Countering this?

[Honeybadger]

Complete and unreserved +1 for everything James says above ^^^

The first point I was going to make later tonight was the one that James starts off with ... that Patrick looks to have misunderstood what game theory is all about.

As I said though, and as James has reiterated, this whole thread has not really been anything to do with GTO stuff. It has been about practical exploitative play.

As regards the idea of it being 'just too difficult' to play turn/river if the hand continues, I simply don't agree with this. I did write a long post on this last night, with plenty of ideas and concepts to think about when playing the turn and river. So I am not sure quite why it is still judged as being so difficult.

Tbh... I strongly suspect that if we had our default line as call flop then check-fold most turns, and rarely deviated from that, we'd still do pretty well. And almost certainly better than 3betting the flop. And of course, if we then add in a bit of finesse and use our skills to deviate some of the time we can do even better again.

[pleno1]

phone makes it very hard for me to give justifications of a good response.

Quick notes:

1) It doesn't matter about being exploitable if they won't exploit us, I guarantee you that nobody will exploit your flop 3betting tendency. If and its a very unrealistic if, somebody does try to exploit you I promise it will be less than 1 in 100 people.

2) Regarding James GTO line, very difficult to quote but something along the lines of: edit:quoted.. When you deviate from GTO you have to be doing it to exploit a leak in your opponent, if you don't know what that leak is then you're essentially just guessing and likely to be exploited yourself.

We know what the leak is in this instance and its that regs are c/r paired boards with a range that is weighted WAYYYY heavy for bluffs WITHOUT THE ABILITY (or balls) TO READJUST AND EXPLOIT US. Its very very very far away from just guessing its from probably the last 200k hands I've played and seen the trend and the inability to readjust vs my (what i assumed to be) very easy adjustment.

I just really can't agree with Tbh... I strongly suspect that if we had our default line as call flop then check-fold most turns, and rarely deviated from that, we'd still do pretty well. And almost certainly better than 3betting the flop. we have already agreed that a flop cbet is showing a profit, if we are regularly calling flop and c/f turn how can this ever be better?

Reverting back to Stu for a second, whilst you think I've failed to grasp your points, I totally have, understand and realise exactly what you're saying, the reason we disagree and I think you're wrong is because of.. As I said though, and as James has reiterated, this whole thread has not really been anything to do with GTO stuff. It has been about practical exploitative play. this is just really wrong and we don't need to be concerned about practical exploitative play.

I've said it a few times but again, we are showing an immediate profit in a really difficult spot, I am known to probably be the most flairy player this side of the moon but I am settling (after tonnes of experimenting and experience) to realise this initial profit rather than seek future gain here.

Again James, totally disagree with The argument isn't about theory vs flair or art vs science etc, it's just that you disagree which line is most exploitative. as I said before people don't get close to adjusting accordingly vs us here and thus exploitation is not a factor, if anything our call can be very exploitative due to the fact of future exposure as I mentioned in the previous few posts.

Anyway like I said to Callum today my style is v different to almost any reg at mid/high stakes, if people saw my stats over the last 100,000 hands then I don't doubt they would be able to find some leaks in my game, but the fact is that I'm trying to find out trends/spots where people either over adjust or underadjust and profit from those.

Thanks for discussion guys and whilst I really appreciate the time you both put in to it, we just will simply have to agree to disagree.

Good luck in WCOOP btw James.

[Honeybadger]

I just really can't agree with Tbh... I strongly suspect that if we had our default line as call flop then check-fold most turns, and rarely deviated from that, we'd still do pretty well. And almost certainly better than 3betting the flop. we have already agreed that a flop cbet is showing a profit, if we are regularly calling flop and c/f turn how can this ever be better?

Patrick... you need to re-read this part of what you wrote and think carefully about it. Because you have TOTALLY got this wrong! You have made a logical jump that is completely false.

I will explain why if you need me to... but really it is so easy that if you think about it for a second you will just go, "DOHHH!! Oh yeah..."

THIS IS NOT A DUBAI BLUFF BTW!

Hint: Take it to an imagined extreme and assume you somehow know villain will NEVER EVER bluff the turn if you call the flop, and will only bet again if he has TT beaten. If you make this extreme assumption then it will suddenly become very clear why your logic is wrong. And then simply extrapolate from this imagined extreme to include more reasonable assumptions.

Edited to say: Please don't come back and say, "yeah but we cannot possibly know that villain will never ever bluff, this is a silly assumption so there is no point in thinking about it". This would be missing the point completely. It is about making an extreme assumption (an imagined extreme) in order to more clearly 'see' the logic of a situation.

[Honeybadger]

Again James, totally disagree with The argument isn't about theory vs flair or art vs science etc, it's just that you disagree which line is most exploitative. as I said before people don't get close to adjusting accordingly vs us here and thus exploitation is not a factor, if anything our call can be very exploitative due to the fact of future exposure as I mentioned in the previous few posts.

And here you have missed James' point completely because you are getting confused over usage of 'exploitative' and 'exploitable'.

Exactly the same misunderstanding here (I think):

As I said though, and as James has reiterated, this whole thread has not really been anything to do with GTO stuff. It has been about practical exploitative play. this is just really wrong and we don't need to be concerned about practical exploitative play.

.... What you are saying here is "we should not be concerned about how to exploit our opponents". I know you don't mean to say that (I assume not anyway), but that is what your words mean. The problem is that you have misunderstood what James and myself were meaning when we used the word 'exploitative'. What I am saying in the bit you bolded is "this is not really to do with GTO, it is to do with ways to exploit our opponent"

The thing is... given that you have completely misunderstood these things (in fact thought myself and James were meaning the OPPOSITE of what we were really saying) it makes me worry about how many other things I've said that you've completely got the wrong end of the stick about. I wonder if this is part of the problem with why you keep seeming to miss the obvious stuff in front of your eyes.

Tbh, maybe like you say we should just agree to disagree. It is becoming hard work now. I love you man, but you appear to be well and truly 'Aaroned' here (your wonderful phrase lol)