BUT WHAT'S YOUR RANGE

[daven]

I have changed my opinion on this debate, Savy is correct. It's better to play optimally or as close to it vs unknowns and then deviate from optimal in order to exploit a leak. Knowing what optimal play is in a certain spot makes it easier to spot your opponent's sub-optimal play.

genuine question re the above. Savvy, you are probably best placed to answer this well.

is it not better to deviate from optimal (i'm assuming you mean GTO in this context) in the way that you know is most likely to exploit population norms when you're up against an unknown? unless you think that unknowns are likely to be very, very good?

[Savy]

genuine question re the above. Savvy, you are probably best placed to answer this well.

is it not better to deviate from optimal (i'm assuming you mean GTO in this context) in the way that you know is most likely to exploit population norms when you're up against an unknown? unless you think that unknowns are likely to be very, very good?

When I say optimal I do mean GTO ye, it's shitty language but everyone I've seen speak about this before uses it so it's just trying to be consistent and if you don't get it a bit of logic should be able to deduce what I mean like you have done.

As for population reads it's a bit awkward. As yeah it's probably fine when the population read is everyone is really bad and we don't go overboard with the adjustments but it really helps to understand the spots where doing this is dangerous and the spots where doing this isn't ever going to be horrendous. It also becomes much more vulnerable as soon as we start playing people who begin to be competent at exploiting us.

I suppose all these questions become much easier to answer when we actually have solid population reads, but the stuff that gets banded about like people call too wide, value bet more and bluff less isn't really what I'd class as a solid population read in the sense that it doesn't really give us any specifics about how we should adjust or factor in the variation in the population which is what's important.

So it all boils down to the fact that GTO against an unknown is never bad. It may not be the most profitable strategy but it is a profitable strategy. The other side to it is that the worse the player the quicker we get reads and the quicker we can exploit them in the first place so it's not really like we're missing out on that much value anyway.

At what point all these factors tip favouring whatever approach as a starting point against an unknown I really couldn't give you a definite answer on though. I just think it tends to be best to air on the side of caution and the worse a player the quicker and the more confident we can be about adjusting.

[seven-deuce]

genuine question re the above. Savvy, you are probably best placed to answer this well.

is it not better to deviate from optimal (i'm assuming you mean GTO in this context) in the way that you know is most likely to exploit population norms when you're up against an unknown? unless you think that unknowns are likely to be very, very good?

I'm no expert I only read one of the donkr articles 3/4/5 betting part 1. All the underlying concepts that are presented are all sound in my view. From my basic understanding of it, if you take any poker scenario there is going to be an optimal strategy for hero and villain. Finding out what this is or as close to it as you can get is invaluable information, since if you know villain should do 'x' in a certain situation but he does 'y' then you know he is playing sub-optimally or in other words, is exploitable.

E.g Villain opens, you 3bet, villain calls. Villain flips up QQ at showdown, you know that QQ should be in villains 4bet range if he were playing optimally. Therefore you can deduce that villain isn't 4betting enough and is calling too many 3bets OOP and you can exploit him by narrowing your 5bet shove range, and 3bet more IP.

I think if you are facing an unknown you should apply standard ranges for them for example. If you have 0 hands on a guy and he opens utg you should assign a standard utg range for that stake for a reg like 10% 12% or w/e it happens to be. Then if you know vs that range and standard bet sizes, the optimal 3betting strategy you should employ it until you see him playing sub-optimally and adjust from there.

I only just read it and haven't studied it in any depth at all. So this could be wrong.