He posted this as a sneak peak to paid content. This is not his usual KZfaq video

Everything is 25% off the normal price. You can see the discount on each product page EG. The Cash Injection page but in the store things are just 25% cheaper than usual.

No the point is to first learn GTO, then move past it, you have to known GTO before you exploit. Otherwise how do you know if a spot is over or under defended, over or under bluffed?

@@PhonyBologna Of course, I agree with you. But, more often than not, people with quasi-knowledge will use this line of reasoning to justify play which goes against GTO. For this reason CPS first

@@fatkinglouie1669 fair, I have always longed for the preset node lock feature like player profiles to see what shifts. Versus having to manually node lock. Even a player profile each street, under 3b by x %, then flop over bluff or under bluff by %, then things like normal, but overbluff when flush draw, things like that...

​@@PhonyBolognaI am not super familiar with pio, but I do know you can have preset ranges. Can you export preset ranges, so someone else can use them?

Actions need to be =EV in order to be mixing in solverland. The premise of this video is that actions are not =EV, and therefore shouldn't mix. Solvers' outputs are relying on clairvoyance. Human strategies are not clairvoyant. Or, as you would put it : solver and reality are different things.

​@@messieursxs9079 yes, that doesn't mean we should do one thing "in theory" and another one "in practice", it means population doesn't play at equilibrium and we should adjust accordingly. I just don't understand why Pete is being vague and not using solver outputs to show exploit assumptions, not mentioning implications of extreme strategies for your HUD, pretending like solver doesn't bet big for value anyway, etc.

@@roderick8254 I think he is more demonstrating that humans do not react perfectly to sizing. I think the point is that certain actions will produce better results, like a lot of the red line guys know all the board textures that are over folded relative to bet size. So in the red line guy case bet is way better than check because you can make a lot more money there, or better is check raise because you can squeeze a couple more bb out of V in that spot.

@@jeffshackleford3152 yes but he is being vague about the aspects in play which fair enough he has courses to sell, but this is supposed to be on the subscription thing.

​@@roderick8254poker is a very vague game, so i don't think skipping over the super granular details is bad. The idea is one line is superior to others against humans, so we figure out what line is best and go for it.

Hey! True EV comes from maximizing your EV by exploiting the opponents tendencies (like we all used to do 20 years ago). And Pete's point remains the same: we are playing against humans. They are balanced in one way or the other. I am not sure, but I think against humans it's sometimes tricky. Their are ether stationy or way to tight and nitty in that specific situation . So, I think it's optional in theory to bluff in the first place and if we know that his river range is quite strong, we can avoid loosing a stack here by bluffing less then we should in equilibrium. We don't know if he would fold Kx or not. Basically, we do not need to know. We gained enough info on the turn. I think the concept easy and pragmatic, o.c. mainly against recreational players.

The point was don't bluff recs that you perceive to have a strong hand. They aren't going to fold enough to make bluffing the best play. You are going to get called down by a player with a hand like KQ in that example and you'll be sitting there crying to your friends later about how villian "should have folded" .

@@H1ghL1ghT1 Hey, thanks for your answer. I think the point I struggle with is that I thought a good exploit against general population was to triple barrel bluff more often in 3-bet pots. But when I bet on the turn the range of the villain is very often going to be condense on the river. But maybe that depends on the texture and in this specific spot we looked at here the villains range is so condensed that bluffing is a punt.

Potential future subscriber Get over urself

@@beanhoudinibruh 😂😂😂😂😂😂

@@beanhoudini It was just a question, everyone has different goals kind of like your goal is to be an asshole. Totally fine

@@galenandnichole7588 never commented about ur question

Never. It’s a totally separate product. CPS is forever.

Yes it’s accessible for customers who have purchases one or more grades of The Carrot Poker School.

