GTO Poker Theories - Satisficing
Perfect is the enemy of good, so don't get bogged down in the minutiae and focus on what really matters.
One of the real gifts poker has given me is that it has been a great jumping-off point to learn things from other disciplines like economics, AI, psychology, and Game Theory. So here is a series of articles where I bring some of the most interesting things I have learned from other subjects outside of poker which are applicable to this game we know and love.
Satisficing is a practical way of making decisions by choosing an option that is “good enough” rather than spending too much time trying to find the perfect one. The idea comes from Herbert Simon, who pointed out that people often work with limited time, information, or resources. In many cases, aiming for a perfect solution is unrealistic and can actually slow progress.
Imagine a business getting stuck on what font to use for a company logo. They could spend weeks comparing hundreds of designs, but that time could be better spent actually doing the work. As the saying goes, “perfect is the enemy of good”. The search for the best can get in the way of getting things done.
Satisficing allows us to make steady, efficient progress without getting stuck in endless decisions. It doesn’t mean settling for poor choices, but recognising when something is good enough to meet the goal. In work environments where time matters, satisficing can be the smarter and more productive path.
A good answer for every spot
This reminds me of what I think is the biggest mistake that smart players make in poker, which is getting too bogged down in the minutiae.
A prime example would be spending too much time on a strange outlier hand that they played. Let's say it was a 4-bet multiway spot where they went broke with a set. These things don't come along all that often, so the lessons we can take from them are limited.
Much better, in my opinion, to take a broader look at common spots like Blind vs Blind, or Button vs Big Blind, try to extrapolate the key repeatable lessons, then move on.
It reminds me of a great quote from Fedor Holz, who was asked why his crew of German friends played so well, to which he replied, “We didn’t have perfect answers for any spot, but we had a good answer for every spot”. Lots of "good" answers compounding over time will beat a few perfect answers.
What theories from outside of poker have helped your game? Let us know in the comments.
