Either my english is pretty bad or this sentence means keeping opponents profits to a minimum is not the same as maximize my profit.
If optimal is to 3 bet 8.7 then those who 3 bet more are exploitable by a easy counter strategy which no one winning player has came up with yet even with all the EV calculation tools out there. Doesn't seem too likely.
Hi guys (I'm the author of these articles).
First, clumsy choice of words by me there. I was talking about our general mindset/approach to the problem; are we trying to come up with a strategy that prints money from a leak we can see, or are we trying to protect ourselves from an opponent capable of outplaying us whenever we deviate from perfect GTO play (whatever that looks like).
At any rate, I thought I would post here to clarify what these articles are trying (and not trying) to do. I have not read everything posted here, but got the impression that zachd2323 may have presented them as something they aren't, so let's get that straight.
The articles build a model for playing the 3/4/5-bet game in an optimal fashion. We use assumptions and pot-odds math, and we end up with a "toy game" that becomes our approximation of GTO play for this scenario.
The motivation for the articles (I wrote them back in 2010, implementing theory from Matt Jandas then-ground-breaking game theory videos first published at Stoxpoker) was to show how a simple, yet rational 3/4/5-betting strategy could be built from "first principles".
The model is first and foremost an educational tool. It presents the total 3/4/5-betting strategy as made up of neat and tidy ranges, each with a purpose (value hands, flatting hands, 3-bet bluffs, 4-bet bluffs, 5-bet bluffs). We start with a set of squeaky tight opening ranges (core ranges), add assumptions, and do some math. The reader can then apply the methodology to his own ranges if he wants to.
The model can be implemented as it is, and it will get you started on the right track, but it was not meant to be the final GTO solution to 3/4/5-betting, not by a long shot. The model structures thinking by breaking the total strategy into tidy components. This is good. Some players take a cookie cutter approach and apply it blindly as it is, without adjusting to opponents. This is unfortunate, since cookie cutter thinking makes us lazy.
But the model is a good starting point for the newbie player who has opened KQo from UTG and faces a positional 3-bet and is unsure what to do. If he has studied the model, he knows that he doesn't have to defend hands like this one (unless he has a read-based reason to), he knows why, and he can fold without worry. He also learns how to think about value and bluffing ranges as dynamic entities, dependent on his and his opponent's position (the opening ranges set up the rest).
So take the model for what it is; an educational tool designed to aid structured thinking. It is not perfect, but it's a pretty good starting point. The articles are getting slightly old now, and people understand these things much better than they used to, but I believe the material still has value for new players.