Recs play WAY too many hands, you must bluff bs their capped ranges or you're losing massive amounts of ev

Your simplification may not be correct and could be leading into very, VERY bad thinking in-game. You are not supposed to pull a trigger and execute that 3-barrel bluff when recreational player calls a huge bet on the turn in a 3bet pots / in pots with lower SPR. You are supposed to bluff them in smaller pots + where ranges are really capped towards the weaker holdings. But yes, your second part is correct. They are not that sizing sensitive + they may over-fold on scary River card even when they are supposed to call it off, so sometimes it's better to just ship it on the Turn already to get all the money in the pot. Also scary River card could be bad for you and it goes check-check on the River and you win way less money from the pot, where you could easily stack the opponent.

@@founik thank you, appreciate the refinement to my thinking, helpful!

Exactly. Gto (optimal) is missused as a term. Its nash equilibrium - breakeven strategy. For example if we assume your pool is more passive overall. After changing Solver input -> GTO would stop trapping, instead always go for value itself. And in spots where you use medium size to hope for thin and bluff raises from villain, you would now overbet yourself to get money in (because passive villain doesnt help putting money in) Thats GTO solution now. Nash equilbrium doesnt change, GTO always change

@@vojtechmatulik1292 GTO always depends on other actors in a system whose choices change our outcomes. The problem with poker players is there is finite permutations if you group very similar ones so you can try to solve as unexplotable. If you think of sports like football(soccer) or a stockmarket where you can't "solve" them with brute force logic and batching/grouping similar outcomes then you realise GTO is an irrelevant concept if just using a nash equilibrium in 99% of contexts. In poker there is only 4 decision trees that branch at each spot for any individual player OOP Bet -> Bet Size -> Villain Calls Bet -> Bet Size -> Villian raises -> Raise -> Raise Size which can repeat if V 4bets, IP IF Check THEN Bet -> Bet Size -> V Calls/ IF Check THEN Bet -> Bet Size -> V Raises -> Raise. And IF Bet THEN Raise "" Any line where hero chooses to check, call or fold and never bets is completely defined as one tree no new branches because hero is only choosing from the check, call, bet, fold 4 choice discrete decision tree and not entering the finit but large bet size discrete decision tree with potentially hundreds of branches. Solver doesn't even do that, they give it only a few sizings. GTO is not just a poker concept and just because we can use a software to solve defined bet size spots doesn't mean we need to misdefine GTO as all players at Nash Equilibrium

Watch it again. Villain had AJ and called

Well here's a thought: if you're breaking even in a game with rake then you are significantly stronger than the average player in that game and so should be seeking to maximise your EV rather than defensively balance your own strategy for the most part. You will want to keep an eye out for who the stronger players are and might not feel like you have as clear an idea of what line is best vs them and of course you may want to adjust as specific opponents adjust to you. This meta-game can also be an ingredient of trueEV.

In general strong regs for your stake are not doing anything so egregiously incorrect to lead to you making major deviations from your normal play - just play an approximation of GTO, maybe with pool adjustments and you will be fine. It is the recreational players that you need to exploit - that is where I think the true EV lies.

@maxwelllittle5291 ~80% of your profits come from recreations, if you double that, but literally go negative EV to regs, due to being counter exploited you're still profiting. GTO WR: WR = .8x + .2x = 1.0x Exploitative WR assuming half winrate vs regs: WR = 2(.8x) + 0.5(.2x) = 1.7x (+70%) Exploitative WR assuming now losing at same clip you were winning at vs regs: WR = 2(.8x) - (.2x) = 1.4x (+40%) Thus even if your win rate vs reg decreases by half or even goes to worse case negative .2, you still net more profit.

This is true in some regard, being more concise is definitely good but he has a lot to say so I'd rather longer explanations than the information not being there at all

I prefer the detailed analysis, recognize you may be more advanced than the majority of viewers. It gives them a chance to catch up and also let's us know if he really knows game theory

Yeah, we just want to see hands and results, not your decision making explanation and learn how to apply concepts and strategies.

@@roderick8254 then you need to go somewhere else not the right channel for you

@@346azul i like pete's voice. I like when he shows hands and shows the results.