision. After all, there were only two options in that hand: bet or shove.

@20pointer

7 жыл бұрын

Is poker not a repeated game? Even if you may never be in the same scenario twice, you can still approach the game from a GTO perspective if you assume you're drawing one sample from a normal distribution population. i.e. it's as likely for you to meet a player who calls too much, as it is for you to meet a player who folds too much.

To be balanced is to be unbalanced a certain percentage of the time. Principles of both gto and exploitive play. The next edge is coming. With so many players and ai mechanisms, .... Who will be the coming Magnus of nlh.

My sub box says this came out 30 mins ago but I'm almost positive I've already watched this. Am I going mad?

@least_bw1775

7 жыл бұрын

Shaun Johnson nah, ever since his hero call against doug alec has been pumping out a ton of gto vs exploitative vids trying to defend himself. you probably just saw a different vid w the same subject.

@ConsciousPoker

7 жыл бұрын

Shaun Johnson yes. Did two videos on the subject

Good job Alec! keep making the money!!! Exploit everybody

@cloudreaver

7 жыл бұрын

Wow, I just had a revelation... Life is inherently non-GTO. Everyone is making mistakes, somehow, somewhere. Could it be that the optimal way to "play life" is to "exploit everybody"? Is that why the Bernie Madoffs, Jordan Belforts, and Pablo Escobars of the world achieve so much success? To take huge risks for huge rewards... what is so wrong with that? To err is human, to exploit, divine...

@McGavel1

7 жыл бұрын

Cool points - I agree. Most people don't see how practicing anything can make you better at everything you do and therefore don't enjoy approaching tasks with determination & curiosity. "Don't be afraid to give up the good for the great." ~ John D Rockefeller

Computers do not beat humans in poker because they play better GTO than the human opponents (even though this is true), they do so predominantly because they play exploitative poker better than humans. The computer will log all of the data on your betting frequency and several other variables until it plays perfect exploitative poker against your tendencies (most of which you are probably unaware). A computer would probably make the argument that using your poker tendencies against you perfectly is actually GTO instead of "exploitative." To compare this to chess, there is no way to play "exploitative" in chess against a computer. The moment you diverge from a "well known line," the computer will solve the scenario instantly. You will be more lost than it will.

Not really a great analogy considering Anand destroyed thousands of "Intuitive" chess players. I think the point is different styles can work in chess or poker to which I agree,

Dropping F-bombs like a boss

playing bar poker GTO is a no go

@McGavel1

7 жыл бұрын

lolol - one time a drunk oblivious person showed me his cards accidentally and the whole table knew it (at least 2 other people saw his hand too) then I couldn't stop laughing then the whole table started laughing then he shoved cuz he didn't know he practically dropped his cards so i called his shove cuz he was stone cold bluffin. I felt so bad I saw his cards but I wasn't about to fold haha. Games are fun - find those spots!

All this video is saying is that simply put - there is more than one way to skin a cat. I dont think there is a universal way to win at poker. There are people that have the talent to be exploitative, and people that have the talent to be perfect at GTO. It all comes down to finding your own game, and apply your OWN strategy.

@ConsciousPoker

5 жыл бұрын

Well said Eduard. Have to find your style.

Alec - Doug called you a scrub on Joeys podcast. Can you own him again.

@McGavel1

7 жыл бұрын

No he didn't - I watched the whole thing yesterday. Doug made 3 things clear 1) He gave full credit to Torelli for making a great call against the odds in that spot because it was correct 2) He admitted he didn't know much at all about Torelli 3) He made it clear that it's his job to make fun of all people in poker right now cuz games and jokes are fun. Keep up the good work - find those spots - peace.

I am with you Alec, I alwyas think it is much harder to beat a person doesn't have one style of play. When I play live games it is so easy for me to pick on a person with just one playing style wether they balance or not. Exploitative Style is better in live games because we get a lot informations from live players and change according to their patterns. This is just my person opinion.

@ConsciousPoker

7 жыл бұрын

Hoa Khuu thanks man

I think Doug should give you credit for your call and not make fun of you like he is. He ist just pissed that his GTO will never beat intuition! :D @Alec Torelli

@XDrogar

7 жыл бұрын

Btw. your content realy helps me alot! :D

@McGavel1

7 жыл бұрын

Games are fun - win some, lose some - always say nh ~_^

WHen u try to play GTO obiouslly u cant memorize all the balance made buy if u get close is enought to be winning money you dont need to play perfect GTO you just need to get close enought yo make money

Magnus Carlsen is in fact the player that plays the most accurat (GTO) of all time.

Live is way different because you play soo many less hands and ppl know ur play alot less

@pokerqAK47

7 жыл бұрын

You play more hands live.

I agree, in the end perfect balance is break even. You need GTO as the foundation, but Exploitative is the profit that you build off of GTO

Not a great argument by you. Especially against someone like Polk who plays GTO-based. You might be playing him in a live setting on the table, sure, but it is still the same Online player Polk. Good luck with expoiting him ore other balanced elite players during a longer term stretch. You can't ever sustain your stretch of right gut feeling against them.

I cant find a source on computers beating humans with no pawns

@filip14528

7 жыл бұрын

Oh so with just 1 pawn less?

@48tho-averysalak39

7 жыл бұрын

The Komodo Dragon has defeated IM's without Queens

@McGavel1

7 жыл бұрын

yeah

@McGavel1

7 жыл бұрын

cool! It would however be interesting how much power a player could immediately unleash if not "hindered" by pawns - haha.

I know Alec is just using it to make a point, but it's slightly disheartening to see him misunderstand chess at the upper levels. Magnus Carlsen plays more like a computer than any human is history. www.chess.com/article/view/who-was-the-best-world-chess-champion-in-history True, Carlsen uses opening theory to get his opponents into unique positions that favor his style of play though.

