# GTO Quizz

• Bronze
Joined: 15.06.2009
Some will find this easy (and often be deadly wrong), others will find it quite hard.

Your task: You are going to give an input parameter to a computer program that is going to play a quadrillion (10 to the power of 15 = a million billion) hands against another program.

Note: The quadrillion hands may be replaced with a possibly larger number for it to be statistically significant, but this is of of no particular importance for the problem at hand.

The situation you get to control is the following: On the river, there is \$5000 in the pot. You bet with a pot-sized bet, presumably for value. There is now \$10 000 in the pot.

Your opponent now moves all in on you. To your amusement, he raises with \$1. (You cover him )

There is now \$15 001 in the pot, and it will cost you \$1 to call. You have a hand that can only beat a bluff and it beats all conceivable bluffs.

The question is this: Should you call? Should you FOLD You are allowed to sometimes call and sometimes fold. If you chose this option, then you must present a percentage. Round off to one decimal place.

Parenthesis: Normal hands play out as well. These can be totally ignored because you only get to set precisely the parameter I have already defined. (In normal play, the competing programs are exactly equal.)

There is one more premise. Your opponent (the player actually giving a corresponding input parameter to the opposing computer program) is a GTO expert, but knows a little bit about exploitation as well. He may change his parameter as often as he wishes, but you may not.

If after a quadrillion played hands you are ahead, you get the dough (and if roughly break even (this takes care of a possible round off error in a possible percentage given), \$100 000 000 will be paid to you). A loss costs you nothing.

Now, call, fold, or a mixture, and if so - give the percentages.

• 36 replies
• Bronze
Joined: 22.01.2015
Originally posted by YohanN7
You have a hand that can only beat a bluff and it beats all conceivable bluffs.
I don't believe this animal exists

Anyway for \$1 I am calling 100%
Even if I lose \$1B my adaptive programming will easily learn enough from our opponents hole cards for this to be +++Ev
:-)

Also I don't think the double premised mythical situation you proposed can be ran on any computer to provide a consecutive random river situation as you poorly define.

• Bronze
Joined: 22.01.2015
Also cant see how we can bet pot (and leave \$1.00 behind) "presumably for value" but only call with a hand now demoted to "unbeatable bluffcatcher"?
Which really means our decision to bet pot in the first place is as a bluff.?????
• Bronze
Joined: 22.01.2015
Also how does the pot get to \$15 K when he only has \$1 to raise with.????
Are you getting enough sleep?
• Bronze
Joined: 15.06.2009
Originally posted by GoOnCal1
...
my adaptive programming will easily learn enough from our opponents hole cards for
...

Originally posted by GoOnCal1
...
Also I don't think the double premised mythical situation you proposed can be ran on any computer to provide a consecutive random river situation
...
It can be done with ease. There are random number generators, and computers are easily fast enough for it to be doable.

By the way, you mention something is poorly defined. What (in particular ) is poorly defined?

Originally posted by GoOnCal1
...
...
It will be my answer, and I am not a GTO expert. But I do know the GTO answer to this. It applies very much to NL Hold'em, specifically to a spot where many instinctively go wrong.
• Bronze
Joined: 15.06.2009
Originally posted by GoOnCal1
Also how does the pot get to \$15 K when he only has \$1 to raise with.????
Are you getting enough sleep?
If he has \$5001 before the river, he will have exactly \$1 to raise with when facing a \$5000 bet. The pot goes to \$15 001, not \$15 000.
• Bronze
Joined: 15.06.2009
Originally posted by GoOnCal1
Also cant see how we can bet pot (and leave \$1.00 behind) "presumably for value" but only call with a hand now demoted to "unbeatable bluffcatcher"?
Which really means our decision to bet pot in the first place is as a bluff.?????
It is a hypothetical situation that will teach you a lot. The situation occurs IRL, but with less extreme numbers and less well defined "value" and "bluff catch".

In fact, in FL Holde'm it is an extremely common situation to face a raise OTR in a big pot and it costs 1BB to call. The vast majority of players don't understand it, and of those that try to understand it, some just refuse to believe the correct answer.
• Bronze
Joined: 22.01.2015
PM me the answer, maybe it will help me understand the scenario better :-)

BTW I often used to bet an amount that would leave the opponent with \$1 behind, gave me some sort of perverse pleasure .
• Bronze
Joined: 22.01.2015
So a call for \$1 only has to be correct 1:15,000 times right?
• Bronze
Joined: 22.01.2015
Also why am I amused when my pot size stab is reraised
• Bronze
Joined: 15.06.2009
Originally posted by GoOnCal1
So a call for \$1 only has to be correct 1:15,000 times right?
The pot odds are 15001:1. (Sorry for my cryptic answer, but it is enough to answer your question I think. I don't want to give too many clues atm.)
• Bronze
Joined: 15.06.2009
Originally posted by GoOnCal1
PM me the answer, maybe it will help me understand the scenario better :-)

BTW I often used to bet an amount that would leave the opponent with \$1 behind, gave me some sort of perverse pleasure .
Pretend it is PLHE.

