Who do you think that understand the game better poker pros or botters ?

OP was asking a specific question. There is a difference of opinions and I can confirm this by myself. I have seen someone that is selling rta services claiming gto alone can not win etc. while providing some pure solver solutions with only 1 bet size per street. Of course such a bad model is not close enough to real gto solution in order to be profitable.

GTO does not have any assumptions what so ever. The only parameters that make the strategy the way it is are preflop ranges, rake, stack depth, and post flop bet sizes. Gto does not care if the game is tournament cash or whatever but again only take into consideration the previously listed parameters.

Saying that your opponent need to have a specific hand or a specific range in one spot in order gto to work is a pure misunderstanding of gto theory.

Poker community understand the theory much better compared to developers and this is exactly what I meant.

Read the thread from the beginning and you will understand why I am telling this.

The reason why there is a difference in opinions is a misunderstanding of gto and you just confirmed this by telling that your gto need assumptions in order to work.

I am not looking on arguing or anything

but thinking that you need your opponent to have a specific holding or range on any street is a common mistake.

rather than simply saying that gto need assumptions to work.

Can you really sustain a pre-rake 10+ BB/100 win rate without ever adjusting to imbalances of your opponents?

Pluribus is a bit of a different discussion but even it had only a ~5BB/100 winrate before rake.

If Pluribus wins with 5bb/100 it doesn't mean that live solvers would win as well. .... I would say, it depends how many solutions live solver has to cover the entire game tree, will depend how much winrate it has. .

Pluribus is as well just trying to play GTO as much as possible, it doesn't have "blueprint" (gto) solution for each spot so it does abstraction and subgame solving to overcome this issue.

"because you have to make a lot of assumptions about what villain holds and what the possible actions are."

GTO doesn't require assumptions about what villain holds or possible actions.

"because you have to make a lot of assumptions about what villain holds and what the possible actions are."

GTO doesn't require assumptions about what villain holds or possible actions. GTO is supposed to be unexploitable against any strategy or actions, assuming it has solution for any given spot. The only way to exploit
GTO bot or RTA would be if such bot or RTA is not having enough solutions to cover big parts of the game tree, and human knows exactly where such spots are and exploits it. E.g. if RTA / GTO bot, has only RFI size 2bb or 3bb,
and human knows it, it could exploit it by raising e.g. 10bb, as GTO bots / RTA usually round the actual bet size to the nearest possible one for preflop.
Pluribus / Libratus were trained with many different bet sizes even preflop, and humans were able to exploit it during the match using big bet sizes, but not for long enough as team of Libratus would run CFR for exactly those bet sizes that were missing, and tomorrow it would be able to play GTO for even such big bet sizes (i find it unfair to fine tune the bot between the matches exactly for the missing bet sizes).

The way RTA overcomes the issue of facing actions / bet sizes that it doesn't have solution is that human player takes over and plays its own strategy in such spots.

Greatly appreciate the insight guys.

My question was more towards putting a solver like Piosolver (with sufficient bet size availability) into a 6max game. Seems agreeable that it would beat even tough games pre-rake, just not sure if it would win at a clip high enough to beat raked games. Can you really sustain a pre-rake 10+ BB/100 win rate without ever adjusting to imbalances of your opponents? Pluribus is a bit of a different discussion but even it had only a ~5BB/100 winrate before rake.

The vast majority of postflop Pio solutions are mixes. Many spots where there is an "incorrect" option to take will only cost villain a small amount of EV if chosen. Not sure if there are enough -EV decisions (according to Pio) being made to make up for the rake, unless villains are punting off stacks with massive -EV decisions. This is true for poker in general, but adjusting to these large imbalances and obvious fish seems to be where most of your EV as a player comes from.

Was hoping somebody had some data/experience with a pure solver based bot, I'm sure there are some out there by now. But any educated insight is welcome and appreciated.

Thanks again

I know at least 1 legit person that is using a gto bot and it is working for him.

Pre-rake 10 bb/100 seems way to high. Just take a look at high stakes pros win rate to see what is possible. There are some players that have over 10bb/100 but those are exceptions and usually the highest win rates are achieved on the softest games like ignition.
A pure solver based bot is not possible because you will still face situations where opponents take a zero frequency line. That means your solutions does not have an answer to the current situation. Take an example where opponent donks while your gto solution does not have any donks in that spot. You need to hard code those situations.

Another important aspect is that solid human players who use live solver can play max exploit strategy against weak players which would yield much higher winrate than "GTO" strategy that Pluribus plays or someone who strictly would follow RTA hints.

This is why estimating winrate for RTA is very difficult, and depends how well human player can perform in spots without solution.

Yes, that's my point.


It's true that it doesn't have blueprints for all spots, but the live subgame solving is supposed to make up for that deficiency.