@ConsciousPoker

7 жыл бұрын

Tim Oltman the latter is what I meant. Of course he uses computers, but he's also known to be creative in his approach rather than ONLY methodical. Didn't mean to misrepresent him.

Starting at 14:00.... Alec, I love you man, but you gotta go refresh your stats knowledge. If you are "supposed to do something 23% of the time, and call this time it's exploitable because you can't call next time to balance, blah blah blah" Bruh, the whole idea is that they are mutually exclusive. If you called this time, there should still be exactly 23% chance you call next time too. Then you're balanced. Then you can't get bluffed profitably.

Why did you angleshoot Daniel "Cletus" Wolf? Do you not respect poker etiquette Alec?

@mikel6464

5 жыл бұрын

i think Alex may have been using exploitive play there

GTO has little to do with it dawg

When you were thinking of GTO, unfortunately you got exploited. Unfortunate. A bet would have been nice but I think you were outplayed. Nice play though. Lost some value and next time you will get them! Good luck

misleading title. magnus did not weigh in

Doug sucks live because he's always trying to play GTO lol Its common knowledge in my opinion that GTO is better for multitabling online and Explo is better live.

Also I don't know how you manipulated pio to tell you to call jacks there but a guy on 2p2 did an unbiased analysis with the same software. it's just a turn fold dude. Also just saying "ok I need to call 23%. Fuck it, let's say this is the 23%, I call." is just blatantly illogical. You're obviously not calling 23% but 100%.

@ConsciousPoker

7 жыл бұрын

John Smith My point was people could use the random frequencies in PIO to justify any action or balance. In reality, it's very hard if not impossible to emulate the balance of computers

dude u dont understand GTO. Its true that exploitable brings you more money but then you are being exploitable as well and if someone notices you lose what u make.

@ConsciousPoker

7 жыл бұрын

porsh1111 not if you do it better

@porsh1111

7 жыл бұрын

Didn't expect you to reply. Well ye then you end up in guessing games. Which yes, one can have a week or month feeling good have a good feeling (intuition) for the game, guessing right. But things can change, maybe some other players come, and that can easily turn into downward spiral, guessing wrong. And then one begins to question himself, second guess himself etc.. One should play exploitable and GTO, depends on the spot. I won't go further into it.

@McGavel1

7 жыл бұрын

yeah it's really interesting - most players never run full EV situations with range vs range holdings even in toy games so they never even understand what it means to "adjust correctly" to villains. Therefore, it's powerful to do things to "program" villain if you can predict how they will adjust poorly. Never give up - have fun!

The smugness was so overwhelming I couldnt make it past the intro

Magnus is not the greatest chess player of all time. He is highest rated ever because of ELO inflation. Kasparov's peak ELO adapted to 2010 was 2886 and it would have been even higher adapted to 2016.

@trdi

7 жыл бұрын

There's ... actually quite a bit of bad information about chess in this video. Anand was not trying to emulate computer. If anyone, it was Carlsen who was playing closer to computer's strengths. It's not the same as GTO. The reason why computer minus a pawn beats everyone is not because of its superior theory either. You can delete theory from a super computer and it will still beat humans. Also, you shouldn't believe anything about anyone that's stated in documentary about him, when that person is an active player in that documentary. Carlsen going crazy in the opening has backfired against him many times and not against top players either. The reason why Carlsen had been dominating recently (maybe minus last 1.5 years when he hasn't been that great) is because of computer-like technique in the middle/late game when he is able to turn very small advantage into a win.

@48tho-averysalak39

7 жыл бұрын

trdi well I think Alec is talking about more earlier years on his rise to a GM and probably earlier tournaments when he played regular levels from probably 2000-2500 when magnus was playing those levels. Of course playing weird openings against against today's Super GM'S doesn't work that we'll they all know so much theory and can defend most positions tactically like computers. one good example though is Carlsen vs Karjakin (sorry if I butcher his name) on the last game of the World chess championship last year where Carlsen played e4 , Sergey played C5, and Carlsen played the inaccuracie f3 . just to negate all of Sergeys preparation

@wheelhouse15

7 жыл бұрын

Magnus's biggest challenges where Kramnik and Anand who both played Kasparov. Kasparov lost to Kramanik but it was close and Kasparov was much older. I don't think Magnus would have beat Kasparov in his prime and Magnus has yet to play anyone as tough as Karpov in his prime.

@ShareefusMaximus

7 жыл бұрын

The quality of the field is not the fault of the one DOMINATING it. Like Mike Tyson, Bill Russell and Babe Ruth, in their sports. Paul Morphy was the greatest chess player of all time.

@cpnpmp94

7 жыл бұрын

Shareef Taylor Sure that is not the fault of the person taking advantage of the field, but that doesn't change the individual's ACTUAL skill level. Just because someone is dominant in high school golf doesn't mean that they are capable of dominating or even competing against PGA tour players.

The chess analogy is bad. You can't compare ELO rankings of current players to players not in their generation or current player pool. Moreover, the chess theory is not applied correctly either. GM's play novel moves all the time to try and get their opponents out of book (memorized moves.) I do agree with Alec that emulating GTO is impossible as it's not solved and exploitive play is better for making money live.

@ConsciousPoker

7 жыл бұрын

Scopophobia my point was if chess GM can't emulate GTO perfectly then humans at poker can't either.

Gto is garbage in live poker. You have to play the table the player and the situation.

You are the new Daniel Negreanu, a 20 minute attempt at obfuscating truth where your conclusion is the opposite of science's conclusion.