I know there are many who despise sports analogies to other fields. As a long time poker player, I see many analogies of boxing and poker, though I do not in any way consider poker a sport. I think it is ridiculous to call it a sport. But the competitive aspects of professional poker are similar and just as strong as in professional sports.
Sometimes I find it fun (if not useful) to mix terminology from the fields. As an obvious example already in use, when you take all of an opponent's chips in a poker tournament, you have knocked him out. Poker players also speak of crippling blows, but never say they made a basket.
I like to use the poker abbreviation GTO. For instance, if Mayweather fights GTO against Pacquiao, it could be a boring fight. Game theory optimal, is what it means. And what that means is playing the optimal low-risk strategy. Just as in the ring, departing from GTO to exploit weaknesses in your opponent's game means you also open yourself up to attack. You go from safe to risky, but with more chance of big profit when you exploit.
So, who were the exploiters and who were the GTO boys?
Sometimes I find it fun (if not useful) to mix terminology from the fields. As an obvious example already in use, when you take all of an opponent's chips in a poker tournament, you have knocked him out. Poker players also speak of crippling blows, but never say they made a basket.
I like to use the poker abbreviation GTO. For instance, if Mayweather fights GTO against Pacquiao, it could be a boring fight. Game theory optimal, is what it means. And what that means is playing the optimal low-risk strategy. Just as in the ring, departing from GTO to exploit weaknesses in your opponent's game means you also open yourself up to attack. You go from safe to risky, but with more chance of big profit when you exploit.
So, who were the exploiters and who were the GTO boys?