As said before because of hidden information the optimal strategy appears to diverge unless you have more (all) the information in the decision tree. Basically

As said before because of hidden information the optimal strategy appears to diverge unless you have more (all) the information in the decision tree. Basically you can never make a decision with the specific hand you have in isolation without knowing what you'd do with every other hand (and same for your opponent). This is very different than chess/go! So while poker may even have a simpler game tree than chess/go you need to have more of it upfront to solve the game, and being "off" means much much greater error. Depth matters less than breadth. Said another way in chess/go you can brute force get near optimal for the current decision, then reset and do again for the next decision. But with poker you have to solve for ALL POSSIBLE decisions (hands) up front (and inclusive of all possible board situations), and THEN do AGAIN 3 more times (pre-flop flop turn river) plus the numerous times you are raised means this is much more than 4 times total. Example: Bot is out of position with AdAh on AsKsQc facing a big raise. In isolation its probably best to re-raise and simulations show this makes the most money. But you also need to account for the times you have AT (no flush draw) and need to save AT money. But this logic doesn't stop here. Typically on the river out of position you will check the majority of your range if your opponent has bet every street (this is one of the few "proven" strategies because you always want the pot smaller out of position on average). So, you literally need to have the entire game solved in order to know HOW TO GET TO THE RIVER in a balanced way with good and bad hands. And, getting to the river to play profitably likely means giving up profitability on every other street - this is the diverging from optimal that default algorithms will be wrong on unless they have the entire game tree in front of them.