Studying GTO: One Size Doesn’t Fit All
If you’ve been reading this newsletter for a while, you’ll have heard some of my thoughts on GTO poker.
I’m in the camp of players who think that attempting to approximate GTO play is a waste of time, that there’s much more EV to be had in exploiting even the strongest of opponents, and that studying enough to get a simple, basic, solid gameplan down is the best way to go.
I’ve argued with players who ignore exploits, and think being closer to optimal means you’re playing better. I’ve taught that one should focus on simply extracting core concepts rather than deep diving into each and every possible spot.
Today, I admit my mistake.
The Call
Last week, I was on the weekly Beyond The Game group call. I spend most of these particular calls speaking to a group of eighty or so members, so it’s more of a college lecture than a small class environment. But we also break into smaller groups, where I get more face-time with individuals.
I was talking to one student – we’ll call him Bob 😉 (inside joke) – about studying poker, and my mind was changed in a matter of minutes.
Bob is a successful mid-high stakes online player who studied with the opposite of my approach. He put in a lot of time, and he was granular in his approach – focusing on one board at a time, attempting to consume literally 100 times the knowledge that I do from solvers.
First Thought
As I was listening to Bob speak about his struggles with deciding how much to study vs. play, how detailed to get with his study, and wondering if he’s studying the right things, my mind began to form my typical response:
Okay, Bob. You’re taking on too much. Having a basic, simplified gameplan is plenty, and then you can observe and adjust to your opponents. There’s no point in trying to get this close to optimal. You’re going to deviate anyway!
What I like to do is focus on heuristics and concepts – not specific strategies on specific boards. And I simplify them to one sizing wherever possible, range bets and range checks wherever possible, and I …
But, then, something caught my attention.
Second Thought
While I was thinking of advice to share, I heard Bob mention System 1 and System 2 thinking, and how he’s trying to get to the point of moving more into System 1 but struggling because of the level of detail he feels he needs to study.
The reason this caught my attention is because this is a big part of my approach to studying and playing, and it’s one I’ve shared in a $2500 PLO course I created. By the way he was talking, I was pretty sure that’s where Bob had heard of it as it relates to poker study.
So, I thought to myself… It seems like Bob has consumed a lot of my content, including the more advanced stuff, where I gave the entire lecture I was about to give him and more. But he still isn’t studying like me. Why not?
Bob was clearly intelligent, driven, and hardworking, and he trusted me enough to spend at least $10,000 to learn from me between BTG and that course. So it’s not like he’s unable to understand my approach or unwilling to take my advice.
And yet he still doesn’t. Fascinating!
I turned off my mind and listened.
First Feeling
Just in the same way that I play better poker when I move as much of my gameplan and thought process into System 1 (automatic thinking that doesn’t require mental bandwidth), I learn best when I can turn off my brain momentarily and remain present in the moment.
And as Bob was talking, it only took me a minute to realize the truth: I don’t need to know the optimal strategy in any situation to play good poker. But Bob did.
I don’t mean that I’m smarter than Bob or more intuitive than Bob or anything like that – I mean that I’m comfortable in the unknown, and Bob was anything but. Navigating a turn spot he’d never studied wasn’t just confusing for him – it was unsettling.
I might also be confused, but I’d be perfectly at ease with that confusion. I’m happy to give it my best guess, understanding that I might screw it up royally, but knowing that more often than not, I figure things out better than my opponents.
I probably interrupted Bob as soon as I realized this (I was back in my head. Sorry, Bob!) and asked, “You’re uncomfortable deviating from optimal strategy against anyone good, aren’t you?”
“Yes,” Bob said, “I don’t do it. I try to play optimally unless it’s a weak opponent.”
And just like that, it became clear that I’d been giving bad advice to some percentage of the players who follow me.
My approach was right for me. And it was wrong for Bob.
He needed to study more. He needed to study things that I thought were a waste of time because if he didn’t, he wouldn’t perform well at the table – not due to a lack of knowledge, at least not directly, but because he wouldn’t have the confidence to play to the best of the abilities he did have. It would throw him off his game.
Growing My Knowledge Base
After fifteen years of coaching exclusively through videos, it’s been eye-opening to work with people more directly. I’m disappointed I didn’t do it sooner.
One of my favorite things about more hands-on coaching is that I get to see how it’s landing. I get to see what works for some people and what doesn’t work for some, and if I’m lucky, I get to learn why.
What I told Bob in the moment was that my approach seemed like it wouldn’t work for him. And, to be honest, that’s probably the only helpful thing I came up with!
I don’t really know the best way for Bob to learn. All I can say for now is that we’re not all the same. And if someone’s advice isn’t working for you despite them knowing what they’re talking about, it might be because you’re not applying it right — sure, but it also might be because it doesn’t fit you.
Don’t be afraid to try on a different size.
