Cost of assuming incorrect ranges
GTO solves are based on clairvoyance (knowing villain’s exact ranges). In the practical scenarios where we can only assume/deduce other player’s ranges, I’m trying to understand if there’s a EV difference between these different scenarios -
- Villain is tight/lose but we assume he is GTO
- Villain is GTO but we assume he is tight/lose
Let’s say we are opening UTG and BTN 3bets in a 6 max cash game 100 bb effective.
We know that most players are not as aggressive as the solver. So should we reduce our 4bet %? If we continue to assume villain is GTO and play the “optimal” strategy do we -
- Do we actually gain EV via implicit exploitation
- Do we lose EV (Intuition points in this direction)
What is the way to go about answering questions like this? Most resources have me believe that GTO strategies are this perfect defense which cannot lose. If this is indeed true, then a perfect GTO bot that assumes everyone is playing GTO should never lose, right? (Assuming no rake)