A fork in the poker strategy road or two sides of the same coin?
Game theory optimal play, opponent exploitative play, and the thin veil that separates the two.
Editor’s note: There is a lot of talk in the content streets these days surrounding the use of AI in writing and distribution. I thought I would now address this issue as it pertains to this newsletter and I will leave it at that unless something changes. I write everything that displays my name as the author. The only use of AI I use is to generate the image of the piece. I do this in a way that it is - hopefully - apparent that it is computer generated. I also use the em dash. If you don’t know what that is, you aren’t alone. It is the dash that surrounds the word “hopefully” a few sentences ago. I have seen it used by human and AI and it’s starting to grow on me.
The Dinner Party
Imagine going to a get together at a friend’s house. There will be around 10 people there all of which you know quite well. Consider the conversation you would anticipate. Maybe you would bring some of that new home brew you just finished so your friends could discuss while sampling it. Maybe you want to remember to ask you friend Nancy if she would mind tutoring your son in algebra. Perhaps you have an adult joke prepared for your friend Bill who is always up for a raunchy laugh.
The conversations you are going to have are going to be familiar, casual, and come with ease. This is, of course, because you know these people well. You know the subject matter that is expected and you know to avoid the odd sensitive subject if necessary. You are prepared because you know your audience.
The Gala
Now let’s change the venue, personel, and expectations to those with less certainty. You are invited to a formal Gala at which there will be dozens of strangers in a space that is not familiar to you.
How will this conversation differ? Well it is likely that you will try to be balanced with your subject matter and inflection at least until you are able to read the room a bit. Until you get a handle on who you enjoy conversing with by broaching topics in which you find you are both interested, like, or dislike, you are likely to keep it to a simple baseline communication.
Just because we aren’t as comfortable with this baseline conversation, doesn’t mean we shouldn’t work on doing the best we can under these circumstances especially since this is the “me” that is responsible for leaving a first impression.
Enter Poker
This little exercise - hopefully - sheds a bit of light on the idea that we shouldn’t pigeonhole ourselves as “this type” or “that type” of person when we are ultimately the same person. We are simply operating under different circumstances.
In poker, we often hear players describe themselves or others as exloitative {intuitive, trusts his gut, plays by feel} or GTO {balanced, computer like, math heavy} players. In this short essay I hope to show that we are - or should be - both.
“This guy never 3 bet bluffs!”
We have all been at the card room and thought “This guy only raises when he has a premium” , “ I have never seen this lady bluff.”, or “This person shoves too wide at less than 15 big blinds.”
These observations - and the many more we make every time we play - are about being aware of what we perceive about another player’s weakness or imbalanced strategy. If we act on these observations, we are attempting to exploit that player’s tendancies in that situation.
An observant player is making these adjustments almost constantly. If your reads are correct - or are at least more correct than incorrect - it behooves you to make these observations and play exploitatively against these opponents.
If we are able to make adjustments to our game to improve our chance for success, what is the baseline from which we are adjusting? In other words, if we don’t see an exploitable tendancy in our opponent’s game, what does our play look like?
The answer to this varies tremendously from player to player. However, ideally, it should be a balanced strategy that figures in position, stack sizes, ranges, pot odds, and of course our actual cards and blocking effects therein.
It turns out that there is a correct answer that figures in all of these data points. It is Game Theory Optimal play.
Game Theory Optimal (GTO)
Game Theory is the study of decision making when the outcome depends on the decisions of other interactive factors and people. Game Theory is used in everything from business, to games, to military conflicts.1
Poker is a fantastic case study in game theory. This is because it is so interactive with concepts such as mental leveling, bluffing, and player profiling.
GTO factors in the concept of strategic interaction which accounts for the expectation of an opponent or opponents counter strategy.
In simpler terms what should player 1 do knowing that player 2 is also thinking and reacting to what player 1 may or may not do?
“This sounds great! Let’s play like that.” you may say. If only!
The Texas Holdem game tree is much too complicated for any human to master even when it comes to Limit Holdem. Once you add the various bet sizes of No Limit Holdem to the equation, the task seems impossible.
If your enthusiasm has dwindled and your inner voice now sounds more like “Great. Why did you even bring it up?”, then worry not as you can rest assured that your opponents can not replicate GTO either.
To not try our best to improve our baseline game simply because it is hard is akin to quitting. Perhaps it’s probably best to imagine our improvement a race that will never be completely finished. That said, being ahead of your opponents is probably more important anyhow.
What type of player am I?
The debate of GTO vs. Exploitative is simply a misunderstanding of style. If you have a quality exploit against your opponent, use it. In this situation, it’s the smartest move you can make.
If you don’t have an exploit, you don’t have a good reason to leave your baseline game. Which begs this question….
What are you doing to improve your baseline game? You should be studying. Most of that studying is going to involve range charts, odds, combinations, and other GTO concepts. In this situation, it’s the smartest move you can make.
I really appreciate the likes and the feedback I have received from the past few newsletters. If you enjoyed this edition or found it informative, please consider liking by clicking the heart icon below. If you have any questions or need clarification, lets start by sharing a comment below or shooting me an email. Thank you all - as always - for reading.
John Nash won a Noble Prize for his work on equilibrium with the theory that when no player can improve his outcome by changing strategy alone, the response system is considered ‘stable’.
Mikie, or as you have also said, poker is life. Some very good thoughts in here Mike. I have been working on determining the type of player I am and when that either hurts or helps me. Keep these up.