blockers exploit GTO ranges value bet Marc Goone attempts to play perfect GTO equilibrium at low stakes using solver charts and balanced strategies. The experiment reveals when theoretical play works, when it fails, and why most players shouldn't copy solvers blindly. Real hands show the gap between theory and profit. Playing pure GTO at low stakes often matches winning strategy, but the real challenge is execution. Opponents don't protect ranges like solvers predict. When Theory Meets Reality - GTO at Low Stakes: Opening ranges require adjustment - recreational players call similar frequencies whether you open 2.5x or 4x, so larger sizes extract more value pre-flop Multi-way pots break solver solutions - most tools only solve heads-up scenarios, leaving players guessing in common live poker situations with multiple opponents Check-back ranges go unpunished - live players don't bluff rivers enough after checking, allowing thin value bets that solvers would never make Four-bet sizing reveals strength - when recreational players use non-standard sizes like min-clicks or shoves, they're heavily weighted toward premiums rather than balanced ranges Board texture changes everything - dry, static boards allow exploitative overbets because opponents cap their ranges by checking, unlike solver-balanced play Blocker talk without context is meaningless - understanding why hands want to bet or bluff matters more than memorizing which cards block what combinations Building a decision framework beats memorization - having questions to ask in any spot outperforms trying to recall solver outputs for specific situations
