Guys: I got it! Ich can solve GTO with thoughts alone and it's so easy.
IT goes like this:
"I want the pot: So GTFO!!! 
Notifications
Clear all
I already saw a player with the pseudo "GTOchiottes" which is a bad pun meaning "I was in the toilets" (j'étais aux chiottes) in french 
Chinese proverb : Give a HUD to a man, he'll exploit one day, but teach him to use a tracker... and he'll complain about his AIEV all his life 
"Si debis pedere, pedis superbe. (If you must fart, fart proudly)" VorpalF2F
He's back !
Let's bring the pop corn 
Chinese proverb : Give a HUD to a man, he'll exploit one day, but teach him to use a tracker... and he'll complain about his AIEV all his life
"Si debis pedere, pedis superbe. (If you must fart, fart proudly)" VorpalF2F
wow, this is some quality bait. but no way i wont chip in. lets asume for a moment that the definitive GTO exists. the thing is, yadijavadi, that human brain simply cant process enough information to even come close to something that may barely resemble GTO. specially in a multiway pot. scratch that, even in a heads up pot, its straight up impossible. have you ever seen a pio grid? even limitating it to 2 sizings, they are stuff of nightmares to learn and interpret. the idea that you can arrive to the same result on practice and logic alone is ridiculous. can you run crysis 3 on your tamagochi? hell no.
Oh noes, here we go again. 
Originally posted by serra357
can you run crysis 3 on your tamagochi? hell no.
I think this is the first time I'm disagreeing with someone else than yadi.. but I think that analogy doesn't work ♦ The reason is that we can't compare our brain to a tamagochi. I think our brain capacity is huge but the problem is that we just simply can not use it all 
Okay obviously the end result is the same and I'm just trolling. The end result will be the same. No matter if we drive an old Lada or a Ferrari if the Ferrari is broken and just goes 50 km/h. In both cases it would be impossible for us to go 300 km/h.
Originally posted by yadijavadi
Legend!Wise men all stand alone. Fools all stand together.
But standing alone doesn't make you a wise man.
Serra, I'm not saying that it's practical to use the Levels to find GTO in Poker. I'm just explaining how it works. Once you understand that the highest exploitative Level is GTO, you realise that there are no strategies that exist outside of the Levels. All strategic theory is contained within this thought-process. Which means, that if someone can find the laws that govern the Levels they find the laws that govern all strategic theory in all games.
That's what I spent years working on. I found the laws for the Levels by organising all poker theory into them. Once I realised how they work, I realised that we already use them for all our decisions! I realised that they are built into the mind as standard. I hadn't just been mapping out the Levels, I'd been mapping out the mind. And I've pretty much cracked it all.
Now you can show me any decision making model for any game and it's pretty easy for me to tell you whats missing and where the inefficiencies lie. I can tell you the exact order a new player needs to learn each piece of theory in every 'game' to maximise the efficiency of their training. I can also tell you the specific order you need consider each piece of information during every single strategic decision you will ever make in your life. This shit is fucking huge!
Is it better to use a computer to solve GTO in Poker? Blatantly.
Does that make all this information useless? No fucking way!
Hey mods, I see you quickly mock anyone who agrees with me. Nice.
You're probably thinking it almost time to close this thread? What's your current reason again? Because all this information is useless? Right? Atleast you're not closing this one because of a problem with the premise. Atleast you are able to understand the titles now! I won't hold my breath for you to get your head around the rest of it.
What education do you have?
You made a poker book but this stuff is not useful in poker. Everything you explained we already know or then it is not practical (impossible) to use for poker players.
You posted this stuff to a math forum and your findings were discredited pretty hard and you were banned because they thought you are trolling?
Now you say you have been mapping out the mind and cracked it. Maybe next you should try this stuff on a forum that is full of psychology professors or something like that?
Originally posted by yadijavadi
Hey mods, I see you quickly mock anyone who agrees with me. Nice. You're probably thinking it almost time to close this thread. What is your current reason again? Because all this information is useless? Right?(Atleast your not closing this one because of a problem with the premise. Means that you have managed to read my titles!)
Who did agree with you?
Originally posted by la55i
Who did agree with you?
That dude, didnt you notice? He wasn't 100%, no wise men ever are, and he quickly let you know that he wasn't certain so that you wouldn't all rip into him. But he blatantly gets it.
Originally posted by la55i
You made a poker book but this stuff is not useful in poker. Everything you explained we already know or then it is not practical (impossible) to use for poker players.
Errr, wa?
I can teach you the exact order you need to consider every factor at the poker tables. I wrote it in the book you read. That is really important, and completely new.
I'm guessing you dont realise that my book is the most efficient training guide in existence, but you did realise that it covers all the fundamental poker theory which you must agree makes it a pretty useful poker theory book?? Lol. It definitely teaches way more than Sklanskys;"Theory of Poker". I designed it to be an upgraded version of his. A perfect book for untrained players.
Originally posted by yadijavadi
That dude, didnt you notice?
I must say that I didn't.
Originally posted by yadijavadi
I'm guessing you dont realise that my book is the most efficient training guide in existence
Oh finally we are agreeing on something!!
Originally posted by yadijavadi
but you did realise that it covers all the fundamental poker theory which you must agree makes it a pretty useful poker theory book??
Aaand now we are disagreeing again 
That dude, didnt you notice?
I think you might've failed to pick up on some sarcasm there.
And to actually give a more serious reply in this thread:
To add on to what la55i said, a quick google search reveals a lot of posts where you tried to sell your story that got removed or where you got discredited. And that's not just poker forums or other random forums, but also math and psychology/philosophy forums.
If your discovery is as big as you claim it to be, you and your theory will never get the credit you feel you deserve unless you prove your material in a scientific manner: state your hypothesis, describe your research method, show your results, draw your conclusion, etc. That way others can potentially replicate your research - or add on to it - to verify whether or not your premise/hypothesis actually holds true.
What you're doing here is pseudo-science at best and when you have such an incredibly egotistical undertone all the way through, it's no wonder hardly anyone is actually taking you seriously.
And 'egotistical' is honestly also a bit of an understatement because it genuinely feels like you have some sort of God-complex.