Hypothetical extreme situations are those that best illustrate difficult concepts. The entirely isolate the crux of the matter. Please focus less on how realistic this precise scenario is. (It can, as I assured, easily be set up on a computer.)

Fried request in place.
• Bronze
Joined: 15.06.2009
Originally posted by GoOnCal1
Also why am I amused when my pot size stab is reraised
You are not amused by the raise, but by its size.
• Bronze
Joined: 22.01.2015
Originally posted by YohanN7
Originally posted by GoOnCal1
...
my adaptive programming will easily learn enough from our opponents hole cards for
...

Originally posted by GoOnCal1
...
Also I don't think the double premised mythical situation you proposed can be ran on any computer to provide a consecutive random river situation
...
It can be done with ease. There are random number generators, and computers are easily fast enough for it to be doable.

By the way, you mention something is poorly defined. What (in particular ) is poorly defined?

Originally posted by GoOnCal1
...

...
.
The problem with ( using the analytical visualising solving this scenario with bots), is that not all bots will be putting themselves in the situation where they have pot bluffed the river 100% of time in the first place !!!!

You could consider running about 100000 more trials, and then only selecting the few hands played that might meet this criteria.
• Bronze
Joined: 22.01.2015
Fried request in place.
• Bronze
Joined: 15.06.2009
Originally posted by GoOnCal1
The problem with ( using the analytical visualising solving this scenario with bots), is that not all bots will be putting themselves in the situation where they have pot bluffed the river 100% of time in the first place !!!!

You could consider running about 100000 more trials, and then only selecting the few hands played that might meet this criteria.
Good point (but is nowhere said anyone bluffs 100%.). I'll edit the OP so that normal hands play out as well. These can be totally ignored because you only get to set precisely the parameter I have already defined. (In normal play, the competing programs are exactly equal.)
• Black
Joined: 20.02.2008
fold 100%, cause he's never going to bluff to that size. i know it's a tough laydown, but sometimes you just have to know when you're beat.

on a more serious note, imo a more interesting question than the % question is the question: in practise, how does one keep to the frequency one has chosen? if i want to fold 1/15001 times or whatever, i can't just fold a certain card combo. what heuristic would be most practical whilst being legal and fair too?
• Bronze
Joined: 15.06.2009
GoOnCal1: 100% Call
Kruppe: (probably jokingly) 100% Fold

Both are wrong.

@Kruppe
You are in this scenario allowed (an endowed with) a perfect RNG.

In practice, some have actually used a wristwatch (where is the second hand when they look) in live play to randomize. Online, you can probably legally have a program on you own running ready to produce a "call" or "fold" based on a percentage. Most use their holecards, calling with the best bluff catchers and folding the worst.
• Bronze
Joined: 22.01.2015
So are you saying "equity considerations" should be less important than maintain a theoretical optimal call/fold range to a river re-raise when holding a bluff-catcher toy have double barrelled.?
Also then you are also fucked up the opening post by say you must then choose a %, and then saying the answer is completely random which is not a statable %
• Bronze
Joined: 15.06.2009
Originally posted by GoOnCal1
So are you saying "equity considerations" should be less important than maintain a theoretical optimal call/fold range to a river re-raise when holding a bluff-catcher toy have double barrelled.?
Also then you are also fucked up the opening post by say you must then choose a %, and then saying the answer is completely random which is not a statable %
First off, nor am I fucked up, nor have I fucked up anything. I added

Parenthesis: Normal hands play out as well. These can be totally ignored because you only get to set precisely the parameter I have already defined. (In normal play, the competing programs are exactly equal.)

to the OP. This is crystal clear.

Then I have not added clues other than that both 100% call and 100% fold are both wrong. With these, you will get crushed (we are talking about playing many hands here) and you will not get the \$100 000 000 promised for BE by PokerStrategy (and you can't possibly win by the statistically significant number of hands played).

I suggest you try to figure out the correct answer instead of trying to find "errors" in the scenario. If you are entirely new to game theory, it is tricky, but not impossible.