Why Modern Day Poker Is More Like Chess

Damn they turned poker into an SAT test ☠️

Imagine a strategy game having strategy.

You also have to keep in mind that everything in the world is chess now, and that poker is no exception to that rule.

The main difference between chess and hold'em is that if a novice plays against 8 of the best players in chess in a tournament he or she has a better chance of winning the lottery than that tournament. This is far from the case if a novice were to play 8 of the best hold 'em players in a sit and go.

Liv, what about the fragility of those simulations? Opening ranges, bet sizing, stack sizes, number of players in the hand post flop, the abstractions of limited bet sizing required to even approximate the equilibrium solutions all have drastic effects on what that equilibrium looks like and that doesn’t begin to touch on how impossible it is for humans to implement an actual equilibrium strategy. I don’t see the comparison. It seems to me like the fundamental uncertainty, incomplete information, insane variance and inescapable human psychological elements make poker as interesting as ever, albeit less approachable than it used to be. I don’t think that poker (no limit or pot limit varieties at least) will ever be like competitive chess.

GTO is the starting point. The closer to GTO the opponents play, the closer you stick to it and it becomes a game of who has the biggest brainpower. The farther from GTO opponents play, the more you deviate to punish them. Liv is right when she says GTO is making poker less enjoyable. It used to be a social game of instincts and gamesmanship. Now, it's a game of who studies the most.

well, to quote Bobby Fischer "I HATE CHESS" lol

I agree 100% online poker did this to poker.

Gto doesnt work

Sklansky said it best when he stated that you can play GTO against weak players and win at a decent rate -but you’re leaving a WHOLE lot of money on the table by not deviating and becoming more exploitative.

GTO gives you the recipe when you have the nuts or nothing but when you have middle pairs and straights with flushes on the board and you’re up against a maniac who calls 3 bets with 78 off, it’s more than just GTO scenarios

But also at any given time in real life, you want to play the people and their tendencies. Not everyone is numbers

Daniel negreanu said it best: game theory optimal is like throwing rock, paper, scissors each 1/3 of the time with even probability. No one can find a strategy to beat you, but you also won't be winning alot.

Based on the Tim's energy in the podcast with Liv, it was obvious he likes her. Bigtime.

But the reason why sge don't like it too much anymore is that back in the date some small circle knows about Game Theory Optimal but didn't want to show it to the world. Some poker professional wants to maintain those secrets between themself. Isn't until Cole South wrote "Let there be range" that people like me understand better how to study and understanding the game.

Poker is still a people's game. It will never be chess specially while the element of luck is still involved.

all that gto shyt goes right out the window once i crack you with 9,7 off, and your trying to get your money back lmao...

Phil Hellmuth does none of this and still wins bracelets nonstop. Poker is just very hard and few people are good enough to stick with it and succeed

Problem is that if you are using gto and your opponent isn't, you are likely playing completely wrong. Saw a solve the other day that was 95% check, but when node locking to have villain play polarized instead of merge-y, solve bets almost 100%.

yes, but there are 1326 possible hands to be dealt at poker, there is also the board, there is also other players positions, bet sizing and etc. I would think it is almost impossible to learn all of these situations and what you should do when, however if you could do that then you would always win money because no one else can perfectly play game theory optimal