|
|
|
|
|
|
by highfrequency
486 days ago
|
|
|
Read the comment from zeroq. We are talking about chess, and the poster was confusing GTO with having a predictable and naive strategy. There is no randomness in chess; GTO will draw in the worst case as long as both players get to play white the same number of times. I don't even know what "draw" means in the context of poker. In heads up poker, GTO is worst case zero EV. Obviously this does not mean that the worst case in a single hand is a $0 payout - that is a fairly absurd straw man. I can play Federer at tennis for one point and it is possible he will lose. There is nothing interesting in that statement. |
|
|
As far as chess is concerned, it's unknown what perfect play yields, but if a round of chess consists of playing white once and playing black once, then a perfect game of chess is guaranteed to do no worse than a draw as you say.
The term GTO is used exclusively for poker, you won't find that term used for any other game, gambling or otherwise. I can see how the mixing of games and terminology could result in me misinterpreting what you meant though.
>In heads up poker, GTO is worst case zero EV. Obviously this does not mean that the worst case in a single hand is a $0 payout - that is a fairly absurd straw man.
The strawman is thinking that if EV is zero or even positive, then you only need to worry about a single hand or even a few hands.
On the contrary EV can positive or even infinite and yet you can still be guaranteed to lose in the long run due to variance:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelly_criterion